Jump to content

Talk:Wandsworth Bridge/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

  • Comments
    • Introduction
      • Minimalist has a specific artistic/architectural meaning, which I don't think would really be applicable to this bridge. I think it would be best described as a "simple" or "unadorned" design.
Although it's a quote from one of the sources, I agree – changed. – iridescent 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Background
      • For non-Londoners it might be useful to be a bit more specific than "some distance away" when describing the locations of the adjacent bridges.
Changed to "both over a mile away". I'm being intentionally vague about the distances here as the curve of the river and lack of roads on the Fulham side at this time means the as-the-crow-flies, distance along the river, distance by road on the north bank and distance by road on the south bank are all different. – iridescent 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, although I think you should add "from Wandsworth" to the end of that sentence to fix the locus point from which you are specifying the distances. --DavidCane (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. – iridescent 21:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although there was no bridge at Wandsworth, there were, presumably, crossing points as watermen operated all along the river. Better to specify that there was no closer road crossing. Also don't forget that Battersea Railway bridge was also in place by the mid 1860s.
Although watermen operated along the river, there were certainly no regular ferry services on this section, and with Fulham so empty I'm not sure there even would have been wharves operating on the north bank. (The map on p.9 of No Need to Ask! – which also shows the proposed H&CR line to Fulham – starkly shows just how empty the area was.) Although Battersea Railway Bridge was open in 1863, the line was almost exclusively used for freight – Outer Circle services only ran over it for 3½ years. As Battersea and Chelsea stations were both further from Wandsworth than Putney Bridge, I think it's reasonable to assume that its impact on the short-distance cross-river traffic the original Wandsworth Bridge was intended to serve was minimal. If you think it warrants mentioning, I can certainly add it. – iridescent 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking of the railway bridge as a regular means to get from Fulham to Wandsworth, just that someone might challenge the statement that Battersea Bridge was the nearest downstream crossing - particularly as the railway bridge is shown as being the next downstream crossing in the succession box at the bottom of the page. --DavidCane (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added a brief mention of its opening – I don't want to go into detail on it as it will be covered by its own article. – iridescent 21:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strictly speaking, the village of Fulham was on the north side of Putney bridge. Parson's Green was the nearest settlement to the north end of the bridge although both areas were covered by the Fulham Vestry.
I toyed with "Sands End", "Walham Green", "Hurlingham" etc, but settled for "Fulham" as the best descriptor for the (still) unnamed area on the north bank. It's problematic as, while Sands End is the most accurate name for the area I can't find any reference to this being what the area was called at the time the bridge was built. To someone without an intimate knowledge of the geography of west London, Fulham is the only potential term that one can reasonably expect a reader to have heard of, so I stuck with that, especially in light of the fact that the line at the end of the H&CR extension, leading to the north end of Wandsworth Bridge, was to have been called the "Fulham Railway". – iridescent 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps say the "parish of Fulham" rather than "village of Fulham", or just omit "the villages of". The Wandsworth and Wandsworth Common sheets of Stanford's 1862 Library Map of London and its Suburbs here show the land on the north bank was almost totally agricultural in nature. The north bank was called "the Town Mead". The present Townmead road runs through the area. --DavidCane (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the problem is that no-one who doesn't know the area will have the slightest idea where Town Mead is – thanks to the football, most people have at least a hazy idea of where Fulham is. I've taken out "villages" altogether, and just gone with "Fulham and Wandsworth", which covers both then and now. – iridescent 21:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • suggest "cross the river in no more than three spans", rather than use span twice in the same sentence.
Done. – iridescent 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The planned width of the bridge is stated twice in successive sentences. The second statement could possibly be omitted.
I couldn't see an obvious solution to that one. The first use is in stating that the Act specified this as a minimum width; the second use is that the bridge was built at the minimum width. If you can think of a less clumsy way to reword it, please do! – iridescent 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps: "Rowland Mason Ordish designed a suspension bridge to comply with the act's requirements, similar in design to his nearby Albert Bridge..."
Good idea - done. – iridescent 21:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any idea why Ordish turned down the chance to redesign the bridge and gave up the appointment?
I can speculate with a fair degree of certainty; all his works in this period (the Barlow Shed, Albert Bridge, Esplanade Mansions etc) were built in the "fairy castle" Paxton-inspired style, and it no doubt grated on him to be asked to design a cheap-and-nasty metal lump. Also, in this period he owned the patent for the suspension bridge, and probably took it as a personal insult being told that it was too expensive. All this is unsourced speculation, though – I can't find a source that says anything more specific than "he turned it down". – iridescent 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, although Ordish's patent must have been for a particular form of suspension bridge rather than just the general idea as Telford and Brunel had already built renowned suspension bridges at Clifton and Menai. Might be worth mentioning that he had a patent for a suspension bridge design and leaving it for the reader to make the obvious connection. --DavidCane (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see an obvious way to work it in (and don't have particularly good sources for it). – iridescent 21:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1873 bridge
      • Any idea what the design load for the Tolme bridge was?
No – the Tolmé bridge seems to have had remarkably little coverage. I'm sure it would exist in the archives somewhere, but it's not an important enough point to warrant a trip to the records office. – iridescent 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Public ownership
      • Is it known what the toll was or how much the income for the bridge was?
        • From this, the passenger toll was ½d and the total income of the three toll bridges (Hammersmith, Putney & Wandsworth) was "considerably over £100,000 over the last 10 years", but I cant find a source for the vehicle toll, or a precise figure for the toll revenue per bridge. (I really wanted to include the snippet from this article about the toll-keepers seizing the hats of those unable to pay, but couldn't find a way to work it in.) – iridescent 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The link to the Metropolis Bridges Act could probably be "piped" to hide the second use of 1877 in the same sentence as that is implicit. The act covered all of the London bridges not just the three mentioned.
Good point – done. AFAIK these were the only three toll bridges still remaining by the time the Act was passed, but I may be wrong on that. – iridescent 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The times article seems to suggest otherwise - I have put a link to it on your page. I'll see if I can track down the announcement of the bill in the london gazette and see what that says. --DavidCane (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bill for the Metropolis Toll Bridges was published on 24 November 1876 and listed the following bridges to be purchased and freed from tolls:
  • Hammersmith Suspension Bridge.
  • Fulham, otherwise Putney Bridge.
  • Wandsworth Bridge.
  • Battersea Bridge.
  • Albert Bridge.
  • Chelsea Suspension Bridge.
  • Vauxhall Bridge.
  • Lambeth Bridge.
  • Waterloo Bridge
  • Deptford Creek Bridge.
  • Hungerford and Lambeth Suspension Foot-bridge, now called the Charing-cross Bridge,
  • Cannon-street Railway Foot-bridge.
A link to the relevant pages is here - "No. 24386". The London Gazette. 24 November 1876.. --DavidCane (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to the vague "along with other London bridges". As I read the Times article, the MTBA lifted tolls on all the above bridges, but Putney, Wandsworth & Hammersmith were lifted later than the others ("With the lifting of tolls on these three bridges the liberation of the bridges is now complete".) If I find more accurate details when I'm researching the rest of the bridges, I'll come back and reword this one. – iridescent 21:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. – iridescent 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think just "Prince and Princess of Wales" (with the appropriate direct links to the individuals) would be neater than the current formulation.
Done. – iridescent 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe note 10 is wrong as it states that it shows the Prince of Wales reading the address. In this context, the address would be made by a local dignitary to the prince. In 1880, Prince Albert was 39 years old whereas the chap with the paper in the top image is shown with white hair. He is also standing, hatless beside the carriage of dignitaries. I suspect that the Prince is the chap in the carriage next to the princess listening to the address.
        According to a report under the title The Freeing of the Bridges in The Times on 28 June 1880, the other two gentlemen in the carriage are Prince Albert Victor and Prince George. The white-whisked chap is likely to be James McGarel-Hogg, chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Times article states that the amount paid for the bridge was £53,313 pounds against a claim of £150,000. It also lists the amounts paid for all of the other bridges.
Changed to "the address being read at the opening of Wandsworth Bridge". If you have more accurate figures from the Times article, please do add them – the vague figures I've used are the best I could find. – iridescent 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wandsworth Bridge today
      • Suggest clarify "where the road over the bridge, the A214 road, the road from central London and local roads into Wandsworth meet" to "where Wandsworth Bridge Road (A214), York Road (A3205), Swandon Way (A217) and Trinity Road (A214) meet"
Done, with the sole change of changing "Wandsworth Bridge road (A214)" to "Bridgend Road (A217)" – WBR ends on the north bank and the southern approach is Bridgend Road, while the roundabout is where the A214 becomes the A217. – iridescent 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multimap and Windows Live Maps disagree on this (odd as Microsoft owns both), but I would go with the paper based Multimap which gives Bridgend Road. --DavidCane (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The A-Z concurs as well that it's "Bridgend Road" and that the roundabout is where the A217 and A214 meet, and for street names I'd consider them a reliable source. – iridescent 21:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. – iridescent 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article states that the bridge is one of the busiest. Are there any comparative figures or ranking for the bridges?
It's been frustrating me, as the figures must exist but I'm unable to find them. TfL are distinctly unhelpful on the matter. (That said, I'm not sure it's wise to include them at present as the changing of the Congestion Charge setup is going to wildly alter the flow patterns.) – iridescent 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done – iridescent 21:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wandsworth_Bridge/GA1&oldid=1044242610"