Talk:Tay Bridge

Comments by Finlay McWalter

I made Dduck's photo right aligned, which I think looks better. Given that image's aspect ratio is so great, it might squeeze the text on a small screen, however, so I wouldn't be heartbroken if someone felt it needful to revert it. -- Finlay McWalter 16:41, 12 November 2003 (UTC)

I restructured the second sentence to read "It crosses the river west (upstream) of the Tay Road Bridge.". How far apart are the two? It would read better if it said "It crosses the river a quarter mile west (upstream) of the Tay Road Bridge." (or whatever the actual distance is). What is that distance? -- Finlay McWalter 16:52, 12 November 2003 (UTC)

Is the new rail bridge built over largely the same course as the fallen one? (If my memory serves, it is). If so, this fact deserves mention in the article. -- Finlay McWalter 16:52, 12 November 2003 (UTC)

From which direction does the photo show the bridge? I'm guessing the photo looks North, in which case I'd say the caption should read Old Tay Rail Bridge (view Northward) or something. -- Finlay McWalter 16:52, 12 November 2003 (UTC)

Hi Finlay. I tried the picture in various places and I couldn't find anything I liked. Where it is new is fine. I found a website with some information about the placement of the second bridge, see below. From the diagram the old and the new bridges were built adjacent to one another. Regarding the photo, I always assumed it was looking from Dundee, but I think you're correct. That's the Law Hill in the background. Regards Iain. [1] Dduck 17:58, 12 November 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an excellent page. I added the link to the article. -- Finlay McWalter 18:59, 12 November 2003 (UTC)

New information about the disaster

I have added new information about the disaster from our recent work on the engineering aspects of the accident, especially the critical nature of the cast iron lugs User Peterlewis, 20 Jan 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterlewis (talk • contribs) 16:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Were Marx & Engels booked on the disaster train ?

A weblog [2] in February 2003 contains the following:

"Also, a little extra bittie for you; did you know that Marx and Engels were scheduled to be on the train that went down with the Tay Bridge in 1879 but had decided to stay another night in Edinburgh with a friend. I can’t remember who told me this, so if it was you I’m sorry for nicking you’re trivia without credit."

Can anyone find an adequately sourced citation for this? DFH 13:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[3] states, "An academic urban myth in Dundee is that Karl Marx Founder of modern communism; wrote the Communist Manifesto with Engels in 1848; wrote Das Kapital in 1867 (1818-1883) would have been a passenger on the train had illness not prevented him from traveling on that date." So is it just an urban myth or was there some factual basis? DFH 13:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Charles McKean

Please explain the reasons why user:P.r.lewis removed my edits relating to Charles McKean's forthcoming book, and the Sunday Times review thereof. New information should not be summarily deleted like this. One should first discuss this in the talk page. I have therefore reverted the main page to my last edit. DFH 18:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

How can a reader access a reference to a work which is not yet published? This violates the basic idea of any encyclopedia. Press articles are rarely referenced, for otherwise Wikipedia would be overwhelmed! I should also add that the new evidence quoted in the added text is not new and was revealed first by John Thomas. He discussed the evdence of a faulty girder in one of his final chapters. If you do add new text, you should ensure that it is correct. I think you should delete your addition and wait until the book is published and available to users of Wikipedia. user:P.r.lewis — Preceding undated comment added 22:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing to stop users pre-ordering a book whose publication date has been announced. Perhaps the best compromise would be for you to cut'n'paste both of my edits to here in the talk page, then move them back again after publication. DFH 18:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wkipedia should not be used as advertising. In any case you have not answered my point about the supposedly new revelations. They were first exposed by John Thomas, and have been discussed further in several places. McKean is apparently addng nothing new to the debate of the causes of the TBD, but I will reserve judgment until I see the book. Entries must be verifiable according to the rule book.

More than a century after the Tay Bridge disaster, a new book (Battle for the North: by Charles McKean, professor of Scottish architectural history at Dundee University) claims to show that the inquiry into the tragedy was a whitewash, based on previously unpublished papers.[4]user:P.r.lewis — Preceding undated comment added 22:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no connection with CMcK, so this is hardly advertising. I was merely reporting something that had been mentioned in a review of the book. It was the reviewer in the Sunday Times that called them new information. (Revelations is too strong a word). And Wikipedia does report news items! DFH 21:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

How many journalists can you trust? They produce copy under pressure and at speed, rarely checking the truth of their assertions. The first report of the Tay bridge disaster said 500 lives had been lost, for example. An encyclopedia should aim rather higher I think. user:P.r.lewis — Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed so, but let's not confuse the verified existence of a book review with verifying the statements set forth in the book. (In Wikipedia, where there are different views, we are still guided to report the controversy.) Moreover, it's far less likely for a book reviewer to misreport the contents of a book with the text in front of her, than it is for a journalist to misreport an event for which she was not an eye-witness.

Back to the requirement of "must be verifiable", the sentences in the book review that caught my eye were, "Charles McKean, professor of Scottish architectural history at Dundee University, discovered four witness statements in the unpublished papers of Thomas Thorton, the Dundee-based lawyer of the North British Railway company, which show that the damaged girder caused trains to jump or bounce on the track for months before the disaster. The vital testimony was suppressed by the train company’s lawyer and never presented to the inquiry." (Emphasis mine). Just so I can understand your POV better, are you saying that John Thomas already knew about these papers? DFH 19:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• McKean, Charles, Battle for the North: The Tay and Forth Bridges and the 19th Century Railway Wars, Granta Books, (August 7, 2006), ISBN 1862078521. DFH 19:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Most certainly. You will fnd the reference in Chapter 12 of Thomas's book under the heading "Kink in the rails". The statements came from two painters on the bridge the summer before the accident (David Dale and John Nelson). They were made to Thorton in his offices but never reached the tribunal. They are significant but it does not follow that the Inquiry was a "whitewash" at all. In fact, the Inquiry saw much evidence of the poor work on the bridge which modern writers have tended to ignore. The vital evidence is the set of Inquiry photographs held by Dundee City Library. McKean is only repeating what is already known. You can verify my assertons by reading John Thomas's excellent book. The chair of the Inquiry, Henry Rothery, attributed the disaster to the high speed of northbound trains putting the towers under immense strain. The kink in the rails probably induced lateral vibrations which were transmitted to the towers, leading to fatigue and loosening of the joints. Such lateral movements were fully discussed by the Inquiry, and have recently been confirmed by Martin and Macleod, as well as by myself. The recent (2004) fall of the Kinzua viaduct in western Pennsylvania fell from a not dissimilar cause, and the forensic team estimated that the structure oscillated laterally about 4 times before before the corroded base bolts fatigued to criticality. I will be discussing this case in my own forthcoming book (Disaster on the Dee), which will not be mentioned on Wikipedia until actually published, and available to readers. John Rapley is also publishing a new book on Sir Thomas Bouch, also due in August, but again will not be discussed until published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P.r.lewis (talk • contribs) 05:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification/explanations. DFH 18:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Gales or a tornado(s)/waterspout(s)?

A recent change to List of European tornadoes and tornado outbreaks links here. The source for the final cause of failure there as waterspout(s) is here, though earlier as well as concurrent winter gales are mentioned. Is more information available on exactly what happened? Evolauxia 03:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried to verify this (as, although TORRO does have an academic background, they don't provide a source) as it was added to the article today. I couldn't, and reverted it. --Old Moonraker 10:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Little real Evidence

The assertion that a tornado/waters pout brought the brdge down is hghly speculative. It is based on just one "witness" who made the allegation. Many people were watching the bridge that night, and none reported such a phenomena.--P.r.lewis 08:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 00:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

References in popular culture

In the 1948 film "Enchantment," the Tay Bridge disaster is the event that starts the plot moving. The parents of the character, Lark, are among those killed; Lark remained in the care of old Mr. Dane, friend of her parents. Is this too trivial to be included in the article? LightSpeed 18:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is a good nput to the article. Please add your info! Peterlewis 19:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Images

I have tried fiddling but forgot to save. Anyway, it is hard yo put in all the images in the correct spaces without creating large gaps. Is there any way to sort this out? Simply south 17:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The recent addition of the location map was the "last straw". Replaced most of them (all good images) with a link to Commons. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If you prefer, I could undo the location map, or shrink it a bit. - Denimadept (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

My solution was a bit drastic: perhaps shrink the map and bring one or two back. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The image captions "from the north" and "from the south" are reversed for several of the images.NajaB (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"Tay Bridge" the codename for the plans for the Queen Mother's funeral?

As far as I know, the only source for this is the film "The Queen". Unless someone can come up with a better source, it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.192.96 (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

To my surprise, I found a source in an LA Times article which predates the movie by 4 years. Radioflux (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet another theory

I would suggest that the article by Laws in the Railway Magazine (P160 Mar 1965) is well worth a read for those interested in the Tay Bridge disaster. He is not disputing that the bridge was poorly maintained and constructed, but that Bouch was the victim of bad luck in the circumstances of the accident. Law`s estimates of wind loadings etc seem to make sense and so do his theories on factors not taken into account by the original enquiry, such as the seating distribution of the passengers on the second class coach. If it could have been proved that the train had been derailed by the wind (and was possibly speeding as well), had Bouch been required to design a bridge to withstand a train derailment ? --JustinSmith (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The best source of information is the original Inquiry wheer Bouch's theory was rejected totally. The loco superintendent Dugald Drummond examined the train and the impact marks made on the raisl by the wheels and stated that the loco and carriages had all landed upright. That seems to me to exclude the wind blowing any over. The theory cannot account for the collapse of the whole centre section, as the Inquiry soon relaised. It was just an excuse for Bouch's incompetence in design, supervision and maintenance. Peterlewis (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the article in the Railway Magazine ? I would possibly dispute that the best source of information is the original enquiry, new information comes to light all the time. I would be interested to know your opinion on the RWM article, it seemed to make sense to me. As for why did so much of the bridge come down (if it were "just" the train being blown off the rails) surely a derailed train, with its forward momentum would tend to bring down quite a bit of the structure. Furthermore, as one section fell, surely it would tend to "pull" on the neighbouring sections, and this is particularly the case if one accepts that the bridge was not as strong as it could have been. Surely the design brief for the structure cannot have been for it to withstand the impact of a derailed train. Particulary as it is accepted that many of the trains using the bridge were exceeding the speed limit anyway. Incidentally I feel the tenor of the ammendment (to my original addition) is overly tendentious. I feel that the modification I made to it was more even handed, but I don`t really want to get into a revert / revert situation. --JustinSmith (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to read an article which neglects basic facts: what new information has he produced? At least John Thomas revealed some interesting new testimony from the archives in Scotland. Even Bouch didn't say that the very heavy (120 ton) loco left the tracks, so you are left with light carriages. Dugald Drummond clearly stated that no vehicles left the track at any time so if you want to dispute a railway engineer who was there at the time, I think you should be careful in producing strong supporting evidence for your case. I doubt if a train crossing a bridge in a storm would go at high speed, so produce the evidence. Otherwise your additions are not worthy of WP. Peterlewis (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I`m surprised you should say that Peter if you haven`t read the article. If you have read it I`d be interested to know your view on it. If you haven`t (and are having trouble tracking it down) I may be able to fax it to you, I`ve never got round to buying a scanner ! I don`t pretend to be an expert in civiengineering (aerials and RF transmission is my speciality (see my website) but I am fairly mechanically minded and I feel that Laws article makes quite a lot of sense. You can contact me through the website or on the phone number given on the website. --JustinSmith (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Why surpised? I haven't seen it referenced in any of the books on the Tay bridge, but the most recent work debunks the train collision theory. The photos taken at the time show relatively little damage to the high girders, all the damage being concentrated in the cast iron, wheer failure started and progressed. But by all means fax me a copy to 01908653858. I'll read with interest. Peterlewis (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you get the Fax (of the Law`s article) I sent you Peter ? If there was a problem I can resend it. JustinSmith (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have the article and will respond shortly. I have been away at an engineeriong failures conference in Spain, and am now cathcing up with messages. Peterlewis (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for being a bit slow, please, but are you the Peter Lewis who is the author of a number of the books we've used as sources? - Denimadept (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes i ahve written a number of books on railway disasters. Peterlewis (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read Law's article in detail and have to say that I am not impressed. In the third paragraph he says that the bridge was built "..as good as the state of the art and the materials permitted". This is untrue. No other viaducts were built like this at all, especially Deepdale and Belah as well as Eiffel's viaducts in France. One fatal flaw was to cast lugs which were integral with the columns, and thus very brittle. In all other bridges of this type, the lugs were well separated, so that if they fractured, they did not endanger the rest of the structure. The bolt holes were mainly tapered so all the tension from the tie bars rested on a sharp edge rather than being spread over the entire hole. The result was that the lugs were a third of their expected strength. All the Tay bridge towers were nearly vertical, unlike Belah and all the other columnar bridges, which had broad bases and a narrow top. And the high girder towers were not tied together by a single girder at the top under the track, making them yet weaker tha might be expected. The original photos can be enlarged to show all these serious defects. The derailment theory is quite misguided and unsupported by the direct evidence of the day. Dugald Drummond, for example, said that all the vehicles were on the track when it hit the estuary, since he traced the impact marks made by the wheels on the track. So why bother to speculate about collisions? Peterlewis (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I remain to be convinced whether Drummond could be certain that the train was still in contact with the rails when it hit the water, but what does need explaining is the fact that, using the wind peasure readings given, the train could indeed have been blown off before the bridge would have been blown down. Do you disagree with these figures ? If not, then how could the theory have been "completly discredited". Would the fact that the bridge could not have withstood a derailment been the fault of the designer, was there a requirement for this in the original tender ? --JustinSmith (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Drummond is not around, but his testimony is very clear. No wind pressures/speeds were available at the time of the disaster, so all is speculation, apart from the testimony of Benjamin Baker and Captain Scott. The Inquiry rejected the derailment theory for many reasons, including the implication that half a mile of bridge could be annihilated by a small collision from the last two carriages. The track was also fitted with a guard rail to prevent toppling of carriages. Peterlewis (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone's opinion on the likelihood of the train being blown off the rails changed in the light of the recent weather !
By the way, I thought guard rails are to prevent derailment, I don`t see how they`d have any effect on a train being blown over.--JustinSmith (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Tay Rail Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment. This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

• There has been a request for citation in this article since March 2008.

• Large sections are completely without citations. For instance, the first two paragraphs of The first Tay Bridge, and almost the entire Official enquiry sections.

• This sentence: "Tay Bridge" was also the codename for the funeral plans for Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother." appears at the end of a section called A second bridge. Why?

• Section names should not begin with definite or indefinite articles. For instance; Second Bridge, not A second bridge, Tay Bridge Disaster, not The Tay Bridge Disaster.

• Section names should not (usually) repeat or include the article name. For instance, First bridge, not The first Tay Bridge.

• The article uses imperial and metric units inconsistently. One or the other should always be given first, with a conversion to the other.

• Authors are listed as lastname, firstname in Notes, but firstname, lastname in Bibliography. Should be consistently one or the other, preferably lastname, firstname.

• Only one of the books cited gives the page numbers where the information being relied on can be found. Page number(s) need to be given for each citation of a book.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The use of units depends on the source. If the source is in metric, then that's what's used. If it's in Imperial, ditto. I can't argue with the rest. - Denimadept (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not the case. Units must be used consistently throughout the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• As these issues remain outstanding, this article has now been delisted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Question: I've assumed that the "tonnes" used in the article are Metric Tons. Can anyone verify this? - Denimadept (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Split proposal

I would like to propose that the "Tay Bridge Disaster" section be split off into its own article. The section can certainly stand alone, if we take the existing UK rail accident articles as precedent, and I think there would be enough content about the bridge itself remaining to justifiy the continued existence of this article. The split would also alleviate the formatting problems by reducing the number of images in the article. I've proposed Tay Bridge disaster as a title for the new article; this is currently a redirect to the section.

• Support as nominator. Tevildo (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• I support the proposal since the disaster is important and distinctive enough for a separate article. Peterlewis (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean the first bridge gets its own article? I'm a bit hesitant about this proposal. - Denimadept (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

In more detail, my proposal is to keep the existing "The first Tay Bridge" and "The second bridge" sections as they are, and replace the "Tay Bridge Disaster" section with a short sentence along the lines of "During a storm on 28 December 1879, the central section of the bridge collapsed; a train that was crossing the bridge fell into the river, with the loss of 75 lives." If the "first bridge" and "second bridge" sections were expanded, it would be possible to split them off as separate articles, but this isn't necessary at the moment. Tevildo (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. The reason I asked was that it seems to me that the first bridge could be considered a disaster from beginning to end. - Denimadept (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

* smiles * Perhaps true - but if it had blown down after the train had crossed, it would be the "Tay Bridge mild inconvenience" (and _not_ remembered for a very long time). More seriously, if the split does go ahead, we'll probably want to put something in the new article about the bridge's construction, but I don't think we'll need to duplicate a significant amount of the content. Tevildo (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Support—it's getting very crowded with images now (as the guilty editor who crammed in the latest one) --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. As there's been no serious objection for the statutory 14 days, I've performed the split. I've removed references from the main bridge article that only refer to the disaster; if, however, some of them should be kept, I'm sure they can be moved back in. (Ideally with an in-line citation to show what part of the main article is derived from them). I've also moved the images in the main bridge article around a little; they can be moved back so they're all down the right-hand side of the page, though, if that's _really_ what people want to see. Tevildo (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Followup - The article got downgraded from GA to Start. The main thing which makes this bridge notable is the failure of the first bridge. I suggest putting the material back in place. - Denimadept (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Rescinding my original "support": the pictures issue was resolved with a wholesale removal to Commons. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to the first bridge

You can find some interesting material at Patrick Matthew#The Tay bridge. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Famous not infamous

A previous editor changed the non-controversial remark that the failure of the first bridge was the most famous such disaster in the UK to the significantly different remark that it was the most infamous. My reversion of this has been promptly reverted by another editor with the comment that 'disasters are infamous' . Unless the word has changed since I went to school, they aren't (or aren't necessarily so). Events which are noteworthy (for good or for ill) are famous; for something to be infamous there must be infamy involved: it must be - to quote Chambers - "having a reputation of the worst kind; publicly branded with guilt; notoriously vile; disgraceful" . So a human action can be infamous, and a disaster could be caused by an infamous act but not all disasters are infamous (many occur through coincidence of a number of minor faults or lapses), and it would be distinctly POV-y for Wikipedia to label any disaster as infamous; particularly the Tay Bridge disaster where the court of inquiry was (famously?)unable to agree on the extent to which Bouch should be 'publicly branded with guilt' Rjccumbria (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Wind factor

'... When again visiting the spot I should wish, if possible, to have an opportunity of observing the effects of high wind when a train of carriages is running over the bridge ...'.

Was this request denied to the inspector? Valetude (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's more likely that his schedule didn't take him to that part of Scotland very often, and on those visits that he did make, the wind was not particularly high. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Train ferry

Could we have a few details about the train-ferry that was used before the first bridge was built - when it started, where were the terminals, was it popular, and where was the next alternative rail bridge upstream? Valetude (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The ferry (which might not have been a train ferry, i.e. one to carry railway vehicles) was between Tayport and Broughty Ferry. The next rail bridge upstream was at Perth - where it still is. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Vol 1 (pp 204-211) of the David & Charles NBR company history (given as reference in main article) gives some details of the NBR ferry services across Tay and Forth (but as with much of Thomas, if you look closely, not as much as you first thought). Passengers crossed by passenger steamers, but their train does not appear to have crossed with them. Goods wagons could cross by wagon ferries invented -or perfected according to who you believe- by Bouch. The first such ferry (Leviathan) was built 1849 for the Forth crossing; the first wagon ferry noted by Thomas to have been used on the Tay is Carrier (built 1858) The ferries on the Forth are described by Thomas, who also reproduces a contemporary print of a wagon ferry : I think similar material can be found on the web, but am not immediately aware of anything similar for the Tay service. The Caledonian advertised its Edinburgh-Dundee service (routed via Perth) with NO FERRIES in block caps; its share of Edinburgh -Dundee traffic fell to 15% on the opening of the first Tay Bridge, and rose to about 50% when the Bridge failed (Thomas (vol 2, p19)); it seems fair to conclude that the ferries route was not particularly popular with passengers , but it is difficult to tell whether it was the ferries themselves that were unpopular or the multiple changes. For the wagon ferries, Thomas says little, but contemporary Dundee newspapers alleged a large backlog of wagons waiting to cross because the NBR would not put enough money into the service. Consequently coal was cheap in Fife, but expensive in Dundee. Furthermore, Fife collieries who tried to send their coal to Dundee via Perth found that it was uncompetitive with coal from collieries in the Caledonian's heartland, because these got more favorable rates from the Caledonian. (Hence it may be misleading to read the history of the Tay Bridge backwards from the subsequent 'Race to the North' : both Dundee and Fife wanted the Tay Bridge, irrespective of any grandiose schemes of the NBR to compete with the Caley for passenger traffic to Aberdeen) Rjccumbria (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tay Bridge/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This page previously said that "The first engine to cross the bridge was on September 22, 1877 and upon its completion in early 1878, the Tay bridge was the longest in the world." However, Victoria Bridge in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, was completed earlier (1859 vs 1878) and is substantially longer (over 5km/3mi vs 3.5km/2.25mi according to this article). Therefore I have changed the article to state that "...the Tay bridge was among the longest in the world." Victor.chisholm 05:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 07:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This article needs to be moved to Tay Bridge

The name of this bridge is the Tay Bridge, and the article should reflect that. Tony May (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 15 April 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

---

• Tay Rail Bridge → Tay Bridge
• Tay Bridge → Tay Bridge (disambiguation)

– THis isthe official name Tony May (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, support. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• 'Support, adding a hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Correct length

There are two references to the length in the first paragraph and then Within the summary one says 4,000m the other one says 3,000m Tapalmer99 (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tapalmer99: I can't find either figure. Which sentences are they given in? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)