Talk:Severn Railway Bridge

Severn Railway Bridge has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 4, 2016. (Reviewed version).

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Railways of the Forest of Dean.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Severn Bridge Railway.

A fact from Severn Railway Bridge appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 October 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in 1960, two barges collided with the 4,162-foot (1,270 m) Severn Railway Bridge, causing two bridge spans to fall into the river?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Severn Railway Bridge.

Wikipedia

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 33, 2017

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).

Bridges and Tunnels Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gloucestershire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gloucestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gloucestershire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GloucestershireWikipedia:WikiProject GloucestershireTemplate:WikiProject GloucestershireWikiProject Gloucestershire
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Re-use?

The newsreel in the external links section mentions that it was hoped to sell some of the spans for re-use. Does anyone know if this actually happened and, if so, where? --Cavrdg 07:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ron Huxley's book says (chapter 7, p126/7):- 'British Rail had, in the meantime,discovered the possibility of disposal of the bridge spans as building units...' (Never did quite understand how!) Linuxlad 09:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have found a page that says The bridge's iron girders were - believe it or not - sold to Chile where they are used today on a viaduct carrying a road! No more details, though, and probably not sufficiently authoritative to include in the main entry. --Cavrdg 20:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just checked with a friend of mine in Sharpness (Ron H having died 10 or more years back now) - he says, some weren't re-usable, some were sold for scrap and some went to South America, but he's not sure where. So it seems like the Chile story may have validity.Linuxlad 20:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The White Elephant

Is this the right name to appear in the infobox? It doesn't appear anywhere in the text and isn't cited. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks, User:Mattbuck. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Severn Railway Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 09:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to review this. I'll read through the article in-depth today and see what comments I can think of. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Who is Hamilston?

Thank you for taking on this review. The firm seems to be called "Hamilton's Windsor Ironworks Co", see this link. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be worth mentioning that upon opening, it was the furthest downstream crossing of the Severn

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Construction

Do we know why there was a requirement for the railway to be built?

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All book sources need page numbers. Searching through all of Ron Huxley's book to verify a fact will take forever!

Yeah, I did think about that. I have the physical book and it would take me ages to tease out all the information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some page numbers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Work began in 1875 and was completed in 1879 - the 1879 completion date does not appear to be in the source given
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any other sources that cite the 1879 completion date? I'd rather we did that, instead of just removing information that is likely to be true and useful, albeit unsourced. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely Huxley covers this - although I can't find my copy right now. It's in all the lightweight books.
The best source though, because of the coincidence, would be Gooch or Richardson's memoirs of the opening lunch in October 1879. Gooch invited those present to visit the works at the Severn Tunnel in a few weeks, but "It will be rather wet, and you had better bring your umbrellas." Richardson, sitting quietly and not wanting to ruin the day, had just been told the news from the tunnel that the Great Spring had broken in - it was of course some years before the tunnel recovered. This is cited in Walker's Severn Tunnel book (p10 in the 2004 edition). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MacDermot, E.T. (1931). History of the Great Western Railway, vol. II: 1863-1921. Paddington: Great Western Railway. p. 404. OCLC 55853736.

which says "Contracts for the construction of the railway and bridge were let in March 1875, and both were opened for traffic on the 17th October 1879, the amalgamation of the Severn & Wye and Severn Bridge Companies taking effect from that day." It's not likely that the bridge was completed more than a few weeks earlier, although there will have been some delay between completion and opening, if only for the Board of Trade inspector to check it over and pass it as fit. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. The Huxley book is quite short on dates, but the opening ceremony took place in October 1879 so I think it is a reasonable assumption that it was completed in 1879. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was approached from the north via a masonry viaduct - what about from the south?

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Near the west bank, the bedrock was a long way below the shifting sands - why was this a problem?

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Staging was used through which the cylinders were lowered by chains - do you mean staging as in scaffolding? It's not clear from the text here

I guess it is the same as scaffolding. The sources call it staging so I have too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly (although WP abuses this) staging and scaffolding are somewhat diffferent. Staging, like centring, can support a partially-constructed building or arch. Scaffolding is lighter and just gives workers access to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes www.forgottenrelics.co.uk a reliable source?

It looks OK to me, I have tried to vary the sourcing and not rely entirely on the Huxley book. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've checked it out and it seems to be professionally written and credits photographs correctly, and doesn't seem to contradict anything in the book sources. So in that respect, I think we can accept this. Incidentally, some of the links at the bottom of that source might be worth adding as external links here, first hand accounts and pictures of the 1960 accident, for example. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Staging was laid and rails put in place.... - is this the same staging as mentioned earlier, or something else?

The same. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The long members were hoisted in place - what do you mean by "long members" in this case?

Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The whole was bolted together at first - the whole what?

Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History

The bridge was single track, and when it was built, it took approximately 30 miles (48 km) off the journey from Bristol to Cardiff - these two sentences don't seem to relate to each other - could they be split up? Also, the 30 miles claim doesn't appear to be in the source given, and is contradicted by later prose saying the detour is 40 miles. Which is right?

Done. They could both be right. The 30 miles claim is Bristol to Cardiff and was in the article before I expanded it, referenced to Huxley. The 40 mile journey involves children going from Sheerness to Lydney, a different journey altogether. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Forest of Dean coal trade continued to be depressed - what does "depressed" mean in this context?

Fixed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a result, it was taken over by the Great Western Railway and the Midland Railway in 1893 - was this a joint venture between the two companies?

Clarified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A stylistic note - sources from British History Online are transcriptions of books and journals, so they should be cited accordingly, with the BHO address as a convenience link. At the top of each article is some text explaining how to format a citation, I think they used to have a Wikipedia citation template variant, but that's gone. :-(
a short headshunt on the trackbed - what does "headshunt" mean in this context?

Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article at headshunt, but it's so bad as to be unusable. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some time later, Ann Wood repeated this underflying – without realising that this time it was high tide and there was 30 ft (9 m) less headroom - why was this a problem? Did the plane crash?

Clarified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huxley's book also documents a fatal accident in 1878 near the bridge, could this be included in the list of incidents?

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Railways. Needs some coverage of the Westerleigh loop and the (unintended?) effect that a shared minor connection to the bridge had for profitable express services between Bristol and Birmingham, and competition between the GWR and MR after 1908. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I would recommend adding this (is it in Huxley's source?) near the sentence beginning The bridge was used as a diversionary route for the Severn Tunnel .... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was only used as a passenger diversionary route. The slow coal trains from Wales to the south coast went via Gloucester. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brunel. Should there be any mention of Brunel's designs for the Severn Bridge? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Demolition

The contract was awarded to Nordman Construction after an unsuccessful tender process - unsuccessful for whom?

There was a tender process, but none of the tenders was accepted and the contract went to Nordman, who had not tendered at all. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been any further accidents in this location since the bridge was demolished?

Not as far as I know. There were some others earlier in its existence caused by vessels being swept by the tide into the piers. Once the piers and debris were removed, this hazard was over as ships cannot navigate this stretch of water at low tide. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

I think I've covered everything I can think of, so I'll put the review on hold now pending improvements. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I think I have dealt with all the points you raise above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the book page citations don't seem to add up. A 27-page span on Huxley's book in particular, is too much. I would have thought it would be easier to add the book as a general reference with ref=harv and use the {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}} citations as templates. We should strive to be as specific as we can with a citation, to give everyone confidence what we write is true and accurate! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use Harvey or whatever because I don't know how. @Andy Dingley: With other people joining in the review it is all getting a bit complex and unless Andy would like to make the changes he thinks necessary, I think I will leave this till after the West Country Challenge is over. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is Huxley - and where my copy is. I'm happy to do any editing needed, what's needed first is to note which of the cites are using which pages in Huxley - rather than a single bulk cite to the whole range. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I will list the relevant page numbers here when I have worked them out. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth: harv = Harvard. See WP:CITESHORT, Shortened footnotes and documentation for either {{harvnb}} or {{sfn}}. Or have a look at the referencing in NBR 224 and 420 Classes. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that advice. I have now done the citations as required. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The links between short and full refs weren't working, because of the presence of parentheses, so I removed them, at the same time altering {{sfn}} to {{sfnp}} which accepts the same parameters but displays the year in parenthesis. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I added the parentheses so that the end result looked like the citations already present. I'm still learning! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Any chance of finishing this before the end of the West Country Challenge tomorrow? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: Have you addressed Andy's concerns about diversionary routes and any designs from Brunel? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know Cwmhiraeth this article doesn't have to pass GA by the end of the contest to count, so if you want to do some more destubbing in the closing hours of the contest and come back to this tomorrow that's fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I have added a paragraph on other plans for crossing the Severn, including one by Brunel. I have dealt with Andy's passenger services point, but not his point about the Westerleigh loop, of which I know nothing. I would point out that a GA is not required to be comprehensive, merely broad in its scope. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think that's all the concerns I had, so I can pass this review now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Few other points

Purpose of the bridge. It was intended to carry coal from the FoD collieries. Was it ever intended to carry the (much larger) Welsh coal traffic? To replace the Bristol and South Wales Union Railway as the passenger route between Bristol and Cardiff?
The gas main
The boxing match on the night of the accident
More on building details and costs. Hamilton’s Windsor supplied the ironwork, which was about 2/3rd of the cost, but there was another third on masonry, earthworks etc. that was first supplied by Vickers & Cooke, later replaced Griffith Griffiths.

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are these rhetorical questions or questions for me? I don't know answers to most of them and the information I have comes almost entirely from the Huxley book. Feel free to further develop the article if you wish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think it was a rather successful bridge. Built in a very difficult location, it fulfilled its function for eighty years, and its downfall came about as a result of impact by much larger vessels than were probably anticipated when it was designed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]