Talk:Hell Gate Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More than just an arch[edit]

All the images "may imply" that the Hell Gate Bridge is this pretty arch, but what about the portion of the bridge that runs on the viaduct up to the Bronx? -HiFiGuy 17:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Bridge[edit]

The Hell Gate Bridge may indeed be the worlds strongest ( however that may be defined ) steel arch bridge. The inapposite comment about the Sydney Harbour Bridge being modified due to the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York would appear to be unfounded. The Sydney Harbour Bridge has had no significant structural modification since 2 of the four railroad tracks were removed in 1957 and replaced by three additional road lanes ( for a total of 8 ). The only aspect of the Sydney Harbour Bridge which has been "reinforced" since 2001 is an increase in the number of Arab security guards employed to obstruct and annoy pedestrians and cyclists. Merkanmich 11:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two removed tramlines were replaced by two road lanes, not three. The additional road lane was created by remarking the 5 original road lanes, into 6 narrower road lanes occupying the same space.Eregli bob (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about strongest steel arch bridge removed as the Sydney harbour bridge is quoted as being the strongest steel arch bridge in the world (ref: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=heritage.show&id=4301067). The bridge has never been structurally reinforced since it's opening in 1932. It is speculated by this writer that the bridge is actually stronger than it needs to be under normal conditions, since the removal of two of the original four rail lines in the late 1950s. Two of the rail lines were replaced by two additional roadway lanes. Cityrail operates ~50000kg cars in 8 car sets giving each empty train a tare mass of approx. 400 tonnes. With two rail lines it would then be possible for a maximum empty loading of 800 tonnes, which equates to approximately 800 cars. Over two laneways of 1.6 km each, that would equate to 0.25 motorcars per meter of laneway, which is not a realistic traffic load unless traffic is near stationary. As such, there has been no need to re-inforce the bridge.

Additionally, any re-inforcements to the bridge would not make any appreciable impact to fending off a terrorist attack which would probably involve either a bomb attack or crashing an aircraft into the bridge.

Dick.clements 01:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's in a name?[edit]

Why is it called Hell Gate bridge? --209.244.30.253 (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the body of water that it spans is called Hell Gate. My understanding is that this is Dutch (the area first being explored by the Dutch) for "Bright Passage", but also intended as a pun ("hel" being Dutch for Hell) because the channel is narrow and rocky with strong currents, and was very difficult to navigate in the days before motorized boats. -- Avocado (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked the name in this article to the Hell Gate article 'cause 209.244.30.253 can't be the only one who'd like to know. - Denimadept (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, it was already linked in the last sentence of the first para: there's not much we can do if people won't read a sentence or two and follow the links. The link in the name always feels awkward to me, but it's not worth edit-warring over, so I'll let you decide whether it needs to stay. -- Avocado (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That, sir, is a heck of a way to argue. Facts? Who ever heard of arguing with facts?? - Denimadept (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are these "facts" of which you speak? ;-) -- Avocado (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doubts about the photo: "The approach to Hell Gate bridge under construction circa 1915"[edit]

Have a close look at the photo "The approach to Hell Gate bridge under construction circa 1915":

Look especially at the towers on either side of the stretch of water to be crossed: they look nothing like the towers of the actual Hell Gate Bridge.

Look also at the curve of the approach: the curve is to the right; the curve of the approach to the north side of the actual bridge is to the left. The approach on the southern side is straight.

Look closer still at the photo. Especially at the collection of towers and structures in the area of the water crossing. The construction style appears to be nothing like the construction style shown in the photo "Hell Gate bridge under construction circa 1915", a photo which really does appear to depict the Hell Gate Bridge under construction. Indeed the bridge shown in "The approach to Hell Gate bridge under construction circa 1915" appears to be a bridge with 3 intermediate supporting arches and 4 spans. In other words, nothing like the actual single span bridge.

Curiously the source of both photos is given as: "Popular Mechanics" Magazine November 1915. Perhaps someone with access to old editions of "Popular Mechanics" could check this source information with a copy of the original magazine.

A couple of things may have happened:

  • the magazine may simply have made a mistake and published the wrong photo in association with the caption "The approach to Hell Gate bridge under construction circa 1915". An original caption, which appears to have been embedded in the photo, seems to have been eliminated during some past clipping operation.
  • the photo may be a horizontally flipped photo of an earlier design for the bridge which was abandoned, demolished, and replaced with the current structure (a bit far fetched I admit).

Both the bridge pillars and the approach pillars in the photo are so distinctive that it must be easy to identify the real location and name of the bridge in the photo. It is a fascinating photo, and deserves to find its real home.

As to where that real home might be: I would suggest that the photo shows a rail bridge in some other major east coast US city. It could of course be a photo of a bridge anywhere in the world, but the appearance of the approach arches in both photos cited above is so similar that it would seem that both bridges were built around the same time, and in the USA.

Cricobr (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick look at a series of candidate cities with Wikimapia I appear to have resolved the problem myself!

When I found that none of the candidate cities had any comparable bridge, I suddenly thought of the answer to the conundrum...

Strictly speaking the photo "The approach to Hell Gate bridge under construction circa 1915" DOES show the APPROACH to the Hell Gate Bridge. However, what is not clear in the caption is that the approach is photographed looking north from the top of the north tower of the Hell Gate Bridge itself, and that the bridge seen under construction is NOT the Hell Gate Bridge itself, but the Little Hell Gate Bridge. Today, although the Little Hell Gate has been eliminated by land reclamation, the Little Hell Gate Bridge itself, with its distinctive towers, and 3 intermediate supports appears to be still in place (perhaps someone from New York could confirm this).

Here is a Wikimapia link centred on what appears to be the centre support of the Little Hell Gate Bridge, with the distinctive towers of the entry portals clearly visible to north and south. A Wikimapia Place shows the approximate outline of the former Little Hell Gate. http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=40.791573&lon=-73.9231771&z=17&l=9&m=s&v=9

This photo would seem to confirm the continued existence of the Little Hell Gate Bridge as recently as 2007: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jag9889/2131213087/.

I will now update the actual Hell Gate Bridge page itself, and I will probably also make some changes to the Little Hell Gate page as well.

Cricobr (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. You resolved it yourself before I had to tell you your initial interpretation was off. :-D - Denimadept (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I've copied your description change to the image in Commons. - Denimadept (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LHG truss spans

At first glance I said, "No, that's the Bronx Kill span under construction; LHG has no great span that will hang from those towers with the round knobs, and the buildings shown on the north bank of the west end of the waterway and on the east bank of the Harlem River do not exist" but my own pic shows my error. Good work, all. Probably the buildings were demolished in the middle 20th century. Does the left edge of the Pop Mech picture show stones of the north tower of the main span?Jim.henderson (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Type of arch?[edit]

What type of arch is this? A simple girder arch, with side-thrust into the towers? A tied-arch, where the deck restrains the side-thrust? Or a truss girder arch, where the arch itself is inherently stiff? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The connection to the towers is purely cosmetic. - Denimadept (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyne Bridge and Sydney Harbour Bridge[edit]

It is unlikely that either of these bridges took their main design influence from the Hell Bridge. It is much more likely that they took their design influence from Wylam Railway bridge on the Tyne which predates the Hell Bridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.143.83.200 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney derives from Hell Gate. The others are all significantly different. Just consider how the end loads from the arch are restrained. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Yorker article[edit]

The history of the bridge, and its current condition as of the early 1990s, was covered in a 20-page article entitled "The Eighth Bridge" by Tom Buckley that was published in the January 14, 1991 issue of The New Yorker. --AllTheGoodNamesWereTaken (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent FP on Commons[edit]

Adding this here so others can decide if it makes sense to add. Would add as the main pic, but it's awfully wide for an infobox. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 16:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
The main span of the Hell Gate Bridge
The main span of the Hell Gate Bridge

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 23:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Hell Gate Bridge; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Epicgenius please note that as the emergency backlog mode has been activated and you have more than 20 nominations, you will need to provide two QPQs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AirshipJungleman29: I guess I should've seen this coming, given the length of the DYK nominations page. I've swapped my single QPQ for a double review. Epicgenius (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article meets the necessary DYK requirements. Hooks are also good, and I favor ALT1 and ALT2 about equally, followed by ALT3 and then ALT0 (which I don't think would be that interesting to a general audience). SounderBruce 04:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hell Gate Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 16:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 19:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Hi there, I'll be undertaking this review. While the article appears to be in excellent shape, due to its length and being busier than normal with my day job it may take me up to 2 weeks to complete this review.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    A very intimidating total of 357 citations plus 4 notes, but everything looks kosher here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    Stable edit history for the past year. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    I've reviewed copyright status for all images. They are either public domain or appropriately licensed. No non-free media present. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    I've left some suggestions below, but there's nothing at present that would cause the article to fail this criterion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

Lead, infobox, images

  • I did some searching and found this photo on Commons (which was missing from the Hell Gate Bridge category, I've just added it) you may wish to add of a freight train on the bridge in the late 1940s, a time period where I think there's a gap in the photo coverage.
    • Nice find. The watermark is a bit intrusive, but I suppose it's the best pic from the era we have, since most of the other pics of the bridge are either from the 1900s/1910s, the late 20th century, or the 21st century. Epicgenius (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have in the infobox the bridge was constructed by American Bridge Inc. and fabricated by American Bridge Company. Are these different entities?
    • Nope, they are the same. I changed the mention of "American Bridge Inc." in the infobox to "American Bridge Company". Epicgenius (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bridge carries two tracks of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor and one freight track between Astoria, Queens, to Port Morris, Bronx, via Randalls and Wards Islands. reread this for grammar, the words "between" and "to" don't really mesh the way you have them right now.
  • CSX and P&W should probably be wikilinked in the infobox, especially as they aren't mentioned in the lead at present.
  • I'm not going to mandate it, but images could use alt text where appropriate.
  • I recommend adding at least one aerial image of the bridge which shows it with the approaches on each side, such as this one. You've got many photos of the main span, but less attention is given to the approaches. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for taking up the review. I've done most of these and will be adding the alt text soon. Epicgenius (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hell_Gate_Bridge&oldid=1222244595"