Steve Morgan

Dear Steve,

you added very nice picture of CC 40103 in Brussels to Article http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_CC_40100 !

The engine driver looks like to be Denis Cureaux shown at youtube in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCu5cG4m0tg&feature=related

Best Regards, --Husset 10:52, 14. Feb. 2011 (CET)

Hubbrücke

Es mag zwar schockierend für dich sein, aber die USA haben weder alle größten Bauwerke der Welt, noch den höchsten Lebensstandard noch das beste Bildungssystem des Planeten, und auch nicht alles erfunden. Und da die Kattwyk-Brücke 290 m lang ist, kann die von dir genannte Brücke in den USA mit 170 m nicht mal ansatzweise mithalten, also lass solche Edits bitte weg, egal ob das Absicht oder Versehen war.--FoxtrottBravo (Diskussion) 12:36, 25. Jan. 2013 (CET)

That is an insulting message, FoxtrottBravo. I do not believe the USA has better and bigger structures, but this article has no information on non-European examples of Hubbrücken, except for one photo of one in Australia, and that makes the article very unbalanced. Also, the article says the Kattwyk-Brücke is the "largest" in the world, which is very ambiguous. The sentence does not say "longest" (grösste Spannlänge), so I supposed it was referring to height, not length. There is no separate article about the Kattwyk-Brücke in German Wikipedia, but the section about it in Hamburger Elbbrücken says "Mit einer Hubhöhe von 46 m handelt es sich um die größte Hubbrücke der Welt", which supports my conclusion that the sentence in the article "Hubbrücke" was referring to height (46 m). My examples clearly showed that there are other Hubbrücken which are taller (higher). Even the Pont Gustave Flaubert in France is taller than the Kattwyk Brücke (86 m, and lifting 55 m, compared with 70 m and 46 m for Kattwyk).

However, if we are discussing length, then the Kattwyk-Brücke is still not the world's longest. The section "Kattwyk-Brücke" (in Hamburger Elbbrücken) does not make any distinction between total length (Gesamtlänge) and lift-span length, but photographs make it apparent that its lifting section is not 290 m long – for example, compare this photo with this photo, and it is clear that the second one has a longer lift section – and indeed, satellite photos at Google Maps show that Kattwyk's lift span is only about 110 m long. Thus, 290 m is only the total length, not the length of the lifting section. Many other Hubbrücken are longer than 290 m if you measure the entire bridge, not just the lift span. Maybe the longest one is not the Arthur Kill bridge, maybe there is a longer one in Russia or some other country (?), but the Kattwyk Brücke is not the longest or the highest vertical-lift bridge in the world. That claim in this article, about the Kattwyk Brücke ("die größte Hubbrücke der Welt") is wrong. You should correct the information, not criticize me for trying to correct it.

The Hubbrücke article does not cite any sources for any of its claims, and in that way, the article is poorly written. (The corresponding English Wikipedia article en:Vertical-lift bridge is not much better in this regard [lack of references], but many of the bridges listed there have their own separate articles, where many references are cited – for example this one: en:Burlington Northern Railroad Bridge 5.1.) The only reason the examples I added were from the USA is because they were examples I was familiar with (and the article already had one from Australia), and the article's gallery has almost no overseas examples, and too many German examples. German-Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be focussed on Germany, unless the subject is specifically German. The Hubbrücke article needs more information from outside of Europe, but my German is not good enough to allow me to write it. Steve Morgan (Diskussion) 14:21, 25. Jan. 2013 (CET)

I did not mean to insult you personally, but due to my personal experiences with US citizens in the last 20 years, I developed some prejudices. Sorry. --FoxtrottBravo (Diskussion) 15:17, 25. Jan. 2013 (CET)

I inserted your controbutions again.

But one question: How often is the Arthur Kill Bridge operated?

This seems to me a very important characteristic of a moveable bridge, but is often not mentioned in the article. The frequency range among the biggest ones is from few times a year for windjammer parades to every two hours for regular merchant ship traffic.

--Ikar.us (Diskussion) 18:20, 23. Jul. 2013 (CEST)

Thank you. I did not know the answer to your question, so I searched on the Internet, and I found an answer, which I have now added to the article about the bridge on English Wikipedia. The bridge is operated about 3 times per day (as of 2008). It is normally kept in the raised position, and it is lowered for trains. In the USA, this practice is rather common for railway lift bridges on rail lines that have very few trains but which cross major rivers (with a lot of ship traffic). Steve Morgan (Diskussion) 11:41, 24. Jul. 2013 (CEST)

Bild entfernt / image removed

Mich würde sehr interessieren, aus welchen Gründen Du das Bild 'Cable Car (Wagen Nummer 18) auf einer Weiche in der Hyde Street' entfernt hast. Ich denke, es ist nicht in Ordnung, ein Bild zu löschen, um ein eigenes zu platzieren. Kläre mich doch bitte auf! I would be very interested to know why you removed the picture 'Cable Car (Car number 18) on a Hyde Street switch'. I don't think it's okay to delete a picture to place your own. Enlighten me please! --Heinrich XI. (Diskussion) 13:07, 18. Apr. 2020 (CEST)

I should not have removed your photo, and I have now reinstated it in the article. I assumed that other editors would feel that the article has too many photos, after I added a photo of the reconstruction work. The complete rebuilding of the cable car system in 1982–84 was one of the most important events in the entire history of the cable-car system, and yet the article did not include any photo of it. I discovered Commons had no photos of this important subject, so I scanned and uploaded a photo of my own. When I assumed that other contributors would then say the article has 'too many photos', I tried to choose a photo showing normal operations, to remove, because the article has several photos of normal operations. Until now, I did not notice that your photo is the article's only photo showing a track switch, which is a detail that deserves to be shown. I still believe that the subject of my 1983 photo – the complete reconstruction of 1982–84 – is more important than many of the other photos in the article, but I now agree that my reason to remove your photo was not good enough. So, I put your photo back into the article. Steve Morgan (Diskussion) 09:56, 19. Apr. 2020 (CEST)

Hello Steve, thank you for your answer and for putting my photo back. This photo is the only one that shows a double car - all other photos show a single car. --Heinrich XI. (Diskussion) 10:24, 19. Apr. 2020 (CEST)

That is not a double car (in English, we say "two-car set" or "two-car train", two cars coupled). It is simply two cars that are parked very close together; they are not coupled, and the San Francisco cable-car system has no two-car operation. Steve Morgan (Diskussion) 11:01, 19. Apr. 2020 (CEST)

Thanks for the information, Steve! --Heinrich XI. (Diskussion) 19:20, 19. Apr. 2020 (CEST)

You are welcome! – Steve Morgan (Diskussion) 04:37, 20. Apr. 2020 (CEST)