Talk:Isambard Kingdom Brunel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Isambard Kingdom Brunel is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Isambard Kingdom Brunel appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 23, 2006.

Isambard Kingdom Brunel has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Engtech article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

	Trains Portal 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
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
High	This article has been rated as high-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
Selected	This article was displayed as the Portal:Trains "Selected article" for week 10, 2006.

On the subject of Box Tunnel and Brunel's birthday...

R. Angus Buchanan writes in Brunel: The Life and Times of Isambard Kingdom Brunel ISBN 1-85285-331-X (p.269, n.48):

The alignment of the Box Tunnel has been the subject of serious discussion in the New Civil Engineer and elsewhere. I am grateful to my friend James Richard for making calculations which convinced me that the alignment on 9 April would permit the sun to be visible through the tunnel soon after dawn on a fine day.

On the other hand, it is asserted at http://venus.soci.niu.edu/~archives/TOMPAINE/feb99/0023.html that it impossible to guarantee the effect on a particular calendar day, because the angle at which the sun rises on a given date varies slightly with the cycle of leap years.

It is also asserted at http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/news/tunnels.html (about two-thirds of the way down the page) that Brunel failed to account for atmospheric refraction and the effect is visible a few days too early. (This page is mainly concerned with another story: that there is a junction within the tunnel leading to a secret bunker.)

Buchanan concludes (ibid., p.226):

...I have found no documentary evidence for the often-repeated story that Brunel aligned the Box Tunnel so that the rising sun shone through it on his birthday, even though careful examination shows that it could indeed do so, and it is certainly a good story.

In light of this, judging the story to be a "myth" may well be too harsh; I'm not sure what the entry should say, though. Box Tunnel is only ten miles from me, but April is months away as I write and I'm not keen on standing in the middle of a high-speed railway line at any time of the year, so I'm not going to go and check.

--rbrwr

I put the bit about Box Tunnel in the article months ago, although I couldn't remember which tunnel. I'd heard about it (and how it wasn't true) at a public lecture at UCL, but (memory loss) again, I can't remember who gave it. -- Tarquin

I've recycled the stuff above into Box Tunnel --rbrwr

---

Stuff from the Great Western article which would be better merged into this article

Isambard Kingdom Brunel was born in 1806 in Portsmouth his mother was named Nee Brunel and his father was named Marc Brunel.His father sent him to the college of caen in Normandy , France when he was 14 years of age. He went to the Henri Quatre school in Parris. In 1826, when he was20, the young Brunel was appointed resident engineer.The biggest event in his life was swallewing a coin and having to have an operation but it went terribley wrong a few days later it came out naturally. -- Derek Ross 17:24 Nov 12, 2002 (UTC)

I have checked the above information against Buchanan's biography and have incorporated it in a corrected and substantially rewritten form. --rbrwr

Contents 1 Brunel as inventor 2 Bridgwater bridges 3 Opening para. 4 On TV 5 Timeline 6 Tunnel Clarification, "Other End" in 1828 7 Knighthood? 8 Vandalism? 9 Unusual Name 10 Featured article? 11 Family life 12 Failure? 13 Top photo date 14 Second Greatest Briton? 15 "First propeller-driven steamship" 16 Currency 17 Marc Brunel/Isambard Brunel confusion?

[edit] Brunel as inventor

Somebody has placed Isambard Kingdon Brunel is the British Inventors category. I question this since IKB invented nothing, he was a civil engineer and designer of ships. His father Marc Isambard was the inventor and had patents to his name. Any comments before I remove it? Apwoolrich 14:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bridgwater bridges

Brunel designed a timber-framed bridge over the Parrett on the B&E line at Somerset Bridge. a mile or two SE of Bridgwater. The telescopc bridge serving the Bridgater Docks, mentioned in an earlier edit was not designed and built until after Brunel's death.Apwoolrich 19:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opening para.

In the opening para I have removed mention of the broad gauge since that appears two sections below, and the changeover on the GWR line anyway occured after IKB's death. I have replaced this by an acknowledgement that not all his innovations were successful. I have added mention of the bridges. Op. Deo 19:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I've tweaked your work a bit, and I think the combined product is a lot better than what was there a day ago. -Lommer | ^talk 00:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help with wording. I want to nit pick over the following -

• • many notable bridges is perhaps questionable. I can think of two - Clifton Suspension Bridge, and Royal Albert Bridge and might possibly add a third Maidenhead Railway Bridge. I am not sure whether the many other bridges are considered notable. I suggest removing the word many.
  • Rather than the ventures themselves generating publicity, I had wanted to bring out that IKB himself is considered in all the books I have read to have been a notable publicist for his schemes. What would you say to "He generated much publicity for his projects and his achievements are still widely celebrated today." Please improve my wording.

Op. Deo 09:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The Tamar bridge is notable. Midgley 22:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this is already a great improvement, and Op. Deo's proposals sound reasonable to me. It captures what I wanted to convey (but dismally failed) about Brunel's projects not always being successful in themselves, but often being innovative and influential. --rbrwr^± 11:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I've put in the changes suggested. If you can see any other possible improvements, feel free to make them right on the page. -Lommer | ^talk 01:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On TV

In the 1980's there was a short animated film shown on BBC2 (UK) that covered the life and achivements of IKB. I used to have a copy of it but have since lost it. Does anyone else remember this?--Mattyw 11:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Possibly Bob Godfrey's Oscar-winning Great (IMDB; Toonhound), which is already mentioned in the article? --rbrwr^± 12:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

I have moved it to Template:Isambard Kingdom Brunel timeline. Does anyone know why links in the middle of text do not render properly? See the template talk page for an example, and compare List of popes (graphical). It seems that links at the start of the text are OK (it even works if you add a newline before the link with a ~) but not otherwise. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• No idea - I'd planned on linking from the timeline but as you say it doesnt work --PopUpPirate 13:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tunnel Clarification, "Other End" in 1828

"Two severe incidents of flooding halted work for long periods, killing several workers and badly injuring the younger Brunel. The latter incident, in 1828, killed Collins and Ball, the two most senior miners, and Brunel himself narrowly escaped death; a water break-in hurled him from a tunnelling platform, knocking him unconscious, and he was washed up to the other end of the tunnel by the surge"

While the disaster indeed happened, it is my understanding that the tunnel was only half complete in 1828 so it wasn't possible to enter one end and come out of the other end. Or am I mistaken? This may need to be reworded or clarified. Mdrejhon 00:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Presumably one end was the tunnelling face (supported by mention of a tunnelling platform), and the other end (to where he was washed) was the "open" end. David Underdown 10:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knighthood?

Brunel was never knighted, but he was voted the second most influential Briton of all time? Even Sean Connery got knighted! :) Anyone know what kept him from being knighted? --Fxer 01:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Just one comment - Brunel died 150 years ago: it was a different world. He was not out of the 'top drawer' and, worse, he was French. I don't suppose the estimable Sir Sean would have been knighted in the nineteenth century even assuming had could have found a way to become noteworthy.

Marc Brunel was knighted, he was much more French than IKB, and had (according to his article) even done time in the nick (albeit only a debtor's gaol). It is a bit curious, I had never really thought about it before. Badgerpatrol 14:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course Marc had high-profile government contracts whereas Isambard (I think) did only commercial work.

And he was never written about by Samuel Smiles, nor was his father for that matter. Apwoolrich 19:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

I was shocked to find that a couple of minutes ago this page was covered in images of genitalia and had some kind of attack on Jimbo Wales at the top of the page. I must say I am rather surprised that a featured article would not be temporarily suspended from editing so that this very thing cannot happen. Comments? GBMorris 01:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw that too. i checked the history and it appeared to have been vandalized multiple times by seemingly different users, and reverted always by the same one. but now when i check the history, it all seems to be gone. i'm glad to see i wasn't hallucinating! --Someones life 01:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

the admins have been alerted and are on the case. They're doing some funky god stuff, and the history page is shimmering in and out of existance.--Yannick 01:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a rule that the article which is featured on the main page today must not be protected if at all possible.--File Éireann 01:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Given the obscenity, and the vandal's persistance, I think protection would be warranted. Can you point us to the rule in question?--Yannick 01:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

See user:Raul654/protection Raul654 01:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but those policy points seem to be referring to pre-emptive protection and occasional vandalism, and were first written before the existence of semi-protection. This vandalism is current, persistent, and serious, and can be solved with semi-protection without affecting pre-registered editors.--Yannick 01:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you read the last point it also specifically states the current FA shouldn't be semi-protected for the same reasons. Sfnhltb 01:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If you click through to actual current policy, you'll find that it has been clarified to say that the FA should not be pre-emptively semi-protected. This is not pre-emptive.--Yannick 02:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[Semiprotection is] not intended for pre-emptive protection of articles that might get vandalized if they haven't been already. This includes the day's Featured Article, which should almost never be protected It shouldn't be pre-emptively protected, and it shouldn't be protected in general (unless the article is getting seriously vandalized, a level which this article isn't even close to) Raul654 07:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unusual Name

Wikipedia does a great job, but today's article leaves me with an unanswered question: where does Mr. Brunel's name come from? (Well, obviously it's a combination of his father's and mother's last names, but that's only a very partial explanation.)

I'll bet I'm not the only one with the same question.

Isambard is his father's middle name. According to this page it is not really an unusual name and has an ancient lineage - Isambard developed from Germanic names like "Isanbert"´and "Eisenbarth" which mean "shining/glittering like iron/metal". English surnames can be anything so "Kingdom" is not that surprising, here is a page on its apparent Cornish origins. "Brunel" is related to old words for "brown" - see this page Bwithh 07:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article?

Hi! The subject and the way it is portrayed is very interesting. BUT. This must be the worst witten featured article I have ever come across. Things seems to be thrown in at almost random fashion, one-liners are all over the place, the article lacks continuity and integrty - a lot of things are mentioned, but they do not seem to fit into one big picture. Sorry for commenting badly on this, but I think this is the truth. A lot of effort must have gone into writing it, I acknowledge that it's not easy to write a comprehensive yet relatively short article about such a great man. Well, go on boys/girls, just clean it up! (and yes, I will help) Msoos 08:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family life

The article focusses on Brunel's engineering achievments. However, Brunel was a colourful character outside of work - staying married but leaving his wife in the UK while he worked in France and took a mistress. A little more information about the man himself would help balance the article, and remind readers that even heroes have feet of clay (Winston Churchill included). AMe 09:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm well aware of editing ... but I don't have any reliable information to hand to add in with confidence, but wanted to give those with access to the reference information a chance to make the amendments. AMe 10:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failure?

I was taken by the following phrase in the article: "...in this case Brunel's failure was principally one of economics..." Well, that's a pretty damn big failure for a commercial engineer. Engineers are supposed to make money for their backers. I wonder what response I might get to the suggestion that Brunel was a great industrial designer but a lousy engineer? PS. And maybe also a great salesman.

As a civil engineer i would disagree, our jobs are not to make money for backers but instead to solve problems for our clients. This may or may not involve the client or backer making a profit as a result. For exmaple engineers design and build Hospitals for Governments but no one expects these institutions to make the government any money, infact the reverse is usually true. Whether or not Brunel made himself and his backers rich has no bearing on whether he can be considered a great engineer. SkorponokX 20:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Top photo date

There is a contradiction with a statement in the article:

Brunel suffered a stroke in 1859, just before the Great Eastern made its first voyage to New York about an hour after the top photo was taken

And the comment in the picture itself, which states:

Isambard Kingdom Brunel. Photo: Robert Howlett (1831-1858), 1857

Where is the error? --Nova77 20:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The comment on the image page is correct. The photo itself is famous enough to have has newspaper articles [1] and museum descriptions [2] [3] . There are some good IKB images at the latter (although the Design Museum somewhat dubiously asserts copyright on images almost 150 years old).

In any event, Howlett died in 1858!

IKB did, however, collapse on the deck of the Great Eastern in 1859, two days before its launch, and die 10 days later. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Greatest Briton?

I'm not sure the BBC vote should feature so prominently - it's widely believed that Brunel's high ranking was due to extensive campaigning by students from Brunel University. It was certainly a surprise to see him ranked so high. --Auximines 20:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I always thought that it was because Jeremy Clarkson produced such an entertaining programme about him. Lord knows it wasn't because New Civil Engineer hyped him. Leithp 20:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's have it right - it was a surprise that Diana featured so highly! ;) --PopUpPirate 20:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

21:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)I find it shocking that Brunel could be placed second and Joseph Bazalgette, who virtually founded modern civil engineering in Britain, cleaned up the River Thames, designed and executed the City of London's massive sewer system relieving the metropolis of the scourge of frequent epidemics of water-borne diseases, and creator of many of the great parks, streets, and housing projects of London, is left out. Anyone ever hear of the Victoria Embankment? How about his role in the vast expansion of the use of Portland cement in civil engineering, and the concepts of quality control that accompanied it?

Well Bazalgette isn't exactly unique in being a neglected great Civil Engineer. Personally I was happy that any engineer was recognised so highly and I wouldn't have quibbled about who it was. I might have gone for Telford myself, although that might just be blind patriotism from a Scot. Leithp 22:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "First propeller-driven steamship"

The 2nd paragraph of the article credits Brunel with the "development of the first propeller-driven steamship," which is incorrect.[4] Obviously some qualifiers need to be added. Opie 23:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right. How about "first ocean-going propeller-driven steamship"? This still seems a notable achievement and seems to be consistent with the article you linked to, at least Gwernol 23:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. I added something very similar to that, as per the official SS Great Britain site. Opie 19:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks for spotting and correct it. Gwernol 19:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Currency

In the Atmospheric Engine section whoever did the currency conversion got it horribly wrong. Actually, does converting the currency serve any purpose? I vote for removing the conversions (they're wrong anyway). GrahamBould 08:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

How are the conversions wrong? I computed the same values as in the article:

(3s × 1/20 £/s + 1d × 1/240 £/d)/mi × 0.6214 mi/km = £0.10/km

(1s × 1/20 £/s + 4d × 1/240 £/d)/mi × 0.6214 mi/km = £0.04/km

I suppose the currencies were converted because 0.10 £/km versus 0.04 £/km is a clearer comparison than 3s 1d per mile versus 1s 4d per mile. In the former case, for example, it's obvious that conventional steam power cost only 40% as much as atmospheric traction; in the latter case it's hard to directly compare the two costs without having some familiarity with old British coinage. Opie 14:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I had missed the fact that the conversion was to per kilometre. So the figures are OK, my apologies. However, leaving it in miles would be fine as it is a British article & miles are still used there (& the US). Can't see what the benefit of converting to kilometres would be. Actually, you could just say the costs were 40% higher & leave it at that! GrahamBould 18:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Giving both KM and Miles would be approppriate (this is Tar7arus)

[edit] Marc Brunel/Isambard Brunel confusion?

I might not be reading this closely enough, but it seems that in the forward for isambard kingdom brunel he is accredited for inventing the first sub-river tunnel in britain, but then later in the text it sites his father as the inventor of that. could someone figure out/clarify exactly who was the first to make the tunnel? Marc Brunel or his son?

The version there now states that he assisted (his father) in building the tunnel. Are you referring to a previous iteration of the article? Badgerpatrol 00:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)