Talk:Victoria Bridge, Bath

Disputed statement re cable stayed bridge
(Reverted 2 edits by Anmccaff: Rv - "cable stayed" is a definition primarily about geometry, not materials. No objection to eyebar chain, but this should not imply support from a catenary. (TW))

But it -is- supported from a chain suspension, right down to the hanger level, where cable-stayed elements show up. (Except at the first bay, where there is a stay directly into the tower.)

No time to fix this properly, but read the Griffiths paper. Undid revision 690735760 by Andy Dingley (talk)) (undo | thank)

Umm, read it; what do you think it adds that isn't obvious on inspection of the structure? It makes it pretty clear that both the author, and the designer's contemporaries, saw this as a suspension bridge with a compression-stiffened deck, not all that far in concept from self-anchoring bridges. "hybrid suspension/cable stayed" works OK; "cable stayed" alone does not. Anmccaff (talk) 10:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I note the dispute about the use of the term cable-stayed bridge or suspension bridge between User:Andy Dingley and User:Anmccaff which has left a "dubious" tag on the article. I don't have enough engineering knowledge to really get involved in this but note the Griffiths paper says "hybrid suspension / cable stayed", and edit summaries about "eyebars, cables or rods, catenary etc" Is there a form of words which could be used to describe the structure and remove the "dubious" tag (which makes this article appear at the cleanup list for wikiproject Somerset)?&mdash; Rod talk 10:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This needs a proper cleanup - and the Griffiths paper is a good source for doing so.
 * In terms of engineering history, this is an important bridge - why it has survived recent years despite so much pressure to demolish it. If the work had started a few years later, in the current philistine period of history, it probably would have been demolished. It's very widely regarded as important for being the first cable-stayed bridge.
 * Despite that it isn't a cable-stayed bridge. Nor is it a suspension bridge. It's a Dredge taper bridge, and I think unique as a surviving one for vehicle traffic (I think there are some footbridges). Dredge is important, as is Fairbairn, for representing Victorian post-Telford bridge design. A mathematical analysis of the physics behind a bridge gave rise to a whole new design, rather than the previous generation of gradually stretching the same archetypes. It's more important for that design approach than it is for the Dredge design itself, or for this one specific bridge. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I think a real source of bad information on Wikipedia is a desire to reduce articles to the point that everyone finds them innocuous, taking out necessary content in the process, and sanitizing disputes rather than getting to the bottom of them. This bridge design has elements of two design families, and does not quite fit in either of them completely. Anmccaff (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks both for responses. I'm trying to understand the concepts under debate here and wonder if you could, between you, come up with a paragraph or two which explains (for the non specialist reader (eg me)) the different stand points and the fact that this bridge has aspects of two different approaches.&mdash; Rod talk 11:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Here are a few of the issues. Early usage described both sorts as 'chain bridges' or 'suspension bridges' -or, rather, 'bridges of suspension'.  Cable-stayed bridges didn't really have a separate name; the artist now known as suspension bridge was called various things that played on the word 'catenary', the shape a chain takes under its own weight when loosely stretched across two supports.  Stevenson used 'catenarian' to describe what we would call a 'suspension bridge' today in 1821.  So, we have a shift of meaning, with "suspension bridge" becoming a more particular, specific thing over time, which makes reading of primary and early secondary sources tricky.


 * Next, few early whatever the hell we are talking about were purely suspension, or purely cable stayed, although there are some obvious exceptions, Dryburgh, for example.


 * Unlike, however, the relatively common fitting of a suspension bridge, in the modern sense, with auxillary cable stays, as we see in the Brooklyn Bridge or even the (roughly) cable-stayed with auxiliary catenary we see in Albert Bridge, London, this beast is (roughly) a catenary bridge with cable-stays instead of hangers. It's a cousin, in some senses, of self-anchored suspension bridges, in that the design can be -and was, if memory serves- erected  in stages with minimal falsework.


 * This is only a start; there's a lot more that needs to go into this. Anmccaff (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. Andy do you have any thoughts?&mdash; Rod talk 18:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Ideas for resolution of "disputed statement"
, (and anyone else interested), It has now been some months since the discussion about the use of Cable-stayed bridge and alternative terms/definitions. Have you had any thoughts about how this could be resolved with a form of words which would clearly describe to the reader the key issues. Would "hybrid suspension / cable stayed" resolve the dispute?&mdash; Rod talk 16:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How about, ""VB, Bath is a Dredge taper bridge, a type which modern viewers often see as a hybrid between a suspension bridge and a cable-stayed bridge"? Covers the fact it is in some ways kind to pigs, and that it has elements of what are now seen as distinct types? , what say you? Anmccaff (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As there have been no more contributions to this debate I have used your suggestion. If anyone still objects I'm sure we discuss it further here.&mdash; Rod talk 21:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)