A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 28, 2008, December 28, 2012, December 28, 2014, December 28, 2019, and December 28, 2022. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Apparently they were in such a hurry to build the bridge that they were forced to use the only available squad of navvies, who were notorious for skimped workmanship 86.154.93.83 ( talk) 21:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
This disaster is mentioned in List of European tornadoes and tornado outbreaks, but this article doesn't mention a tornado. What's the truth? Totnesmartin ( talk) 20:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
"Two waterspouts weere seen in the vicinity at around the time of accident."
[2]
References
Pål Jensen ( talk) 20:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Moving unsourced material that's been tagged long-term from the article to here. Please feel free to source and reincorporate into the article. Doniago ( talk) 14:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Unsourced Material from Official enquiry
|
---|
*The problem continued until the collapse of the
High Girders. It indicated that the centre section was unstable to lateral movement, something observed by painters working on the bridge in the summer of 1879. Passengers on north-bound trains complained about the strange motion of the carriages, but this was, apparently, ignored by the bridge's owners, the
North British Railway. The Lord Provost of Dundee had reportedly timed trains on the bridge, and found they were travelling at about 40 mph (64 km/h), well in excess of the official limit of 25 mph (40 km/h).
|
I was (and indeed still am) intending to put some work on this, following a few basic principles
I think that revising the article according to those principles will take a considerable amount of work,; and following my normal method of working a lot of that work would take place before there is any visible revision of the article for others to comment on. I recently inserted a direct quote from the 15 conclusions of the C of I (no 12 - the immediate cause of the bridge collapse) , and had this reverted with 10 minutes, apparently on the grounds that this was no 12 of 15 causes given, supplemented by a mention of WP:UNDUE (presumably in the sense that this was giving undue prominence to a minority view, rather than the bit about such reprehensible activity being best countered by supplying more/stronger evidence to the contrary, rather than reversion/deletion). Clearly I do not want to encounter a similar treatment to anything representing some weeks' work. I would therefore appreciate it if anybody who disagrees with the above principles states their case to the contrary now rather than when/if a major revision is posted. If it becomes obvious that agreement is unlikely, then I can at least go off and waste my evenings on writing up the Belah Viaduct (or possibly Station Road Bridge Keswick, something built by Bouch which is still standing) Rjccumbria ( talk) 21:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
You can find some interesting material at Patrick Matthew#The Tay bridge. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 21:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone actually tried to read the intro? It really is bad. Introductions should be: what, where, why and when i.e. a summary of the article. The English is poor and the single paragraph is too long. Needs completely re-written. Doesn't tell me how many people died but it does tell me the wind loading of future bridge design! BTW I have not even tried to read the rest of the article... Bjmullan ( talk) 21:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The article twice mentions a baton being picked up by the train before it crosses the bridge, but doesn't explain what this is for. I assume it was some sort of safety thing to ensure there was only one train on the bridge at a time. This should be made explicit, but I'm not going to add it as I'm just guessing here. - dmmaus ( talk) 23:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
This article states that there were 60 known dead, and links to [1] as the reference, which appears to be a death certificate. Also some sources (e.g. Alexander, Michael (19 September 2013). "Tay Bridge Disaster Memorials will be dedicated to the 59 known victims". The Courier. Retrieved 26 November 2013. and "Tay Bridge disaster death toll revised". BBC News. 31 October 2011. Retrieved 26 November 2013.) are saying that this is 59. Edgepedia ( talk) 19:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I can remember getting into a debate on here about the article by J N C Law (published in the Railway Magazine - pages 160 to 163 - of May 1965) but I can`t find the discussion, has it been filed, if so where ?
Anyway, Mr Law suggested that the train had been blown over and it was that which precipitated the collapse of the bridge. During the Talk Page discussion it was stated that winds of high enough velocity (to cause a train of the period to blow over) are exceptionally rare. Does the recent weather change anybodies mind on this ! --
JustinSmith (
talk)
16:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
It`s here !--
JustinSmith (
talk)
17:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
You may be interested to know that National Library of Scotland has recently added images from the investigation in to the Tay Bridge collapse as part of its Wikimedian-in-Residence project with Wikimedia UK. The images have been placed in to the public domain. Please use them as you consider appropriate for this and/or other articles. Cheers! Triptropic ( talk) 01:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Since an edit war seems to brewing on this, triggered by an unsigned-in editor with a handy line in snotty edit summaries, the tale is this: Prior to Aug 2015 a witness was allowed to describe the storm as a 'hurricane' with no need for a note on what that meant to him and the Inquiry. In Aug 2015 an editor thought it necessary to link that to tropical cyclone and go on to note that the witness had described it thus although the storm was in fact extra-tropical. If you are not familiar with British usage, that edit presumably could seem a good idea. If you speak it like a native, the edit made about as much sense as someone finding a quote including the phrase 'raining cats and dogs' promptly inserting links to articles on Tiddles and Rover and going on to note that in fact it was only raining rain. The edit was reverted, and to prevent any repetition a note explaining the implications of 'hurricane' in British English was added. (Michael Fish was dragged into it, because a vivid example of the point: having assured a viewer on air that a hurricane (in the strict sense) on the E coast of America was not going to hit the UK he was pilloried when a violent storm in no way related to a tropical cyclone did hit S England) I would wish that the note was unnecessary, but the article has to be aimed at all English-speakers, not just those reasonably up to speed with UK idiom and nuances.
Looking at the article edit history I see that subsequently that note has been deleted on a number of occasions, almost invariably by a numbers only editor and almost invariably with a pointlessly snotty edit summary, with only minor variations in its wording. On every previous occasion it has been reverted; on one occasion because the deletion had been made by a sock of a banned editor. Assuming good faith, the latest deletion is unrelated to those previous episodes; but even assuming good faith it should be noted that the same deletion has been attempted a number of times, and more than one signed-in editor has thought the deletion should be reverted. Rjccumbria ( talk) 18:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Tay Bridge disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
"Burning on" of the castings for the bridge is mentioned several times in the article, but no definition is provided. I lack the knowledge to create this content, but this should be done before the knowledge is lost. I found very few resources on Google that provided a satisfactory definition of this term. One such source is below.
Note: I seldom edit on Wikipedia for anything other than spelling and grammar. I have not created content.
-- Toranize ( talk) 07:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
There was a footnote instructing readers on how to interpret the word "hurricane". Which reliable source did these instructions come from? They didn't come from a reliable source. They were original research. If there is a reliable source that discusses this accident report and how the word as used in it should be interpreted, do go ahead and cite it. Otherwise, keep your personal thoughts and links to entirely unrelated documents to yourself. See WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. 94.66.221.72 ( talk) 09:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I would be interested in reading about what happened immediately after the disaster: How soon was it reported, who was at the scene first, what rescue attempts were made, how were bodies found or retrieved, how was the train and wreckage recovered, etc.? Are there any sources that report on this? Alandeus ( talk) 09:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 28, 2008, December 28, 2012, December 28, 2014, December 28, 2019, and December 28, 2022. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Apparently they were in such a hurry to build the bridge that they were forced to use the only available squad of navvies, who were notorious for skimped workmanship 86.154.93.83 ( talk) 21:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
This disaster is mentioned in List of European tornadoes and tornado outbreaks, but this article doesn't mention a tornado. What's the truth? Totnesmartin ( talk) 20:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
"Two waterspouts weere seen in the vicinity at around the time of accident."
[2]
References
Pål Jensen ( talk) 20:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Moving unsourced material that's been tagged long-term from the article to here. Please feel free to source and reincorporate into the article. Doniago ( talk) 14:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Unsourced Material from Official enquiry
|
---|
*The problem continued until the collapse of the
High Girders. It indicated that the centre section was unstable to lateral movement, something observed by painters working on the bridge in the summer of 1879. Passengers on north-bound trains complained about the strange motion of the carriages, but this was, apparently, ignored by the bridge's owners, the
North British Railway. The Lord Provost of Dundee had reportedly timed trains on the bridge, and found they were travelling at about 40 mph (64 km/h), well in excess of the official limit of 25 mph (40 km/h).
|
I was (and indeed still am) intending to put some work on this, following a few basic principles
I think that revising the article according to those principles will take a considerable amount of work,; and following my normal method of working a lot of that work would take place before there is any visible revision of the article for others to comment on. I recently inserted a direct quote from the 15 conclusions of the C of I (no 12 - the immediate cause of the bridge collapse) , and had this reverted with 10 minutes, apparently on the grounds that this was no 12 of 15 causes given, supplemented by a mention of WP:UNDUE (presumably in the sense that this was giving undue prominence to a minority view, rather than the bit about such reprehensible activity being best countered by supplying more/stronger evidence to the contrary, rather than reversion/deletion). Clearly I do not want to encounter a similar treatment to anything representing some weeks' work. I would therefore appreciate it if anybody who disagrees with the above principles states their case to the contrary now rather than when/if a major revision is posted. If it becomes obvious that agreement is unlikely, then I can at least go off and waste my evenings on writing up the Belah Viaduct (or possibly Station Road Bridge Keswick, something built by Bouch which is still standing) Rjccumbria ( talk) 21:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
You can find some interesting material at Patrick Matthew#The Tay bridge. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 21:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone actually tried to read the intro? It really is bad. Introductions should be: what, where, why and when i.e. a summary of the article. The English is poor and the single paragraph is too long. Needs completely re-written. Doesn't tell me how many people died but it does tell me the wind loading of future bridge design! BTW I have not even tried to read the rest of the article... Bjmullan ( talk) 21:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The article twice mentions a baton being picked up by the train before it crosses the bridge, but doesn't explain what this is for. I assume it was some sort of safety thing to ensure there was only one train on the bridge at a time. This should be made explicit, but I'm not going to add it as I'm just guessing here. - dmmaus ( talk) 23:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
This article states that there were 60 known dead, and links to [1] as the reference, which appears to be a death certificate. Also some sources (e.g. Alexander, Michael (19 September 2013). "Tay Bridge Disaster Memorials will be dedicated to the 59 known victims". The Courier. Retrieved 26 November 2013. and "Tay Bridge disaster death toll revised". BBC News. 31 October 2011. Retrieved 26 November 2013.) are saying that this is 59. Edgepedia ( talk) 19:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I can remember getting into a debate on here about the article by J N C Law (published in the Railway Magazine - pages 160 to 163 - of May 1965) but I can`t find the discussion, has it been filed, if so where ?
Anyway, Mr Law suggested that the train had been blown over and it was that which precipitated the collapse of the bridge. During the Talk Page discussion it was stated that winds of high enough velocity (to cause a train of the period to blow over) are exceptionally rare. Does the recent weather change anybodies mind on this ! --
JustinSmith (
talk)
16:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
It`s here !--
JustinSmith (
talk)
17:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
You may be interested to know that National Library of Scotland has recently added images from the investigation in to the Tay Bridge collapse as part of its Wikimedian-in-Residence project with Wikimedia UK. The images have been placed in to the public domain. Please use them as you consider appropriate for this and/or other articles. Cheers! Triptropic ( talk) 01:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Since an edit war seems to brewing on this, triggered by an unsigned-in editor with a handy line in snotty edit summaries, the tale is this: Prior to Aug 2015 a witness was allowed to describe the storm as a 'hurricane' with no need for a note on what that meant to him and the Inquiry. In Aug 2015 an editor thought it necessary to link that to tropical cyclone and go on to note that the witness had described it thus although the storm was in fact extra-tropical. If you are not familiar with British usage, that edit presumably could seem a good idea. If you speak it like a native, the edit made about as much sense as someone finding a quote including the phrase 'raining cats and dogs' promptly inserting links to articles on Tiddles and Rover and going on to note that in fact it was only raining rain. The edit was reverted, and to prevent any repetition a note explaining the implications of 'hurricane' in British English was added. (Michael Fish was dragged into it, because a vivid example of the point: having assured a viewer on air that a hurricane (in the strict sense) on the E coast of America was not going to hit the UK he was pilloried when a violent storm in no way related to a tropical cyclone did hit S England) I would wish that the note was unnecessary, but the article has to be aimed at all English-speakers, not just those reasonably up to speed with UK idiom and nuances.
Looking at the article edit history I see that subsequently that note has been deleted on a number of occasions, almost invariably by a numbers only editor and almost invariably with a pointlessly snotty edit summary, with only minor variations in its wording. On every previous occasion it has been reverted; on one occasion because the deletion had been made by a sock of a banned editor. Assuming good faith, the latest deletion is unrelated to those previous episodes; but even assuming good faith it should be noted that the same deletion has been attempted a number of times, and more than one signed-in editor has thought the deletion should be reverted. Rjccumbria ( talk) 18:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Tay Bridge disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
"Burning on" of the castings for the bridge is mentioned several times in the article, but no definition is provided. I lack the knowledge to create this content, but this should be done before the knowledge is lost. I found very few resources on Google that provided a satisfactory definition of this term. One such source is below.
Note: I seldom edit on Wikipedia for anything other than spelling and grammar. I have not created content.
-- Toranize ( talk) 07:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
There was a footnote instructing readers on how to interpret the word "hurricane". Which reliable source did these instructions come from? They didn't come from a reliable source. They were original research. If there is a reliable source that discusses this accident report and how the word as used in it should be interpreted, do go ahead and cite it. Otherwise, keep your personal thoughts and links to entirely unrelated documents to yourself. See WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. 94.66.221.72 ( talk) 09:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I would be interested in reading about what happened immediately after the disaster: How soon was it reported, who was at the scene first, what rescue attempts were made, how were bodies found or retrieved, how was the train and wreckage recovered, etc.? Are there any sources that report on this? Alandeus ( talk) 09:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)