Woody Campbell
Workshop Member
Even more.
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
What a super picture of a famous landmark! Well done indeed.Glen, that is a gorgeous capture and well composed/framed.
Gives me time to look at that bridge and ponder the question: is it vastly over-engineered for the load it is carrying?
LouisB
As an addendum to the above interesting details, I'd like to also suggest that the Victorian Engineers knew what they were doing with the Bridge - it's stood the test of time. Compare that with the road bridge built at the same location in the 1960's - it's having to be strengthened and be complemented by a second road bridge - to assume much of the traffic load. (Which maybe reflects badly on modern day tendering processes).What a super picture of a famous landmark! Well done indeed.
I am a retired Chartered Engineer and I am in two minds about "over engineered" it has stood the test of time well having been completed in 1889.
It is on the rail route north of Edinburgh on which there are two wide water crossings this one, the Forth and the other the Tay further North. The Tay bridge was built first but suffered a terrible disaster in 1879 when a section of the bridge, with a train in it, fell into the sea in high winds with many lives lost. The engineer for the Tay bridge was Sir Thomas Bouch and the official enquiry found him to blame.
Bouch was at that time working on a design for the Forth bridge very much lighter than the one that was actually built.
Following the Tay Bridge accident in which wind load played a major part, the Forth bridge was designed to rather conservative wind loadings.
I recall comparing the design wind loads of North Sea Oil structures I was working on ithe 1970's with those used on the Forth Bridge and those on the bridge were indeed higher.
So with the benefit of hind sight maybe it was "over-engineered" but I think with the knowledge and circumstances of the time the designers did a good prudent job.
Thanks to all for your comments and information. For those not familiar with the bridge, here is a shot that put it into contextAs an addendum to the above interesting details, I'd like to also suggest that the Victorian Engineers knew what they were doing with the Bridge - it's stood the test of time. Compare that with the road bridge built at the same location in the 1960's - it's having to be strengthened and be complemented by a second road bridge - to assume much of the traffic load. (Which maybe reflects badly on modern day tendering processes).
Naturally most photographers follow Glenn's lead and photograph the more interesting classic rail bridge. Great shot Glenn.
These are Alpine Choughs, they live up to 12000 feet, spectacular air artists. No no composites at all!retow I've never seen a bird at this altitude and I fly all summer at 10000 feet shooting aerial images for mapping. Composite?
I like the yellow toned image (center).
+1Those birds are spectacular :thumbs:
Cool. Guess the Icelandic mountains don't rise as high as those in the alps. Agree with the others, great shots!These are Alpine Choughs, they live up to 12000 feet, spectacular air artists. No no composites at all!
I'm getting hungry! Lovely image.
I like the tones in this image.