Talk:Rio–Antirrio Bridge

In the section "Engineering Feats", it is mentioned: "The piers are not buried into the seabed, but rather rest on a bed of gravel." It should I think be added that gravel is placed over a large number of 5 foot diameter steel pilings driven into the soil at the bottom of the gulf - they could not reach bedrock as it was too deep. It is the pilings that provide support to the weight of the towers. Tony (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll upload photos as soon as I can download them from my camera. David.Monniaux 22:19, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done. David.Monniaux 14:23, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Both the the Sunshine Skyway Bridge and the Rio-Antirio bridge seem to be claiming the title of the world's longest Cable-stayed bridge - which is correct, or is this a case of two different things being talked about?

"It is the longest cable-stayed bridge in the world, with a length of 2252 m (2882 m including the access bridges)." - Rio-Antirio bridge

"The Sunshine Skyway Bridge is the world's longest cable-stayed concrete bridge, with a length of 29,040 feet (exactly 5.5 miles or nearly 9km)." - Sunshine Skyway Bridge

--Zippedmartin 15:19, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What was meant (I think) was that since the bridge consists entirely of the five cable-stayed spans, it counts as the longest. The Sunshine Skyway and others are certainly longer in their own right, but not the cable-stayed portions of them (which only constitute the small, middle part). Now, if only there were only a smart way of phrasing this in the article... —Gabbe 17:55, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. So in a way both articles would benefit from having the wording changed, the Sunshine Skyway to reflect that it is the longest bridge that uses cable-stayed portions, and the Rio-Antirio to say that it has the longest cable-stayed spanning portion - or cleverer words along those lines. [Edit: Noticed your revision to the page, this looks good] Any civil engineers around who would know the proper terminology? --zippedmartin 18:39, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Millau Viaduct 2,460 metres without access bridges, therefore is this the longest cable-stayed bridge in the world! --145.254.126.182 06:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

So? Rio-Antirio is 2,880.4 meters. Is there a particular rule for excluding access bridges from the length of the bridge? And exactly where in the Millau Viaduct article do you read that the access bridges have been excluded from the 2,460 meters? Also, what is the length of the access bridges? Is it more than 420.4 meters? I am reverting your edit.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Millau Viaduct: eight-cable-stayed spans, seven piers, 204 m + 6 x 342 m + 204 m = 2,460 meters > Rio-Antirio bridge: five-cable-stayed spans, four piers, 286 m + 3 x 560 m + 286 m = 2,252 meters --145.254.244.65 18:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
and with access bridges: Oresund Bridge: 3x120m+1x133m+18x140 + (three-cable-stayed spans) 301 m + 490 m + 301 m + 4x120m+24x140m = 7845 m >> 2880 m

Hmmm, Official Site (unlinkable: look in sub-menus: "a great dream"\"A world reference") says:

"The Rion- Antirion bridge will be the longest cable stayed bridge in the world with a continuous deck of 2,250 meters."

You really seem more informed, so perhaps you can you explain:

(a) It's the longest cable stayed bridge

(b) It's the longest cable stayed bridge with continuous deck

(c) Site is probably blowing things up (as usual)

(d) Other____________

Kindly choose a,b,c or d, just for the record. Thanks.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

(d). continuous deck = distance of expansion joints? Both bridges have two expansion joints. (see also [1] and [2]). Normally the expansion joints of the Rio-Antirio bridge should be after the cable-stayed spans = 2252 m < 2460 m(see also picture of maurer-info). However it is the longest suspended deck in the world, because there are no bearings at the piers. [3]

--145.254.245.86 02:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Would you care to do the honours and include that information in the article? NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 13:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

A map would be handy. Me, I only had to turn and look at my wall-map of Europe. Others may not have that privilige.

An alternative is to describe it better - though hard to see how, one can't simply to "it connects that nearly disconnected bottom bit of Greece to the top bit"... Maybe explain the situation with the Peloponnese and the geography of the area (was it only connected near Corinth previously?). It would be handy to add transliterations of Greek for the placenames (my map, as many newer ones do, shows placenames in their local name - albeit in the Roman alphabet).

Zoney 15:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The map is a great addition! Thanks! Zoney 20:53, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"There is provision for the gradual expansion of the strait over the bridge's lifetime."

I am really interested in knowing what, exactly, are the provisions that allow for this gigantic bridge to grow 3cm a year.

An explanation would be great!

MaxPower 16:27, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Any bridge anyway has to withstand dilatation (look carefully: the road is never directly connected to the endings of a bridge, there's always a kind of joint). This one also has to withstand possible sudden seismic movements. It uses jacks and dampers. David.Monniaux 07:50, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think a similar project is supposed to connect Sicily to mainland Italy. Who knows more about that? How similar or different is it? A "See also" link would be welcome.

Hmm.. Strait of Messina is just a stub, and Strait of Messina bridge or Messina bridge are non-exsistant. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 10:40, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've heard about it alright - apparently going down like a lead brick with the environmentalists. There is of course the completed bridge between Denmark and Sweden (there's a tunnel too is there not, for rail?). One could conceiveably group the Channel Tunnel with such projects. There's some unlikely-to-be-done scheme thought up too to connect Spain and Morocco I believe. It'd be interesting to have a catalogue of the major Alpine tunnels (cross-border) too (Mont Blanc, Gottard?). Then there's that mad bridge in France, but despite being a similarly huge scheme, it's not the same category really - only being in one state. I'll tell you something though - long will be the day before Ireland is linked to Britain. We'd sooner see a tunnel to Spain I suspect! :o) Zoney 11:24, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello.

The official website (English) spells the cities Rion and Antirion (Ρίον and Αντίρριον).

A Michelin map spells them Rio and Antirio (Ρίο and Αντίρριο).

Is there a Greek in the room ready to give us the correct spelling ?

Yes, there is. "Rion-Antirion" (Ρίον-Αντίρριον) can be said to be the katharevousa form of the words. "Rio-antirio" (Ρίο-Αντίρριο) are in the common Modern Greek speech which has removed most excess "n"s from the end of the words. "Riou-antiriou" (Ρίου-Αντίρριου) would be the genitive version of the words. In this article where there's no reason to deal with obsolete versions of words, stick with "Rio-antirio". Aris Katsaris 12:34, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer. Besides, I'll ask my mother, about this katharevousa form, since she learnt modern Greek.--Olivier Debre 14:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Classic Wikipedianism, where the official website of the bridge itself has "Rion", to counter with the more obscure form— with a justification! --Wetman 09:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

it is worth noting that the names of many Greek locations crossed over to other languages while in their katharevousa form, so it would be handy to Keep Rion - Antirion in their 'older' spelling. A better reason is that it is the spelling the bridge people themselves use, as well as the form many cities use as their latin transliteration. Until this is formally addressed by the Greek Gov't the older spelling ought to be preferred.-Cafeeine 23 Nov 2005

Yeah, basically we should have both, and use whichever one seems more prevalent in any given situation. In this particular case, that's "Rion-Antirion", though not by a huge margin. The Greek government differs on this depending on which level of government and which ministry; some prefer newer transliterations, others prefer older ones, and others use both depending on who wrote the particular document. As far as this bridge goes, both spellings can be found in official government documents, though the bridge's own website is consistent in using the one with the final 'n's. --Delirium 22:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The ending "n" in Greek is mainly still used nowadays in certain dialects (notably Cypriot Greek and Pontic Greek). It has been deprecated since, even originally, it was nicknamed as the "euphonic n". Katharevousa and Koine Greek (not to mention ancient Greek of course) are only one aspect of the story. In Greece it doesn't make any difference if you use it or not, but using it may sound a little more official. I would say that both are valid and that the difference could be described in English as that between "do not" and "don't"; the first sounding more official, but still both correct, especially if you think we are talking about euphonics and about geographic names. NikoSilver 22:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's 13,50 for cars now. Is there a toll on the bridge? It'd be interesting to know, as here in Ireland, they are tolling road projects considered "big" here. But such projects are tiny compared to such endeavours as this - so I'm curious to know (are we as usual, being ripped off in the most expensive country in Europe). Zoney 11:30, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, they charge € 9,70 for cars and € 1,50 for motorcycles, one - way tickets. It is slightly higher than the € 6,60 ferries were charging before the inauguration of the bridge! For frequent travellers different rates exist.

How much for busses? Has the price for the KTEL busses gone up?

Anon user added to map title "<--!NOTE it is marked in a wrong position-FIX PLEASE!-->"   Leonard G. 7 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)

To my knowledge the location is accurate considering the scale of the map. Check this (you'll need to click "A great dream" and then "connecting Europe" -the map shows bridge location).  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 13:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

PS.I'm gonna remove the note from the article too. (done earlier by someone else)

Where is the information on how many deaths occurred in the building of the bridge? Where is the information on cost, materials, weight, etc.? The page seems quite imcomplete and how many deaths occurred will attract traffic as I've not found that information anywhere yet. 184.7.105.97 (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is "number of deaths" a standard item when discussing building projects? While I can see the merit of mentioning deaths when they've occurred, it seems odd to assume that they must have done.

As for cost, the page already mentions:

"The total cost of the bridge was about € 630,000,000, funded by Greek state funds"

I do agree, though, that information on materials would be a worthwhile addition. Mass... perhaps. Given the unusual approach taken, a mention of how many tonnes of gravel were used for the bedding would be interesting; a list of how much concrete, cabling etc would probably be a bit excessive. Torak (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rio–Antirrio 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/20110719205442/http://2isfo.eng.hawaii.edu/Presentations/Session%2027/27%20-%20Vlamis-Stathopoulos.pdf to http://2isfo.eng.hawaii.edu/Presentations/Session%2027/27%20-%20Vlamis-Stathopoulos.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140528044041/http://en.gefyra.gr/ to http://en.gefyra.gr/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

57m according to the illustration used in the text, source?----Bancki (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply