Talk:River Tyne

Move

I have proposed moving this page, as River Tyne is a disambig page for the English and the Scottish river but almost all links for the English river go to that page. MeltBanana 15:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Scotland?

I've added a list of all the river crossings, as I had a couple of maps and knowledgable people at hand. Now I'm puzzled - I'm 99.9% sure none of the River Tyne falls in Scotland or Cumbria, any objection if I take away those two stub thingies? Henriksdal 11:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The article covers the North Tyne and South Tyne too, and claims they are in Cumbria and Scotland. Morwen - Talk 14:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, althouguh I meant both North and South Tyne, I was utterly wrong about the South Tyne, that does source in Cumbria. The North Tyne originates on Deadwater Fell (NY 608 972) a few kilometres south of the Scottish Border, while the South Tyne originates on Tynehead Fell (NY 752 354) in Cumbria. So just remove the Scottish stub bit? Unless there's a section of the North Tyne that does cross the border, but I can't find any myself! Henriksdal 15:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Hard to see on my map which of the many streams in the area is considered the North Tyne. Certainly the North Tyne has tributaries in Scotland. Morwen - Talk 15:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see what you mean; I was looking at the 1:25000 OS map and wasn't paying enough attention to the streams to the south! Henriksdal 15:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Further to the discussion here and more heated discussion with work colleagues(!):

From WATER ENVIRONMENT AND WATER SERVICES (SCOTLAND) BILL: RIVER BASIN PLANNING which accompanies Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill. (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/pdf_res_brief/sb02-96.pdf):

"The Scottish part of the Tyne should be reported in the English River Basin District covering the River Tyne basin. Only about 15 km of small watercourses draining into the River Tyne lie within Scotland."

So there you go..

---

The Tyne actually enters Tyne and Wear at Clara Vale, not Prudhoe (Prudhoe is still Northumberland). I've changed it, hope that's OK. As Clara Vale is almost a hamlet it could perhaps be changed to Crawcrook (where I live) or Ryton. Neither of these would be particularly accurate however. hedpeguyuk 19:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the word Tyne

Have you never noticed that on a fork the points are called 'tynes', and they all meat up at the bottom. Therefore is it possible that the origin of the name River 'Tyne' is because the main river is from two smaller ones (north Tyne, south Tyne) which join together to form a fork like shape? Take a look of an Ariel view and you will see

Interesting but I would guess not. I think Tyne may have Norse origins but really I have no idea! All rivers have tributaries and where they converge is a confluence and it may form a fork shape. The Tyne is not unique in this aspect. Having said that, it is still an interesting shape. Has anyone else got any thoughts? hedpeguyuk 18:45, April 2006 (UTC)

However the north and south tynes both meet up at the same point, and then from that merge in to one main body. Tributaries can join a river at any stage. Also, they both join at similar angles to the main river body forimg a >- shape, so it is not as if they join at rightangles, because that would have no resemblence of a fork at all.

The all-encompassing North East History Website says that "Tyne is an ancient Celtic river name which occurs more than once throughout the British Isles. It may simply mean river." Henriksdal 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

link from your web page

Would you please consider linking your River Tyne web page via an external link to my website which is about all the bridges on that river at http://www.bridgesonthetyne.co.uk

Derwent 22:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

This article sorely needs more information more easily accessible. Can somebody with the info put up an {{Infobox River}} please? Or I'll do it myself at some later date. --Storkk 12:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The rest of this info. has been deleted due to rude comments.

Tyne and Wear, not Northumberland

The caption under the picture on top of the infobox says: "The River Tyne, Northumberland", but to me this looks like the Tyne east of Newcastle, i.e. South Tyneside and North Tyneside, which lies in Tyne and Wear. --Sigmundg (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Amended - The image is taken from the banks of the Tyne at Bill Quay. The orange roof top in the bottom left hand side of the picture is local pub called 'The Albion'. I live in Bill Quay, hence my familiarity with the view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Congocraze (talk • contribs) 09:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Canny picture bi the way. --Sigmundg (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Image in the infobox

Was there a discussion concerning which image should be in the infobox. At some point, an image of Newcastle/Gateshead bridges was replaced by a photograph taken from Bill Quay. In my opinion, the bridges are more recognisable and distinctive of the Tyne; the current photo could really be any river. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Songs Featuring the Tyne

There is a strong folk song and music tradition around the Tyne and there are a large number of traditional songs which mention the Tyne which are not listed on the main page. For example:

Coaly Tyne, Waters of Tyne (already listed), Jock o' the Side, Geordie Black, The Skipper's Dream, Fireman do your Duty, John Spencer, Waggoner, The Sailor Likes his Bottle-O, The Kielder Hunt, The Bladon Races, The Battle of Otterburn, Navvy Boots (one version), Fair Mary of Wallington, Derwentwater's Farewel.l

One of the best known Tyneside songs, and one that has many versions, does not mention the Tyne by name, but is certainly about the Tyne and its ships, and that is:

Weel may the Keel Row.

Should these be included? And a reference to the source of many of them, The Newcastle Song Book or Tyne-Side Songster., W&T Fordyce, Newcastle Upon Tyne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jer16 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Belated reply, but I think the section should just be a summary - it does not need a comprehensive list. There are probably too many songs included already...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Bridges

Follows on from above, is it me or is this article slowly turning into a list of bridges over the Tyne. They could probably do with being turned into a separate article...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

List_of_crossings_of_the_Charles_River has more columns with more data of interest about each crossing. It is also a separate article.
Its parent artcile. Charles_River also has much more info than the River Tyne.
Both could be guides to improving this artcile.
— Lentower (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Length

The length is given as 321.4km. Someone recently changed it to 100km and was reverted due to 321.4 being referenced. A quick measure (using OS on Fugawi) gave 55.8km for Tyne 54.4km N Tyne and 58.1km S Tyne. I cannot find any way to justify the 321.4km, whereas the 100km seems plausible. Either the referenced document is referring to something different or they made a mistake. Can we remove the obviously faulty figure? Op47 (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The referenced document actually suggests that the North Tyne is 66km, the South Tyne is 60km, and from the confluence to the North Sea is 59km. So you could argue 66+59=125km. But this 321km figure seems to be all over the Internet.194.80.190.252 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that this is not dubious. The document itself has cited five scientists involved who would have reviewed the data, it is an official document from the Environmental Agency, it has surveyed in detail the Basin and length of the Tyne and surveyed the fish stock in detail. To state that the facts in here are dubious via a POV is wrong. However I would agree it would be dubious if you can find a conflicting scientific paper?Junkicroci (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The referenced document is clearly inconsistent, section 1.2 giving 59 km (as mentioned above) as well as the dubious figure of 321.4 km. A Fact File also from the Environmental Agency gives North as 62.5, South as 60.6 and Main as 56.3 km. To suggest that the Tyne has suddenly become the third longest river in the UK is not really sensible...Jokulhlaup (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand that wiki is a consensus, but I still don't believe that five scientists cited would have made an error over the figures. The figures are not abstract. The figures are meant to be objective and underlay the full paper. All the scientists are burdened by the figures they present. The first thing and last thing each scientist would have done when reviewing the paper would be to review the figures, not the abstract. Section 1.2 from the document looks like an abstract lead in; my guess is, this describes the Tyne to the relevant bodies (my guess is that this description is there to fence in specific funding); the Tyne fish stock have no bias towards funding boundaries.

The figures you have brought up and presented in the factfile are also wrong when you look at the real length of the Tyne for fisheries. For example they are flawed with regards to the North Tyne length. They note the length as 62.5k (39 mile). Yet the North Tyne eventually flows into Scotland, another wiki use above in this talk, on another subject, has even cited a debate were they debated the fisheries of the section of Tyne in Scotland. The shortest distance from Hexham to the Scottish Borders is roughly 95k to 100 k(60 miles+). This highlights the length of 62.5km is out by at least 40k.

Again, this all said, you are maybe correct, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt to a scientific document over the other documents; and if it is dubious, it is the less dubious of the other links presented which also have flaws. However you can certainly change my mind if you can find another scientific document that contradicts with the fisheries length in this document.Junkicroci (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I just thought I'd update. My opinion has changed. I do think the cite is probably dubious. Looking at various cites, looking at the data in the document it looks like they have made some type of excel error. Maybe they meant to state 200km but they put the 200km in a cell for miles, and the sheet updated the kms to 321km? If you treat the 200 as km, the length is roughly 125 miles. This framework roughly fits in with the 120 length described here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/River-Inland-Waterway-Steve-Ellwood-ebook/dp/B011VL7LTE/277-3178985-8963459?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0 and the 135 miles described here http://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/update/2016-04-20/135-mile-river-tyne-trail-opened-by-charity/ Junkicroci (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate the update, it does seem to be some sort of typo that wasn't supported in the text. Rivers and the British Landscape, (2005), Sue Owen et al gives 118km as per Longest rivers of the United Kingdom, which matches with the Fact file above for North+Main as 118.8km...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I do think the 312kn is dubious (I personally think they meant 200km (125mile) and the 312km (200mile) is a typo), but I also think the data provided in the factfile is contentious and dubious and not very scientific... If you look at the Tyne from a birdseye view, it must one of the few rivers in the world with a 'meeting of the waters' (a 'Y' formation). You could therefore, depending on your bias, could argue that the South Tyne is a tributary of the Tyne and the Tyne follows on Northward to Scottish borders where it ends. Or on the other hand, you could therefore argue the North Tyne is a tributary of the Tyne and the Tyne follows South West to Cumbria to the end of the Tyne at Alston...

Where does the Tyne actually end in terms of Fisheries, and not in terms of human boundaries? I reckon scientifically and to remove a bias, you have count the South and North Tyne in; otherwise it is bias. We need a scientific document.Junkicroci (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, the usual thing is to use the longest tributary (the South Tyne (marginally) in this case). I would doubt that there is a definitive document with a definitive length because it is difficult to measure a river length exactly. The more you zoom in, the more detail you get and the length increases. If the 118.8km is referenced then it is a plausable and I think we should go with that. Junkicroci, for info, the North Tyne does not flow into Scotland. There is a different Tyne that flows into the N Sea near Dunbar. The N Tyne starts about 1 mile above Kielder Water, with the confluence of Kielder Burn and a smaller unnamed stream. Also there is an instance of a Y formation river as the South Tyne's tributary, i.e. the River Allen. In short, I propose we go with 118km with Sue Owen as the reference as Jokulhlaup suggested above. Op47 (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Article now changed to 118 kilometres (73 mi) with Owen as a ref...Jokulhlaup (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Length of individual tributaries

Given the links to 'North Tyne' and 'South Tyne' return to the same page (River Tyne) would it not be a good idea to actually include the length of each of the individual tributaries? This would be so anyone wanting to decide how long the Tyne is from source to sea, not just the length of the nominal River Tyne, can find out for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallovidian428 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on River Tyne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130622104540/http://tyneriverstrust.org/about-the-river/ to http://tyneriverstrust.org/about-the-river/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tyneriverstrust.org/about-us/history-of-the-tyne
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080807131109/http://www.tynesalmontrail.co.uk/ to http://www.tynesalmontrail.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

River length revisited

This matter has been addressed twice above but to return to it once again. . . The length given for the Tyne currently is quite close to its probable actual length (more than can be said for many a river article in Britain) and is referenced back to Owen et al 2005. The Tyne River Trust use the same figure and could also be used as a reference though did they derive their figure from Owen or the source which Owen used or, direct from Wikipedia - anyway that's tangential.

A previous contributor makes the sensible suggestion that the length of both the north Tyne and the South Tyne be given so as to enable the reader to better understand where the overall figure comes from and make their own judgement as to the river's length - problem is finding a reference for such figures. Editor Ope47 and an IP contributor both offered up lengths for the S Tyne, N Tyne and combined main stem Tyne back in 2016. I've made my own measurements recently and the figures which emerge are these; i) combined Tyne (56.km/35.1 miles from confluence at Warden to entry into 'River Tyne Entrance' (roughly county limit marked on OS 25K mapping) or, if you prefer 58.5km/36.3 miles to point between North and South piers /entry into open sea), ii) South Tyne 64.2km/39.9 miles from its source (now marked by cairn and sculpture) to its confluence at Warden, iii) North Tyne 65.0km/40.4 miles from source at Deadwater Rigg to confluence.

An oddity with the North Tyne (and it shares this with the Thames and its tributary the Cherwell) is that one of its tributaries is rather longer than the river itself. Water falling just across the Scottish border on the eastern slopes of Carlin Tooth enters a stream known as 'Black Needle' which feeds into Scaup Burn which feeds in turn into Kielder Burn which then meets the watercourse named as the Tyne at the village of Kielder. Water describing that route has traversed an extra eight kilometres to get to that spot (it's 15km in all) than has water starting at the top end of the Tyne (7km from traditional source). So taking the longest tributary as the length of the river system you arrive at something like 129km as the greatest length (56+65+8) of the river system. But tradition (for whatever reason) has it that the Tyne is the shorter watercourse, giving 121km. All the figures above are original research on my part so, quite rightly should not find their way into the article but they do give a guide to what accurate external references might look like when they are found. thanks Geopersona (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox revisited

The infobox contains two maps (why two?), both of which show only the combined Tyne and omit the North Tyne and South Tyne which nevertheless form a significant part of the article - perhaps that could be addressed. And relating to the location at which the two headwater rivers join to form a 'unitary' Tyne, is there any pedigree to the name 'Meeting of the Waters' beyond a section title in a website? Another website (https://fabulousnorth.com/watersmeet/) refers to it as 'Watersmeet'. Both are common enough names for confluences but are they well-attested for this one? Geopersona (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)