A fact from Hackensack Drawbridge appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 October 2012 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the Hackensack Drawbridge, once part of the "costliest railroad" in the United States, was abandoned after being struck by the
collierJagger Seam?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
bridges and
tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. See also:
WikiProject Trains to do list and the
Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve
New Jersey–related articles to
Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the
discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
In the middle of a rewrite. The information blanked out lacks direct referencing. Don't want to lose it at this moment, so it's commented out for now. Lol, did not think so many people would be looking and working at this; thought I had at least an hour or so to work on it... -
Theornamentalist (
talk)
01:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I'll check back later then. Just seems like a strange way to do things. If you think its needs referencing, just add a citation needed tag to it.
DreamFocus01:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)reply
With it up for AfD, I really only want to source directly. Unfortunately, it seems a bulk of the info is from that Trains publication which I can't find online; though AGF suggests we add the citation tag, I've found it to be a poor means for avoiding deletion. I will add back what I can't reference personally. -
Theornamentalist (
talk)
02:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Does it go by more than one name? More than one drawbridge on that river perhaps?
[2]a Hackensack River bridge that is in the midst of a $1 million rehab.including the 73-year-old Hackensack River drawbridge on Route 46 that carries about 40,000 vehicles a day. The Wikipedia article says its older than that. This news story is from 2007. Anyone check Google Earth yet? Questia and Credo were as always no use to me, but my Highbeam offered some results.
DreamFocus02:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Interesting note; I've driven over the one you mention many times...
As far as distinguishing between the two within sources, I suppose if the mentions of the bridge are pre-1934, it is most likely about the one this article is concerned with. One thing I can say is this article's bridge were specifically for rail-lines, whereas the one from that article I believe were for both, now I believe only operational for cars. -
Theornamentalist (
talk)
02:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Oh, and if you check out gmaps from the coordinates on the page, you can see the remains of the rail-line. Might have to go snap a picture one of these days... -
Theornamentalist (
talk)
03:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)reply
HD Draw
I would suggest maintaining the original name HD Draw, which while seemingly redundant/repetitive, is consistent with rail bridges crossing the Hack and Passaic Rivers, and does disambiguate it from the many others, uses traditional RR terminology used when naming/refering to them, and will avoid confusion as above
Djflem (
talk)
11:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)reply
My reasoning for the move was that I had not seen it called "HD Draw" anywhere except on the NRHS page. However, I have no problem with the move back, especially if it is in an effort for consistency in naming. -
Theornamentalist (
talk)
12:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I agree with changing back to the original name
HD Draw with a redirect from
Hackensack Drawbridge. I would like those working on this article to look at
List of crossings of the Hackensack River and see if this defunct bridge can be added to the list. Note the two bridges labeled "(defunct)" already on the list. More attention to this list is warranted. I believe I can locate some of the existing bridges on Google Maps and add their lat/long to the list and their respective articles. There are also opportunities to add photos.
Regarding naming, I have two concerns. 1. "Hackensack drawbridge" could refer to the Rt. 46 bridge, a former Erie railroad bridge, or this bridge. 2. I haven't found "HD Draw" to be the common name in references. I propose that "Hackensack drawbridge" be a disambiguation page, and that this article be renamed to something like "Hackensack Drawbridge (1869)" or "Hackensack Drawbridge (HD Draw)". Thoughts? --
ChrisRuvolo (
t)
12:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)reply
This website shows the original shore structure (see Unkown nr Triples) and the extant piers (see Unkown Newark Bay). Like its sister bridge the HD was probably re-aligned when raised circa 1912/13, but to date haven't found a text ref to support the claim.
Djflem (
talk)
21:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Size of Jagger Seam
Jagger Seam, the vessel which struck the bridge, was an EC2-S-AW1 variant of the
Liberty Ship design. These colliers had a
gross register tonnage (grt) of 6,643. See Davies, James,
Liberty Cargo Ship, pp. 15, 23. This is a measure of volume, not of weight, and grt cannot be converted to weight. The displacement of these ships could range up to 14,730 standard tons of 2240 pounds when fully loaded. One cannot determine the mass or weight of the ship from gross register tonnage. Unless there is a source for tha actual displacement at the time, no weight estimate should be given.
Kablammo (
talk)
12:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I did not know that; thank you for fixing it. It seemed ridiculously high when I added the reference, but I didn't really think about it. Is it of any interest to list the grt of the ship, or is that mostly besides the point? -
Theornamentalist (
talk)
18:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The ship, when loaded, could displace 14,750 tons, but Jagger Seam was running light with only water ballast. One could approximate the displacement from the vessel's known dimensions and block coefficient (page 23 of the Davies paper) and the draft at the time of the incident (from the 1951 admiralty case). Another way to estimate displacement would be to subtract the deadweight tonnage from maximum displacement to give the weight of the ship itself, to which one would have to add assumed weights for fuel, stores, crew, water ballast, etc. As you can see, there would be "original research".
Perhaps the way to handle ship characteristics such as grt would be a separate article on the vessel, rather than the piped link we have now. I won't have time to do that in the immediate future, but perhaps one of ship editors will see this interesting article on the main page and create a stand-alone article on Jagger Seam.
Kablammo (
talk)
23:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)reply
How does the bridge move?
The body of the article completely and utterly fails to specify exactly what sort or moveable bridge it is ... in other words, what is the opening mechanism? Does it rotate, or do the road decks get raised drawbridge style, or bascule style? That sort of description appears entirely missing from the article body. (The infobox tells us it's a swing bridge. Nowhere do we get a clue as to whether it pivots around its centre point or at one or other end). So far as the body of the article is concerned, there seems to be an assumption that we know what a drawbridge is and how it operates. BTW, if the first sentence in a description of a bridge is the alleged weight of steel ... you can be fairly sure you're not reading a good description of a bridge. I'd have expected the article to explain that the bridge is composed of six
girder bridge sections, three each arranged around a two-span truss bridge which swings about it's centre point. If we said something like that, we might actually have a description of the bridge rather than merely its role, it's height above the river, and its history of accidents. --
Tagishsimon(talk)00:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The linked article on
swing bridge says they have center pivots. Weight of steel is a common method of estimating bridge costs and it not surprising that a book which mentions the bridge would contain that datum, as does your cited source. The technical description of the truss arrangement of this bridge is best supported by reliable sources. As to these and other claimed deficiencies, perhaps Tagishsimon will help correct them, by editing the article. For a DYK, this article is very good, and an interesting read.
Kablammo (
talk)
03:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)reply
List of crossings of the Hackensack River
Can we consider having a List of crossings of the Hackensack River, something like the
List of crossings of the Schuylkill River? It would seem from the map that this defunct bridge was the last bridge downstream before
Newark Bay. An AMTRAK bridge over the
Hackensack River is being replaced. The usual arrangement of these lists is by county, starting at the mouth of the river and going upstream, and of course sometimes there is overlap when the river is the county boundary. --
DThomsen8 (
talk)
12:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)reply