Talk:Sydney Harbour Bridge/Archive 1

Archive 1

Odd assertion

The wikipedia entry for the New York Hell's Gate Bridge makes the following rather odd statement about the Sydney Harbour Brodge:

" (The Hells Gate Bridge) May still be the world's strongest steel arch bridge, though the steel arch Sydney Harbour Bridge, which is believed to have been based on or inspired by the Hell Gate Bridge, has been reinforced since the World Trade Center attack in 2001. "

Is there any basis for this ? It looks like rubbish to me. As far as I know, except for the addition of or numerous under-employed Arab security guards to annoy pedestrians and cyclists, the Sydney Harbour Bridge has had no recent modifications at all. Merkanmich 11:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, someone has added the following odd statement: "The western side being 305mm larger that the east side." Is this supposed to mean the bridge is slightly longer on the western side, or does it mean that the western walkway ( used as a cycleway ), is 305mm wider than the eastern walkway ?? Eregli bob 07:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Sydney Harbour Bridge has not had any structural modification since building work was completed in 1932. Bridgeclimber 01:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem with dates

I did an assignment recently on the Harbour Bridge and I noticed that some of the dates mentioned don't match up with those on the official site. I think the author should take a look at the official site and compare because someone is wrong.

Could you please be more specific? Arno 00:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What Bridge?

OK - I know this is true but I don't have the facts. The SHB was going to be the longest single span bridge in the world, but 2-3 days before they finished it some bridge in the USA (NJ, NYC???) opened and it was a couple of inches or feet longer. So the SHB has never held the title of the longest. If someone finds the actual facts please enter them - MB

See the article (opening of bridge) - I believe that it was the Bayonne Bridge that you are referring to. Arno

Indeed, the Bayonne bridge is longer by less than the diameter of the support hinges at each end, but is considerably narrower. RoscoHead 00:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The Bayonne Bridge is actually 25 feet longer than the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The story of the American bridge being 2.5 feet longer has been around since both were being built. Many sources carry this mistake including Wikipedia. Check out the offical lengths on the bridges homepages and then look at the lengths on the list of bridges homepage.Bridgeclimber 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo

All of this description and no photos? Anybody got a good pic of the Sydney Harbour Bridge they can upload here? KJ

I don't even knpw how to load an image, at leats not yet. As for a picture, perhaps something from a NSW tourist site? Arno

A followup answer: Try http://community.webshots.com/photo/4625974/4776846oBjrsCTTov. This is a photo downloading site, so no copyright problems should exist. But placing it in is something I cannot do; you'll need to do it yourself.

Aaaagh, no! (Oh, very funny, I've finally twigged onto this! Arno 02:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)) "© 1995-2003 Twofold Photos, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Statement" ... "All of the material on the Webshots Site is protected by the copyright laws of the U. S. and other countries. You are only allowed to use these materials as indicated on the Webshots site; other uses are prohibited by copyright laws." Please, DO NOT use any photos from that website here without the express permission of the individual owner of the particular photo. --Brion 07:01 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Oops, I missed that bit. Back to the drawing board, perhaps another search through www.ditto.com may help. Arno

A look at the Sydney Opera House discussion page has revealed this page: http://chmouel.com/web/index.php?/gallery/new_zealand/html/index4.html. The image of the SOH came from there, so perhaps the owner (User:Chmouel) will be happy with us using the shot of the bridge as well..

No problem at all you are free to use it like you want, please send me email if you want much faster answer (User:Chmouel)

Anywhere we might be able to get a pic of end of 2005 fireworks? I think that would be a better photo. Rmccue 04:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Coathanger

I don't doubt you, 203. "Coathanger" is (IMO) a dumb nane for it. It's quite common in other states though, sort of half-joking, half derogatory. Actually, I'd just as soon delete the whole para, but someone would revert me. Tannin

Does anyone actually know anyone from sydney who calls it the coathanger? As a sydneysider of 19 years I've yet to meet one person who has called it the 'coathanger'. The only references I've found to this name have been in overseas publications (National Geographic among others).

I second that. As a fellow Aussie I have never once heard it. Except in the the sentence:'...roughly coathanger shaped...' I vote we remove it.202.63.51.171 04:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)(sorry forgot to log in)Rmccue 04:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You've gotta be kidding me... I call it the Coathanger, and I'm (fairly) local. It's more of an affectionate thing, really. - 220.237.30.150 10:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Iv'e spent I lot of time in Sydney and the region and the only time iv'e heard it being call the coathanger is in overseas magazines. 58.178.93.152 00:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

My father, aged 70, and a Sydney resident all his life often calls it the coathanger, and I recall the term being used in the local media numerous times over the past few decades. The unfamiliarity of the usage by editors above probably has more to do with age than anything else; younger people seem not to use it, while older generations did, and do. A reflection of the homogenisation of Australian slang under global influences, perhaps. --Centauri 00:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Centauri. It is a term which has been used, is in use, and will continue to be used as a term to describe the Sydney Harbour Bridge. As such, it should be retained in the article. I have heard the term used countless times myself, so I believe that it adds value to the article by noting it.

--Lucanos 16:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I know that I am abit behind the times here. I have found a local source for the coathanger and it has now been added as a ref. Todd661 02:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd dispute that the Seven Bridges Walk website constitutes about as reliable a source as Today Tonight, especially since from experience (and indeed in this talk thread) it is referred to almost universally as "the Bridge" and never the coathanger. I'm going to reword slightly. Gorman (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a local reference supporting local use. Claiming that it's "referred to almost universally as "the Bridge" and never the coathanger" is original research without a source. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No one who lives in Sydney calls it "The Coat Hanger". Just like no one who lives in New York calls it "The Big Apple", No Astronomers call Mars "The Red Planet" and no particle physicists call the Higgs Boson "The God Particle". It's a total media invention, which is why it is so easy to find written references for it. MarkTB (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite few people no longer call it that, but it doesn't mean it's not a valid nickname, as a lot of people still do and the Sydney New Year's Eve 2006–07 celebrations included a coathanger as part of the bridge effects, which supports the nickname. It's certainly not a "total media invention". My father, who was born in Sydney and lived there until WWII, told me that it was an extremely common name for the bridge in its early days, when the media effect was a lot less than it is now. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No one calls it the coat hanger, but most people would know what is meant by the term. It's a media nickname only, and suggesting it is a commonly used amongst the broader community is frankly bs. --Merbabu (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there are elements of society who don't call it the coathanger (recent immigrants, the young, people who spend far too much time SMSing to learn English, etc) but there are a lot of people who call it the coathanger, and have done since it was first said that the Sydney Harbour Bridge looked like a coathanger. It's most certainly not a media nickname only. Saying that it is a media nickname is really what is bs. We see and hear "coathanger" in the media because it is instantly recognisable as a nickname. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

lol, "elements of society?" - you "broader society" hear it in regular conversation? I hear "the bridge" or "harbour bridge" but the coat hanger. don't' make me laugh. I've grown up and still live on Sydney's north shore. We know the bridge. And i mix with all types - even the young and the old. And yes, occasionally I see the word "coat hanger" in the newspaper. It should not be in the first few sentences, or written to imply that its common usage. --Merbabu (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually I do hear it a lot, strangely more so that when I was young. My father came from Sydney and as a child I spent far too much time there. My sister moved there when I was a teenager so I spent more time there. Then I joined the RAAF and did courses at Richmond. My daughter is now in the Navy and I still can't get away from the place. When you live in an area you tend to become desensitised to certain things that you see and hear all the time. I used to live near a train line that was frequented by noisy coal trains lead by very noisy steam engines and yet I never heard them. Now, when I visit my mother, who has lived there for 65 years, I hear every much quieter electric train. That's probably why those of us who live outside Sydney tend to notice every time somebody refers to the coathanger, while those living there seem to be oblivious to its use. When I was a child there was pretty much only one bridge in Sydney that you ever heard about. Now, 40 years later and with many more bridges in Sydney (or at least that's how it seems), referring to it as the coathanger seems to be the way to differentiate between it and the other bridges. It's certainly widely referred to it that.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] And, as I've already pointed out, the Sydney New Year's Eve 2006–07 celebrations included a coathanger as part of the bridge effects. "The bridge is nicknamed "The Coathanger" seems entirely valid based on the evidence. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Part 2

I've lived in Sydney for all my 33 years and have never once heard "a local" refer to the bridge as "the coathanger". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomfrh (talk • contribs) 03:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I did a poll at work today with 68 people. I asked them "If I said the word "coathanger" which landmark would I be referring to?" 65 people replied immediately "SHB". I know Sydneysiders today who are in their 40-60's who refer to this name. Stevefrommelbourne (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

My mum was from Sydney, my dad was from Melbourne. When I was a kid we used to hear this term, mainly from my dad, and according to my mum, back in the days of the big Sydney/Melbourne rivalry (which is pretty insignificant these days) 'the coathanger' was mainly a pejorative term used by Melburnians to have a bit of dig at Sydneysiders. So yes Sydneysiders knew the term, but wouldn't use it to describe their magnificent bridge. This is stuff you won't find in the article though. I am however inclined to reword the sentence that says "The bridge is locally nicknamed "The Coat Hanger"" as, like Tom, I don't believe the 'locally' part is really correct. I'll ask her again about this when I see her. --jjron (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Images

Image:Australia sydney-bridge.jpeg was removed from the article, because I didn't like it. I don't know if anyone wants to do something with it, but I think one image is enough for the main article. -- Tim Starling 02:36 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, one shot of this kind. It might be nice to have a few different types: e.g. half-constructed, roadway, maybe even with fireworks. -- Tim Starling 02:38 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Agreed, but where does one get them from? Arno 07:24, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hells Gate and Parliament

A few things.

What evidence is there is that the SBH was based on the Hell's Gate bridge? This sounds speculative to me, even with the "It is now believed" in front. The only source that I was able to detect on the Internet is this one this one and it really is not very authoritive or substantial.

Update : A followup search unearthed this. But its still not quite strong enough to be evidence. Arno 08:11, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The NSW Government passed those laws through its parliament. The use of the term government rather than parliament makes this clearer. Arno 08:03, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

The Hell Gate bridge was completed in 1916. At the time it was considered a major enginering marvel. Bradfield designed the Sydney bridge in 1916. I would think it inconceivable that he wasn't aware of the Hell Gate Bridge, and that this almost wholly influenced his design. --Centauri 06:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The Hell Gate bridge was commissioned by a railway company... the same design that was used for the Wylam railway bridge opened in 1876 and designed by W G Laws... by your argument, it is inconceivable that an engineer of railway bridges (Gustav Lindenthal) was not aware of the Wylam railway bridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.117.197 (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it. The Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Hell Gate Bridge look darn near identical, except for size. The Wylam Railway Bridge is a through-arch, but I'm not seeing any other resemblance. Do you have any cites for your assertion? - Denimadept (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The exhibit on the SHB's construction in its southeast pylon (where you can walk to the top) plainly states that Bradfield toured Europe and the U.S. looking at bridges and was impressed by the Hell Gate Bridge, and chose that design for a) load capacity and b) impressive looks. Found a link that talks about it with a bit more detail. Carl Lindberg 03:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It is true that Bradfield was impressed by Lindenthal's Hell Gate Bridge. He saw it being built in 1914. Infact Lindenthal considered the SHB to be a copy of his bridge. Bradfield was not convinced of the arch design as a solution for the crossing of Syndey Harbour until 1922 when he had the tender documents rewritten to include an arch design. It was a meeting with the Cleveland Bridge Company in London that finally convinced Bradfield that he should accept Arch desings in the tender process. The Hell Gate Bridge was the most impressive arch bridge of the time and the similarities are obvious. Both Bradfield and Freeman used elements of the Hell Gate Bridge in their designs. Bridgeclimber 02:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"To offset concerns about a foreign firm participating in the project, assurances were given by Bradfield that the workforce building the bridge would all be Australians." What evidence exists that in 1922 a British firm would in any way be considered foreign? Grassynoel (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I very much doubt that the Hellgate Bridge influenced the design because John Bradfield did not 'design' the Sydney Harbour Bridge... It was based upon a bridge designed by W G Laws that was built in Wylam (opened in 1876). The Wylam railway bridge design was adapted by British firm Dorman Long and Co Ltd of Middlesbrough not Bradfield for both the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Tyne Bridge. The same design of bridge that is found in Wylam (1876), was built as the Tyne Bridge in Newcastle (commissioned in 1924 and completed in 1928 made by Dorman Long and Co Ltd of Middlesbrough). The Wearmouth bridge in Sunderland follows a similar design by Mott, Hay and Anderson and built by Sir William Arrol & Co. which opened in 1929. (all within 50 miles of Middlesbrough). So I would argue that the Sydney Harbour Bridge was a design based upon the Wylam Railway bridge that had been adapted by Dorman Long and Co Ltd to build first the Tyne Bridge and then the Sydney Harbour Bridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.117.197 (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

James Michener

' "To get on in Australia, you must make two observations. Say, "You have the most beautiful bridge in the world" and "They tell me you trounced England again in the cricket." The first statement will be a lie. '

Sadly the second remains true even 50+ years on...!

Oh well, you are entitled to your opinion.Arno 02:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not anymore, I hate to admit.

The relevant quote is now back in, after a 'leave of absence' of about 3 years! Arno (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Width

This article seems confused about the width of the bridge. At one point it says:

At 48.8m wide, it is listed by Guinness World Records as the widest bridge in the world.

It then goes on to say:

The bridge deck portion of the highway is 17.4 metres wide , and 1.149 km long.

Even if the 'bridge deck portion of the highway' referes only to the original 6 lane road portion of the bridge (ie. excluding the rail tracks, the tram tracks later converted into two extra road lanes, the footpath and cyclepath) 17.4m seems narrow at less than 3m per lane. And 31.4m (48.8 - 17.4) seems wide for the rest of the bridge. In the absence of an explanation as to exactly is meant by the 'bridge deck portion of the highway, I have removed the reference to 17.4 metres width. -- Chris j wood 21:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll need to check this out, Chris. I didn't add that Guiness World records bit, but that other figure came from a source that I'll check. Arno 02:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, the width is in fact 49 m long. The road part of it is 17.4 m. So you did the right thing, an error did get removed. Arno 04:57, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

I juggled that glorious night panorama around a bit, but it still over-wrote the infobox no matter where it was placed in the lead section, and as the rest of the article was studded with photographs, I eventually moved it right down to the quotes, where it seemed to fit in. --Jumbo 21:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Climbing the bridge

I think there should be a section added about climbing the bridge. There is only a very small bit of information throughout the article about it. Also if someone does add the section, I'd like to know if you are allowed to take personal cameras when you climb, as I'm visiting Australia in about one week, and I already has a bridge climb booked. I expect you're not allowed, as there are very few photos from the top of the bridge, and if you dropped a camera from that height it could do alot of damage, but imagine the photos you could get!

• No, they don't let you take cameras up. They don't let you take anything up. You do have your photo taken at the top of the bridge, looking east, and you can purchase this photo at the end of the climb. -- Saberwyn 12:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the guide takes many photos along the way. At the top, a group photo is taken which is provided free of charge at the end of the tour. The others may be purchased for far too much money. Pbones 16:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the 'Tourism' section reads as though it is an extract from a tourist information/adverising brochure. 202.59.22.246 (talk) 00:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding photo

A few days ago, I took a (in my opinion) sweet photo of the Bridge, with the Opera House and the city in the background. Because I work at Luna Park Sydney, I was able to get up on our ferris wheel to take the shot. Is there anywhere I can put it so other users can consider it for incusion in this article? -- Saberwyn 12:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Saberwyn. Have you considered opening a Wikimedia Commons account? The first steps help file and FAQ should help you once you register - they explain how to upload files and how to license them for use on Wikimedia projects. Once you've uploaded your photo there, post a link to it here if you want us to have a look at. Or better still, just put it in the Harbour Bridge article yourself! - Gobeirne 05:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I've just noticed you're an experienced editor who's uploaded a heap of photos before - sorry for the newby-condescension tone! In that case, just shove the photo in the article and let's see what happens! :) - Gobeirne 05:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi I also have a photo which is also a little bit sweet - if anyone thinks it worthwhile (actuarial disco boy) 9:36 (AEST) 21 May 06
Image:Sydney_harbour_bridge_dawn.jpg

Hells Gate and SHB

The SHB was actually based on the Tyne bridge in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England, also built by Dorman Long of Middlesbrough. The Tynw bridge was built in 1929 with the SHB opened in 1932. The Tyne bridge was based upon the design of the Hells gate bridge, so in a way SHB was based on Hells gate also, if not directly dj_paul84 23:35 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Sydney Harbour Bridge was designed by John Bradfield in 1916 - the same year the Hell Gate Bridge opened - although actual construction was delayed due to WW1, commencing in 1922. The Hell Gate Bridge was a major international engineering achievement, and Brafieled would certainly have known of it. The Tyne Bridge was designed in 1924, and was probably influenced by both the Hell Gate and Sydney designs - although it actually looks more like the Bayonne Bridge than either of them. --Centauri 00:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The Tynne Bridge, The Bayonne Bridge and the Sydney Harbour Bridge are all different arch bridge designs. Dorman Long and Co the company that built the SHB also worked on the Tynne Bridge and Sir Ralph Freeman who designed the SHB was a consultant on the Tynne Bridge. However the designs and dimensions are very different. They were designed and built totally independantly from each other. --Bridgeclimber 03:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia?

Dunno if it counts as trivia, but related: I once built a replica of SHB in LEGO bricks - http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=192403 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoscoHead (talk • contribs)

Different trivia. I've heard some people refer to the rightmost lane of traffic travelling in each direction as the "lane of death" (because of its closeness to traffic coming in the other direction, and perceived risk of collision). Is this common usage or just something one of my friends thought up? Paddles ^T_C 12:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't think it's common knowledge. I've never heard anybody calling it that and certainly not these days anyway. It's certainly a perceived risk of collision more than anything anyway. --Stephen Mok (in Sydney) 12:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've certainly heard the middle lanes referred to as the "death lanes" for the reasons mentioned above. I've also heard and seen such terms used in the media many times over the years. --Centauri 13:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not like it's the only road with fast moving traffic going in different directions. A head-on can happen anywhere. Yes, a perceived risk indeed. --Merbabu 13:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course not - but the point is that the term is used specifically with reference to this Bridge. --Centauri 23:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not that bad. I've done a u-turn on it without being killed (was accidently heading back into the city... country driver's shouldn't come past Goulburn really!)Garrie 02:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is 'Hoges' NO mention is made of the bridges most famous rigger, Paul Hogan. Its worth a mention , I suggest.

Ebbw Vale controversy

The page on Ebbw Vale in says that its steel built the bridge yet here it says most came from Middlesborough and the rest was sourced locally. Can somebody clear up this contradiction?-163.1.223.30 13:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Bridgebuilder nationality

The design bears a marked resemblance to that of the New York Hell Gate Bridge. Its design was later used as a basis for the Tyne Bridge in Newcastle upon Tyne, England. The bridge itself is built from 95% British steel by a British workforce[citation needed].

Wasn't it built during the depression in part to provide capital works jobs for Australians? I thought most of the workforce were locals even if the design/management/engineering team were British.

Garrie 02:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the "British workforce" is supposed to refer to the manufacturers of the steel, not the construction of the bridge itself, which was carried out by Australians. --Centauri 06:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course all this talk and possible argument about a "British" workforce or "British" steel is all a bit silly as at least 90% of Australians at that time regarded themselves as proud patriotic members of the great British Empire-that many were soon to die for- and proud subjects of their King -George V-indeed since virtually the whole population turned out to cheer QE II on her visit in 1954 the Aussies were proudly British until quite recently.Nowadays they keep talking about "finding their identity" What a wonderful happy country Australia used to be.....Aberdale

The figures regarding steel (95%) are wrong. I've deleted this as the correct numbers are already given later in the article. (www.sydneyharbourbridge.info is one online reference. I have seen the correct ratio 79% British, 21% Australian in many hardcopy publications also.

Also, the claim that it was the basis for the Tyne Bridge is tenuous. The Tyne Bridge was opened in 1928, four years before the SHB. I think it more likely that the Bayonne Bridge was the basis for the Tyne Bridge. I've deleted this claim, unless someone can back it up with a reference. -- Sulvo 12:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's a very well-known link - the same UK engineering company (Dorman & Long) was involved in the design and construction of both the SHB and Tyne bridge. Don't forget that the SHB was designed in 1916 - years before the Tyne Bridge. --Centauri 11:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

from http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/northeast/series3/tyne_bridge_northeasthistory.shtml

this BBC website says the SHB provided the template for the Tyne Bridge...

"The Tyne Bridge was designed by Mott, Hay and Anderson who based their design on the Sydney Harbour Bridge."

Also from the same site:

"Work started on the Sydney Bridge before building began on the Tyne Bridge.

The confusion arises because the Sydney Harbour Bridge took longer to complete due to its larger size.

The Sydney Harbour Bridge finally opened in 1932, three years after the Tyne Bridge." - Maudlingothic 05:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I grew up in Newcastle on Tyne in the 1950s and at school we were always taught that the Tyne Bridge and Sydney Harbour Bridge were "sister bridges built by the same company", and the differences between them were well known at the time. I think the idea of the SHB being based on the Tyne Bridge is a bit of an urban myth. All this anecdotal of course --MichaelGG (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistancies regarding source of steel

Para 3 of the lead section states

The bridge itself is built from 95% British steel.

Para 7 section 1 states

The steel used for the bridge was largely imported. About 79% came from Middlesbrough in the North East of England, the rest was Australian-made

Clearly one of these statements are wrong but neither of them is explicitly referenced.

Garrie 22:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Garrie, the 79/21 proportions are correct. Although to say that the steel actually came from Middlesbrough may not be true. Certainly, Dorman Long and Co who built the bridge were from Middlesbrough, but I've not heard that the steel itself came from that particular part of Britain. -- Sulvo 12:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

But perhaps the proportions might reach 95% if the weight of the huge numbers of rivets made in another part of the UK were added as a separate item?

Yes Sulvo, the steel was made in Middlesbrough, as that is whts Middlesbrough is famous for, its Steel and Iron production (Ironopolis). Middlesbrough had 1/3 of the nations Iron stone deposit n the Cleveland hills and at one point was the world leader in Steel production. Over 30 blast furnaces were stuated in the Middlesbrough district alone dj_paul84 20:34 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting article

For anyone interested: There's an article in this weekend's Sydney Morning Herald. Click here: [12]. It talks a bit about the history, and also about a seemingly lavish new book on the bridge. --Merbabu 02:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

18-Mar-07 Bridgewalk

I will be participating in the deck bridgewalk on the 18th of March (the one mentioned in the Celebrations section of the article. Are there any particular photographs editors would like me to try and get while walking across/ -- saberwyn 05:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just snap away and put a few of your best pics into the gallery at the bottom of the article. If any are particularly pertinent, they can be incorporated.

--Amandajm 10:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Dimensions

I have noticed that a number of the dimensions for the Sydney Harbour Bridge in the text are incorrect. Also some of the conversions from metres to feet do not add up. I have changed these; length of the main span from 509m (1559ft) to 503m (1650ft), Height of the bridge from 134m (415.4ft) to 134m (440ft). Bridgeclimber 06:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The Sydney harbor bridge

The Sydney harbor bridge got built at Sydney .The Sydney Harbor Bridge had opened in 19th march 1932. It is the largest but not longest metal bridge. It was beaten in length, by New York’s Bayonne Bridge it is 25 feet longer and opened just four months earlier. Dr John Job Crew Bradfield was the one that designed Sydney Harbor BridgeJohn 'Jack' T. Lang, declared the Bridge open. In 1998 people could climb the bridge. The top of the arch actually rises and falls because of the changes in the temperature. Did you no a famous celebrate name paul hogan re-painted it with 270,000 liters of paint. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.103.34 (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

This is great. Make this the main part of the article. It's more to Wiki standards... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.146.66 (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Image at State Library of NSW

An image with the caption Secretary for Public Works & Minister for Railways, Richard T. Ball, lays the foundation stone, Sydney Harbour Bridge, 26 Mar 1925 is located here. The photo would be {{PD-Australia}} and it seems that would make the scanned image also PD. But the library claims copyright to the scanned image. I am trying to work out if that holds water [[13]]. Will update when I get an answer.Garrie 06:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ribbon cutting at opening

"The article claims that de Groot slashed the ribbon at the opening ceremony. Watching a short film called Rosie's Sercet it becomes clear this is false and that a cover-up of events was conducted. Video of the event shows his horse was pushed away from an intact ribbon, before he fell off and was arrested. The real ribbon cutter was Rosie Foster. The film contains interviews with people that explain who Rosie was, including some who saw her cut the ribbon and explains how research for a book revealed this cover-up. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)"

We later find out that this movie was fake. These were NOT the actual events of the Bridge opening. De Groot DID slash the ribbon with a sword and WAS mounted on a horse.

...and if true, a significant bit of SHB history would've had to be rewritten. Arno (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

New walkways?

Can anyone shed any light on the huge new - and apparently permanent - construction on the northern half of the bridge? Looks like fully-enclosed walkways around 10m above deck level. A new BridgeClimb variant?? Whatever it is, I don't like it. It alters the appearance of the Bridge radically - and is easily visible from as far away as Vaucluse! Ian Page (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't actually seen or heard of this but when I get a chance I will look into it and bring it up next time I'm in Parliament. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Way too many pictures

This article seems to have become a collection of pictures of the same object. Just because someone took a cool picture of the bridge does not mean it should be included. Please remove some of the redundant pictures. Brothejr (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, unless there is a specific part of the article that the image relates to. --Merbabu (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I used to have in this article and image of one of the pylons at night. I removed this image to make room for other photos. Now that these are gone I think the image would be appropriate for the pylon section.. Adam (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue was too many photos. remember, wikipedia is not a gallery for your images, particularly disurpitve landscape shots of debatable merit. --Merbabu (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Do we need to keep this in the article. Adam (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"There the proud arch, colossus-like, bestride
Yon glittering streams and bound the chasing tide"

— Prophetic observation of Sydney Cove by Erasmus Darwin.

your question is really: "is it notable?" From what I can see it just appears to be something that an editor thought was cool, rather than a quote that is famously linked with the bridge. If it cannot be established that this quote is famously linked, then it should go. --Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have gone through and removed the other shots that should have been removed. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. This means that while you may have taken this great image of the bridge, it does not mean you should add it to the article. If you really want to showcase your image, Wikipedia is not the place. This is per: WP:IMAGES —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothejr (talk • contribs)

Thanks - it can be a difficult job, and it is helpful that someone outside of the usual Sydney editors did it. --Merbabu (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not added these images for decorative purposes. The one photo of my own that I have restored is relevant to that section and shows the public access to the bridge and fits in with that section. I took this image with this particular section of text in mind. The other image is a historical picture from the 1980's, it is not an art image, it does not belong to me, it is just an ordinary picture which is also relevant to the history of the bridge and Sydney. There are other images of my own that I have decided not to re add . Adam (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What does the "historical picture" add to the article specifically on the harbour bridge? Nothing. On the other hand, it might be useful for the Rocks, but really it is too misty. (by the way, it is at least the 70's if not the 60's)? As for the picture of the stairs, while there might be an argument for the a picture of the stairs, it should be a straight pciture of normal aspect ratio that doesn't warp the image and make it confusing.

Further, once again you are acting unilaterally and insisting on your photos despite questions of their appropriateness, despite the discussion here. At least take solace in that fact that the current lead pic (and the one before??) is yours and most worthy of the lead pic - and I made a point to say that before. The pic of the stairs is unencyclopedic. If people question your picture, you should not insist on it - poor form. --Merbabu (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case just remove them: I can crop the stairs and re upload at a later date or even make two separate images out of it for use else where. Also if you are going to pic on the amount of images in this article then why isn't something being done about articles like Surry Hills, New South Wales which at one stage had 30 images, some of of which have been culled. I could find much worse than this . Adam (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I could probably straighten the image as well. Adam (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think cropping the stairs or even you re-taking it (I dared not replace it with my pic), would be a good compromise - I'm actually not convinced that we really need a pic of the stairs, but that's not an encyclopedic pic (even if is an interesting effect or does show some artistic and/or technical skill - ie, better in flickr than wikipedia). As for the Surry Hills example, I;m sure there are "much worse". try Guide to the Blue Mountains, but no editor is obliged to fix "worse" mistakes in other articles before fixing them here. I'm focussed on this article, not surry hills. And, you should remember I have long been against the number of photos in Sydney suburb articles - these articles seemed to be ruled by Jbar, yourself and sardarka and you all insist on loading them up with your own photos of trivial buildings, the choice of which shows you actually don't have much clue about what is significant to a suburb (case in point the faux-Georgian terraces and "The Manor" in the mosman article).

As I have said in the past, rather than suburb articles, I'm *generally* sticking to the more important articles which get a lot more editors and as a result a lot less pictures. --Merbabu (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What faux-Georgian terraces are you talking about. Adam (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe there was a discussion about having that Blue Mountains article deleted, Why didn't you voice you objection 07:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about deletion of the Blue Mtns list (although I'm more sure now). However, I am sure it should not be anything but a list, not a "guide", not full of photos, and not have a large lead - it has all three. You will see I modified it recently to conform, but surprise-surprise i was reverted. --Merbabu (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed one of the construction pictures due to the fact that there was way too many pictures in that section. Most of the sections either had one or no images in them, yet the historical had three? How pictures are needed to illustrate the bridge being built? Brothejr (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the historical image. The three historical images showed the bridge in three different phases of construction and are highly relevant to text and should remain . Adam (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have re removed the image that I restored previously after coming to the conclusion that that section was overloaded, but do plan on adding that picture to another section later on. Adam (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, instead of worrying about the pictures, you might try to improve the article by finding references for those areas that have none. Brothejr (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

All good articles have at least one picture/photo/diagram per page. We now have a number of pages in here with nothing but text. Check out any top rated article, and try to find a whole page with nothing but text! An image I uploaded to show the tital flow system, which related specifically to text adjacent to it, was removed. I consider this vandalism. You picture haters have wrecked a good article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.255.43 (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Bridge type

This bridge is listed in the article Compression arch suspended-deck bridge as being of that type. I cannot find any references that says this is a valid type, nor that this bridge is one of those type. I found this ref which says it is a "two-hinged braced-rib type." - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are electronic tolls "problematic"?

Why are electronic tolls "problematic"? I have tagged this as a point of view concern. This is because there are probably just as many folks who say they eliminate problems as those who say they create them. Hopefully, someone can provide an in-line reference for this statement. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Because visitors to Sydney won't have an 'e-tag' on their car, or in all likelihood any idea what an 'e-tag' even is. And the unfortunate visitor/victim doesn't get informed that an e-tag (whatever that is) is their only payment option UNTIL AFTER THEY ARE ON THE BRIDGE. So instead of the excessive $3 toll, visitors to Sydney get slugged a $130 fine. Calling it 'problematic' is polite - it's a simple rip-off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.142.228 (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you are one of the people that forgot to read the signs. Again, this is "point of view". Look at the comments posted for this youtube video. You will see someone with the opposite point of view. That is, the cash lanes were a problem that slowed traffic getting on the bridge. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

copying?

"Serious initiatives started after the end of World War I. Tenders were called for in 1923 either an arch or a cantilever bridge would meet the requirements. Dr J.J.C. Bradfield was responsible for setting the parameters of the tendering process."(http://www.harbourbridge.com.au/hbpages/historycontent.html)

and the wikipedia section:

"Serious initiatives started after the end of World War I. In November 1922 the New South Wales parliament passed laws that allowed the bridge's construction. Construction tenders for the bridge were requested the same year. Either an arch or a cantilever bridge would meet the requirements. Dr J. J. C. Bradfield was responsible for setting the parameters of the tendering process."

There seems to be a bit of ctrl-C ctrl-V going on here. Htimsleinahtan (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Rivet-ing talk

I notice a recent 'edit war' over the source of the rivets for the bridge (I refer to a series edits, including several reverts between 23 and 25 November, 2010). See these diffs for a basic rundown of the changes.

The current version of the article now says: "The bridge is held together by six million hand-driven rivets that were made in the Czech part of the former Czechoslovakia." There are two sources provided at the end of this short sentence. Prior to the introduction of the Czech claim, the article stated the rivets were made in England, but with no source.

So here's the problem. On checking one of the references at the end of that sentence, it specifically says: "As the project neared completion, the last of approximately six million Australian made rivets were driven through the deck on 21 January 1932." (emphasis added). Hmm, not really supporting the Czech claim, or the English one for that matter.

Checking the second source it does say (in very broken English) that the rivets were from Czechoslovakia, but the source seems dubious. Elsewhere on the site I read that "the bridge was manufactured in the Czech Republic, transported to the Czech Bohemian colony ships and the Czechs just laugh and walk across the bridge to sigh with pleasure." So this is the type of source we're using to rewrite articles? Maybe this is some type of Czech urban myth or something?

OK, so have found a second source also with the Australian made claim, though it is word-for-word with the first source (I actually suspect this 'second' source is the original one though). Other sources on the rivets don't seem to state a place of location, though other details tend to make me believe the Australian made claim, chiefly the fact the rivets were of varying sizes (surely not so convenient if you're making them on the other side of the world), and the nature of how they were driven.

Based on this I'm going to change the article to say they're Australian made, and add extra refs - the second one I mention above, and another on how the rivets were driven - and remove the Czech ref. I'll add a link to this discussion to the edit summary.

If you wish to discuss it further, please do so here rather than edit warring. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Czechoslovakia citation was originally added to a comment about unsafe working practices and didn't support anything that was said so I removed it, since it served no purpose.[14] It was restored then moved. I copyedited the section but felt the source was dubious and noted that in my edit summary.[15] It was then copyedited by the editor who added it to make reference to the Czech Republic which didn't exist at the time the bridge was built so I reverted.[16] Nick reverted that and that's where I left it. The comment that you referred to, "the bridge was manufactured in the Czech Republic" is only a reader's response to the article. However, I still regard that source as dubious.

While on the subject of rivets, you've added "The rivets were made with a head on one end only, then heated red-hot and inserted into the plates; the headless end was immediately rounded over with a large pneumatic rivet gun, essentially hot forging the rivet into place." I'm not sure that amount of detail is required. The first section describes how most rivets are made and is covered in the rivet article. The rest explains the standard practice for installing rivets at the time, although some rivets were still being hammered manually. I'd suggest that all that is required is "The rivets were heated red-hot and inserted into the plates; the headless end was immediately rounded over with a large pneumatic rivet gun." --AussieLegend (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, agree with this - I realise this is what was happening with the 'edit war'. I know that's a reader's reply in the Czech article, but I'm not convinced that 'article' has any basis in fact either. It's hard to tell given the broken English, but it may just be a blog entry or an entirely unsourced travel article, neither of which are reliable sources. Nick comments somewhere something about it being the major Czech newspaper, which may well be the case, but it doesn't mean everything they publish is fact. So I think we're generally in agreement there about it being rather questionable. It just doesn't ring true with me either that Australia would source giant rivets from there in the 1920s - England I could believe, but Czechoslovakia?

If you want to reword the rivet stuff go ahead. I didn't actually read the rivet article to see what it says, and was trying to rewrite a relatively technical source for general readership, while keeping enough detail for it to make sense. I personally didn't know how they did that riveting at the time at that scale (my entire rivet experience is restricted to pop rivets), and found it pretty interesting, so I may have included more detail than strictly necessary. :) --jjron (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Construction dates

Regarding this edit, according to http://www.sydneyharbourbridge.info the arch was joined in 1930. http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/harbourbridge/ states "The Sydney Harbour Bridge construction started in 1924 and took 1,400 men eight years to build." Given that the arch was the largest part of the construction, they can't have waited five years before commencing it. I'm only mentioning this because I've seen numerous images dated prior to 1929 showing the arch in various stages of construction. Do we actually have a citation for 1929. the citation in the article doesn't mention it. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the arch wasn't the largest part of the construction though - yes it is the biggest part in terms of weight of steel, but as with a lot of these things, getting the foundations up and going is the big time-sink. Given the contract wasn't awarded until 24 March 1924, and work obviously wouldn't have started immediately, then it may have been late 1924 at best - it would be a long time after that before getting to the arch.

Again quoting (unsourced) article text prior to the bit about the arch beginning in 1929: "In January 1925, the excavations to build the abutments and approach spans began. In October 1925, the building of the abutments and approach spans themselves began, and these were completed in September 1928. Construction of the bridge itself began in December 1928, with the construction of the bridge parts in the workshops."

Yes, it's unsourced, but it is a relatively realistic timeline. I would also believe though if it was a bit tighter, with bridge construction starting prior to Dec 1928.

This is one section of the article I didn't work over (except for adding the bit about the pylons and ordering the pics), as I didn't see any really good sources and it looked a bit of a mess. I'm not even sure it's totally consistent with the section above. Re http://www.sydneyharbourbridge.info, it looks to me to be basically a combination blog & copy-paste from other sites, so I'm not putting a lot of faith in that as a primary source in most cases, usually I'm looking for where they've sourced the info. Having said which, that little diagram at the top of that website shows a six image step-by-step construction, and there's basically no arch until Nov 1929.

And to answer your actual question, no I never saw any source confirming that 1929 figure (and although I didn't actually look for it specifically, I did have it in the back of my mind). But I also don't believe the dates given with on that photo, that's as early as 1925, which is way too early. --jjron (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Got one. Found a pretty reputable looking source that says: "On 26 October 1928 the erection of the arches began". I'll fix that stuff up in the next couple of days with refs. --jjron (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing Bridge Effects List

Should we remove the list of bridge effects, as it's getting longer and is already listed on the "Sydney New Year's Eve Fireworks" article page.

AnimatedZebra (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

As it stands, the list is an appropriate length summary. We can always limit the list to the last five or 10 years if necessary. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Nickname: Coathanger

Firstly, does anyone know if Coathanger is one or two words? As an Australian, I thought it was one but who knows?

Secondly, isn't the nickname known Australia-wide, not just locally? Where I live (not in NSW), pretty much anyone would know of the name and what about outside Australia?

Third and final, should "the" be in bold for The Coathanger? I wouldn't think so in my opinion but what do we think? AnimatedZebra (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I always thought it was one word. So apparently does whomever wrote http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/sydney-harbour-bridge. As for "the", I think that's only bolded when referring to it formally. ;) --AussieLegend (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Cost

I thought it cost around 10 million pounds not dollars as Australia didn't have dollars until 1966 and the bridge was finished in 1932. I know there's a book that has the information but I don't own it so can't properly cite it. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Source of 'Coathanger' jibe

Baker, Sydney J. (1966 ed.) The Australian Language Currawong Press (f.p. 1945), Chap. XVI. LOCAL JARGON: VICTORIA. Coathanger, the Sydney Harbour Bridge. (Also used in S.A. and probably other States).

• SHB as 'Jack Lang's coathanger', a joke published 1932, here.
• SHB as 'President's Hoover's Coathanger' here.

This anonymous satirical verse, mocking NSW pretensions, went the rounds of Australia. From internal evidence, it dates in the late 1920s, and was composed in Victoria:

A Sydney Prayer
Our Harbour which art in Heaven

Sydney is thy name
The Bridge be done
If not in 1932 then in 1933
Give us this day a crown –
For Bradman’s head
And forgive us our swelled heads
And forgive those blighters in Melbourne
Who trespass against us
Lead us out of financial depression
And deliver us from all rotten Government
For ours is the Harbour, the Bridge and Bradman
For ever and ever

Amen

• An early published source (1930) of 'A Sydney Prayer' is here, though the verse is alluded to as early as 1927 here.

Bluedawe 23:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Sydney Harbour Bridge from Circular Quay.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sydney Harbour Bridge from Circular Quay.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 19, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-03-19. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 00:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Sydney Harbour Bridge is a steel through arch bridge across Sydney Harbour that carries rail, vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic between the central business district and the North Shore. There had been plans to build a bridge as early as 1815, but nothing was put into action until after World War I. The bridge officially opened on 19 March 1932.Photo: JJ Harrison

Many Happy Returns

Happy 80th birthday, Sydney Harbour Bridge. Arno (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

replica in Suzhou

No information about the replica in Suzhou?

This collection includes even the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Alexandre III Bridge and, of course, the Tower Bridge from London.

http://www.weirdasianews.com/2012/07/24/chinas-builds-tower-bridge/ http://travel.aol.co.uk/2012/07/05/tower-bridge-replica-china/ http://www.nadernazemi.org/2012/07/tower-bridge-in-china-suzhou-builds-its.html#!/2012/07/tower-bridge-in-china-suzhou-builds-its.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.102.130 (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistent facts and figures

A number of measurements in the article didn't have imperial equivalents so I've added conversions. I've also replaced all existing manual conversions with {{Convert}}. In doing so I've noticed there are a number of inconsistencies and conversion errors. Inconsistencies included the height of the bridge, which was 139m/456ft in the infobox but 134m/429.6ft in the prose. The automatic conversions result in the figure in the prose being 134m/440ft, a difference of 10ft. I'm not sure what the correct figure actually is. Another figure of 89m was converted to 276ft but the correct distance is 292ft. Other similar conversions exist and I suspect that the problem with the figures may be that they were incorrectly converted from the original imperially measured units. This needs to be addressed when someone has the time. I've also changed the distances for Tottenham and Moruya, Tottenham from 550 km down to 515km and Moruya up from 250km to 314km, using GPS measured road distances. As we use road distances in {{Infobox Australian place}} this seemed more consistent. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

this problem is occurring with the bad adherence to the current metric regime when the object was built to imperial scale and what is so wrong with having the ft first and the metric in the () anyway ? Apart from that you should convert the known accuracy imperial figure to the rounded metric but display the order if you also want it to. {{convert|456|ft|abbr=on|disp=flip}} giving 139 m (456 ft)

there's a MOS paragraph that mentions UK engineering too, I think AU can qualify under that --Dave Rave (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Art

Should there be a section on the bridge related art eg paintings by Grace Cossington Smith, Ken Done, photographs by David Moore just to mention a few?Coolabahapple (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

How's that? - Denimadept (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, thats a start Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be image farms. We add images that are relevant but we can't add all of them. Left aligned images immediately after headings distract the reader and break text flow, so moving an image to the left so an artistic piece can be wedged in is not a good solution. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

thats cool, have put it back the way it was, btw, i didn't add the images, i was just looking at the article and saw all that white space:) Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sydney Harbour 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.

To get to A class the number of references should be expanded. Past that the FA would require thorough reworking of the layout (image placement and the structure of paragraphs within some sections)

Last edited at 11:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Sydney Harbour Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091015145242/http://australianstory.net.au/TIA/node/7 to http://australianstory.net.au/TIA/node/7
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929224049/http://www.atlasdirect.net/news/Destination%20news/Harbour%20Bridge%20celebrates%2075th%20anniversary.aspx to http://www.atlasdirect.net/news/Destination%20news/Harbour%20Bridge%20celebrates%2075th%20anniversary.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150402114237/http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/motorwaysandtolling/200807shb_lanechanges.html?hhid=shbcashless to http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/motorwaysandtolling/200807shb_lanechanges.html?hhid=shbcashless
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121022020136/http://www.northsydney.nsw.gov.au:80/www/html/5539-harbourlink-project.asp to http://www.northsydney.nsw.gov.au/www/html/5539-harbourlink-project.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140407081451/http://www.hht.net.au/bridgingsydney to http://www.hht.net.au/bridgingsydney
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120319013627/http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au:80/newsevents/events/shb80.html to http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/newsevents/events/shb80.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

History.

Some tid bits of history that need to be fully checked before inclusion. 1. The same Standard Car loco that first crossed the bridge in 1932 was used again in the 2002 re-enactment. It had been in service for that long. 2. The similar looking Bayonne Bridge in New Jersey was completed four months earlier, and is 25 feet longer. This was likely to have been a race to have the longest steel span.14.202.189.14 (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Another name connected with the bridge's design is that of Arthur Plunkett

I've again removed Another name connected with the bridge's design is that of Arthur Plunkett, which Arno keeps adding, from the article. At best this is an unsourced, unencyclopaedic claim. It was in the article for some time before being tagged as needing a citation in December 2010,[17] and yet there was no attempt to ever source the claim. A lot of people were involved with the design and if any are to be included in the article their involvement needs to be notable and sourced. This is not the case with Plunkett. Simply saying that someone was involved is not encyclopaedic, it's just a promotion of that person over thousands of others without any justification. According to Plunkett's article he took charge of an office in which designs and erection schemes were prepared between 1924 and 1926 and he prepared 3 preliminary designs during that time. None of this was mentioned in this article and if that was the extent of his involvement with the bridge, it does not seem significant enough to warrant inclusion in this article, especially given that his involvement. apparently ended 3 years after construction began and 6 years before completeion. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sydney Harbour Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070320020544/http://www.news.com.au:80/dailytelegraph/index/0,22045,5012637,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/index/0,22045,5012637,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Design

There's been massive deletions in this section.

The design is based on the Hagg Bank Bridge (aka Points Bridge or Wylam Railway Bridge). Which was built crossing the river Tyne in Northumberland at Wylam. The bridge was engineered by WG Laws and was started in 1874 and completed in 1876 making it the oldest through arch bridge in the world. It was designed as such to avoid the mine workings under the river. The Hell Gate Bridge was started in 1912 and considering it too was a railway bridge then it was most likely based on the designs for the Wylam Railway Bridge. Considering that Dorman Long and Co Ltd hail from Middlesbrough in North East England and they also built the Tyne Bridge which crosses the same river Tyne, then it is highly likely that the inspiration for the bridge comes from the Hagg Bank Bridge and Weirick's claims are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.194.98 (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Clearance above

@AussieLegend: Hello AussieLegend

Re

| clearance_above = (?)

. This was to encourage some one like you to find out for us how much height there is available on the road bridge for high vehicles. You, living in the area, are in a good position to find this info. Ditto for

| structure_gauge     = To be researched

. Peter Horn User talk 21:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Quite simply, this is not done. There are literally millions of infoboxes on millions of pages and when we don't know what to put in a particular field, it's just left blank. Putting a question mark next to everything that is unkown would just result in billions of pointless question marks, many in fields that are never going to be populated. If you really want to know the answer to what you're looking for, research it yourself, then complete the field. That is how information is added. In any case, because of the design of this bridge, the figure you are looking for ranges from an unknown distance to somewhere around 27.6 billion light years. The actual figure is probably not documented anywhere. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

That "unknown distance" is the room available from the deck to the closest structural member across the roadway. Anything greater than say 5 m (16 ft 4+7⁄8 in) could be called "no height restriction(s)". The actual figure, if any be needed, would be posted at both approaches of the bridge for he benefit of truck drivers who haul tall semi-trailers, especially if it happens to be less than say 4 m (13 ft 1+1⁄2 in). As for the structure gauge, I'll need to find the web site of the NSW Gov't Railways web site. Peter Horn User talk 15:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The instructions for {{infobox bridge}} are ambiguous at best. For clearance_above the instructions are simply "Clearance on top of the bridge, if proper". The top of the bridge is not the deck. In the case of this bridge, it's where the flags are. I have no idea what "if proper" is supposed to mean. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

You may, or may not, have noticed that I deliberately linked | clearance_above to structure gauge which is meant to imply what is space is available from the deck to any overhead obstruction that is low enough to be an issue. If there is (are) no overhead obstruction(s) then clearance_above could be marked as "not applicable". I'll change "Clearance on top of the bridge, if proper" accordingly. Peter Horn User talk 21:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

If something is not applicable, we follow the same procedure that we follow for fields for which there is no data - we leave it blank. If we put "0" or "not applicable" in such fields, we'd just end up with unnecessarily bloated infoboxes. |towpath= is a valid field in the infobox but is not applicable. Should we put "not applicable" for it? As it is, I expanded the infobox and with valid data, it's already pushing images down the page. If we add fields that don't apply, images are going to end up in the wrong section. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Images being pushed down into the wrong section is already happening in many articles with many different infoboxes. The solution to that might be a gallery after the overview. Other than that, in this case one could say "no vehicle height or load restriction height". Peter Horn User talk 00:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: You might look at the end of Template talk:Infobox bridge#Rail data fields. Peter Horn User talk 01:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

That images might be pushed down in other articles is not an excuse for not trying to avoid it here. Infoboxes are supposed to summarise important points and that there are no restrictions is not really important, so the field is best left empty, per convention. Galleries are discouraged, so that's not really a solution. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Sister Bridges

As mentioned on the wikipedia page for the "Bayonne Bridge" QUOTE: "When the Bayonne Bridge opened, it was the longest steel arch bridge in the world,[13][14] barely surpassing its more massive-arched "sister bridge" in Australia—the Sydney Harbour Bridge—by 25 feet (7.6 m)[4][9] and taking the distinction from the Hell Gate Bridge a few miles to the northeast.[3]:19 The American Institute for Steel Construction selected the Bayonne Bridge as the "Most Beautiful Steel Bridge" in 1931, choosing it over the George Washington Bridge for that status.[3]:9, 16 The Bayonne Bridge has a lightweight design, weighing only 16,000 short tons (15,000 t), compared to the Sydney Harbour Bridge's 37,000 short tons (34,000 t). The Bayonne Bridge is also half as wide and 117 feet (36 m) shorter than its sister bridge,[4] with its roadway being 85 feet (26 m) wide and the arch's highest point being 325 feet (99 m).[15]"

Also in the links provided for references the port authority of new york obviously does consider the Sydney bridge to be its sister even if people refuse to accept this fact possible due to the simple fact it is quite possible the only thing beside the opera house to be a recognizable landmark of sydney itself, this denial does not change the fact they have basically identical constructions, were built virtually the exact same time were both opened with delegates from each others respective countries using the exact same pair of scissors (because they are sisters). The following two links clearly state that they are sister bridges even if some people refuse to accept this easily researched fact.

http://www.ascemetsection.org/committees/history-and-heritage/landmarks/bayonne-bridge QUOTE: "From its opening in 1931, the Bayonne Bridge was the longest steel arch bridge in the world for a period of 46 years. Built 24 feet (7.3 m) longer than its "sister" bridge in Australia that opened the following year"

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/sydney-harbour-bridge-is-the-same-as-new-jerseys-bayonne-bridge-2015-6?r=US&IR=T QUOTE: "It turns out the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Bayonne Bridge are considered “sister bridges,” and officials from Sydney and Bayonne attended each other’s ribbon-cutting ceremonies for the identical bridges back in the 1930s.

Well, they’re considered sister bridges by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Staten Island news site SILive, at least. For some reason, no Sydney-centric websites appear to be playing up the similarities."

Here is a link directly from the Port Authority of New York; https://www.panynj.gov/bridges-tunnels/bayonne-bridge-history.html " When the Port Authority opened the Bayonne Bridge in 1931, its "sister bridge," the Sydney Harbour Bridge, was under construction in Australia. It closely follows the design of the Bayonne Bridge, but its span is 25 inches shorter," — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.59.252.133 (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what someone else considers, if those in charger of this bridge don't consider these bridges to be sister bridges, it doesn't belong in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Well actually from your logic a mention of the simple FACT that NY does believe this and Syd doesn't consider them I think most certainly belong in the article as it is definitely information pertaining to the Sydney Bridge (that NY considers its bridge a sister) and useful information for the article or do you disagree? From your logic the Wiki article on North Korea should list some the outrageous propaganda claims made [as fact] am I wrong? This is how I take what you just said; if Kim says he is a gold medalist for 100m sprint then "It really doesn't matter what someone else considers, [because] those in charger of this COUNTRY [KIM} doesn't consider these FACTS to be TRUE, [so] it doesn't belong in the article." That logic is obviously silly because the people "IN CHARGE" time and time again skew facts to conform to their agenda or once again do you disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.48.74 (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

An unknown, anonymous, Hispanic twit had nothing better to do than to fire off spams. Peter Horn User talk 18:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Cement and the Sydney Harbour Bridge

I notice someone just removed Railton as the supplier of cement as the citation no longer supported the claim, so I wondered if there was another citation that did supported the claim and stumbled on this "when wiki got it wrong" blog post which addresses the cement issue. Just thought others might find it interesting. Kerry (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I've commented at that blog as it's a bit unfair to say that Wikipedia got it wrong when we were relying on this page which quite clearly says "Contracted to supply cement for the Sydney Harbour Bridge contract". I guess we can no longer assume the University of Tasmania to be a reliable source. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The blog did acknowledge that Wikipedia had what appeared to be a reliable source. My point was more to highlight the cement issue in case the story of the Tasmanian cement was to resurface in this article at some later time. We have a similar situation at Lamington where an April’s Fool newspaper article keeps being used to make NZ the origin of the lamington. The article is constantly updated using this “normally reliable” newspaper as a source, so we need regular community members to be aware of this situation. Kerry (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I just discovered an email from the owner of the Kandos History blog regarding a post there titled "Fake History", which mentions me directly so I've responded there. Here is what I wrote, for furture reference:

If we’re going to talk about fake history then we should be talking about this website and the fake history that it has created as a result of the Wikipedia edits

The Sydney Harbour Bridge article originally simply said “The concrete used was also Australian-made.” That was eventually expanded to “The concrete used was also Australian-made and supplied from Devonport, Tasmania and shipped to Sydney on a ship named Goliath” but the source used to support that claim didn’t support it and it was ultimately challenged on 1 January 2018. That same day, “KerryRaymond” (NOT AussieLegend”!) added the citation from The Companion to Tasmanian History. Note that on that day the article stated “Contracted to supply cement for the Sydney Harbour Bridge contract, the Company was more successful than its Maria Island contemporary”. If a business is contracted to supply something, it’s normally expected that the company lived up to its contract. Failure would result in penalties but since the article said that it was “more successful than its Maria Island contemporary” it’s a pretty good indication that it did supply. However, that source did not mention a ship called Goliath, it specifically referred to Goliath Cement in Railton Tasmania. However, the article stayed that way until 6 June 2018.

On 6 June “Osullivancol” turned up and without any evidence to back-up her claim that the concrete wasn’t supplied by Goliath Cement, removed the claim and citation, against Wikipedia policy. When sources contradict each other Wikipedia takes a neutral stance and publishes both claims. If something is supported by a citation then it needs a stronger source to remove it. That’s why Aussielegend stepped in and restored the content, quite in accordance with policy. To make things worse, the source that Osullivancol provided was a bad link, so it didn’t support the claim made by her. On 8 October, Osullivancol returned and this time supplied sources for Kandos that actually worked. Again she removed Railton without proving that the existing source was invalid so the sourced Railton claim was restored.

The reason that this issue took so long to resolve is primarily because Osullivancol didn’t provide any sources to support her claim that Goliath Cement didn’t provide the cement and the source she initially supplied was broken.

Regarding some other fake history from above:

1. “AussieLegend wrote the information” is, at best, misleading. AussieLegend merely corrected information based on the sources provided, including those supplied by Osullivancol.

2. “I identified myself with a profile page on Wiki but AussieLegend wasn’t engaging. ” – This is completely irrelevant. The correct location to “engage” is on the talk page of the article and Osullivancol made no attempt to justify her removal of cited content.

To be honest, I feel there is a bit of a COI. There are sources saying that concrete was supplied by Goliath Cement, the blog owner admits that and seems to have gone out of her way to prove that it was only Kandos that provided the cement. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• AUS Alphanumeric Route A34.svg (discussion)
• AUS Alphanumeric Route A36.svg (discussion)
• AUS Alphanumeric Route A38.svg (discussion)
• AUS Alphanumeric Route A40.svg (discussion)
• AUS Alphanumeric Route A44.svg (discussion)
• AUS Alphanumeric Route M12.svg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Dubious comment

My comment concerns the accuracy of the statement in brackets in the second paragraph stating that the bridge was based on the design of a similar type of bridge in Newcastle upon Tyne England. I do not consider this to comment to be true on the following basis - 1 The Sidney harbour bridge started construction in 1923 2 years prior to the start on the Tyne bridge in 1925 !!! 2 The second sentence of the description clearly states that the design of both bridges was based on a similar bridge - the Hellgate bridge in New York. These two items clearly contradict the bracketed statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmccaskie (talk • contribs) 19:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)