Talk:Royal Albert Bridge

message: The paragraph "As a truss type" about the University of Phoenix Stadium, wrongly mentioned as "the Arizona Cardinals's new (multiple–use) stadium" is out of place here. Trusses with parts that are under tension or compression are a common engineering feature and this example is not clear in support of, nor does it resemble the Royal Albert Bridge design. Further does the information about "a grass field that rolls on rails" strike me as not being relevant. I think it should be removed. VanBurenen 10:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant information should be removed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Royal Albert Bridge. 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/20140303213023/http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/News-Releases/BRUNEL-S-ROYAL-ALBERT-BRIDGE-UNVEILED-IN-ALL-ITS-SPLENDOUR-732.aspx to http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/News-Releases/BRUNEL-S-ROYAL-ALBERT-BRIDGE-UNVEILED-IN-ALL-ITS-SPLENDOUR-732.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222140036/http://www.railwaymagazine.co.uk/news/royal-albert-bridge-restoration-begins to http://www.railwaymagazine.co.uk/news/royal-albert-bridge-restoration-begins
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125013350/http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/magnificent-rail-journey/article-209062-detail/article.html to http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/magnificent-rail-journey/article-209062-detail/article.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504095204/http://www.royalalbertbridge.co.uk/html/events_-_2009.html to http://www.royalalbertbridge.co.uk/html/events_-_2009.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908013325/http://www.royal-albert-bridge.co.uk/ to http://www.royal-albert-bridge.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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I quote "The two spans are lenticular trusses with the top chord of each truss comprising a heavy tubular arch in compression, while the bottom chord comprises a pair of chains. [Each of the trusses is simply supported and therefore no horizontal thrust is exerted on the piers], which is crucial in view of the curved track on either side. Between these two chords are supporting cross-bracing members and suspension standards which hang beneath the bottom chord to carry the railway deck which is a continuous plate beam."
Subquote "[Each of the trusses is simply supported and therefore no horizontal thrust is exerted on the piers]"
This is absolute nonsense.
The simple beauty of the lenticular design is commonly missed. The fact is that when the arch component of the lenticular truss is loaded it tends to expand along its length and, conversely, when the chain component is loaded it tends to contract along its length. These two opposing components may be designed to balance so that overall no change of length occurs.
Because, by design, there is no change of length it follows  there is no horizontal thrust exerted on the piers.Puffingbilly (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The whole point of the lenticular truss is  missed