Jump to content

Talk:Murrumbidgee River railway bridge, Wagga Wagga

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

viaduct length record

[edit]

longest timber viaduct? surely Gundagai lays claim to that? The timber approach spans are among the longest such timber structures in New South Wales.[1]--Arktos talk 10:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I misunderstood on what it said? The bridge originally had an extensive series of timber girder approaches, chiefly on the northern side and now replaced. Collectively they form perhaps the largest timber viaduct ever constructed in Australia. (Source: Australian Heritage Database). I love to know if it's fact or not. -- Robertmyers 10:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More research needed obviously to reconcile the conflicting sources :-)--Arktos talk 19:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got a book today called Viaducts On Australian Railways by William A. Bayley. It has two pages about the Murrumbidgee and here is a quote "Upstream from Wagga Wagga the Murrumbidgee River was later crossed at Gundagai when the line was extended thence subsequently to Tumut." Going by the book the viaduct at Wagga Wagga was completed in 1879 and was tested and opened in 1880 (A temporary bridge was constructed downstream of the site were the bridge is today) and the total length in the book says 9398 feet (2.8645104 km) Can you email me and I'll scan the 2 pages to you. -- Robertmyers 11:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

[edit]

I think the page move was wrong. There is a rail bridge over the Murrumbidgee at Gundagai to I suspect - also well known and probably deserving of an article at some stage.--Arktos talk 19:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back since there is another rare wrought iron lattice truss in Narrandera with the same name (Doesn't have the name of the Narrandera bridge but proves that there is one). -- Robertmyers 21:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

[edit]

Seeing as one editor is demonstrating symptoms of thinking he/she has ownership of the article [2] and presumably believes it is in perfect shape, when it has some obvious errors, thought the changes that have been rejected should be listed: [3]

  • 1) Infobox opening date: expanded from 1881 to 23 January 1881 per [4]
  • 2) Infobox closing date: changed from 3 January 2007 to 30 December 2006, not likely to have closed 4 days after demolition started
  • 3) Infobox carries: expanded from Rail to Main Southern railway line
  • 4) Remove statement "The bridge is of major importance to the history of bridge engineering in Australia" - needs to explain why
  • 5) Replace dead cite [5] with webarchived version [6]
  • 6) Category: is categorised as a concrete bridge, incorrect it was a Lattice truss bridge
  • 7) Tumbarail, expanded to explain what this organisation is, given that is has been redlinked for 8 years
  • 8) add cite [7] confirming replacement dates
  • 9) gallery removed, a series of images of the bridge being demolished adds little value, all are included in link provided to a Commons gallery. Gallery policy point 4 states: "Photographs or media files with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons."
If the article was of sufficient length to accommodate around the prose then their inclusion would be welcomed. But 8 images that are not materially different is a bit of an overkill.

Probably am wasting my time given the editor's previous history of digging his/her heals in to make a point, even if to the detriment of the project, but thought it should be put on the record. Mo7838 (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murrumbidgee River Railway 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:

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) 20:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New South Wales State Heritage Register

[edit]

This bridge is categorised as being on the NSW State Heritage Register, but there is no citation for this and my search of the register failed to find it (maybe it is listed under a different name). Can anyone shed any light onto this? Kerry (talk) 07:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

suburb search , not name search viaducts Dave Rave (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Register of the National Estate ? 2nd ref Dave Rave (talk)
Listing was likely removed after the bridge was demolished? It did exist The lattice bridge is on the Register of the National Estate and it and the viaducts are Classified by the National Trust (NSW) p.11, it also had a Historic Engineering Marker from the Engineers Australia. Bidgee (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Classified by the National Trust doesn't mean listed on the State Heritage Register though. It's a real pain in these situations that the state heritage registers don't retain a record for destroyed sites, as the Register of the National Estate did. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was heritage listed as "Lattice bridge and viaduct" (quite a few years ago now), however now the listing only has viaduct. As stated likely removed when the bridge was removed. Which it is somewhat sad to see the history can be wiped, rather than archived. Bidgee (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the coverage from the time of the bridge's replacement mentions heritage listing. I'm not sure how much that means, since the RNE was still in force at the time. One story in 2002 stated "The bridge appears in both State and National Heritage listings, and its replacement is expected to cost around $20 million", but it's never referenced again and the author could well have made the same mistake as Bidgee. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make a mistake! It was listed on the NSW Heritage Register as part of the viaduct, however all references to it have been removed in the viaduct heritage listing. Don't forget that archives of news and websites are rather poor. Bidgee (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murrumbidgee_River_railway_bridge,_Wagga_Wagga&oldid=1209269533"