Talk:Harlin Rail Bridge

Destruction of bridge and massive deletion of article content

Does the information on the bridge being destroyed have a source? A lot of changes appear to have been made without any citation to justify them. Assuming the bridge has been destroyed, it remains heritage-listed and hence its history and description are still needed. If the heritage listing is removed (and they generally wait until it is clear that no restoration will be effected), the article content will be shown as listed and then delisted but still needs its history and description (albeit switched to the past tense). So let's take this process piece by piece. Do we have a citation for the destruction and damage? Kerry (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The new user seems to be right about the destruction (see here) but I'm yet to find a reliable source. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really thinking it didn't occur, but just trying to work through the changes logically. Did it happen? How bad? Is it going to restored? Is it going to be delisted? Having thought about the Village Twin Cinemas (New Farm Cinemas), I think we need a consistent approach to dealing with renovated/damaged/destroyed/delisted heritage properties. Generally speaking, the renovation/damage/destruction/delisting doesn't greatly affect the History section beyond the addition of information about the renovaton/damage/destruction/delisting. It's the Description section that needs more care. I am inclined to splitting the Description into two (or more) subsections: a description of the property while it was heritage-listed (since we usually have plenty of detail with the QHR as the source) and additional subsections for the description after each major renovation/damage event (the issue with these is that we are unlikely to have access to the detail of the property after the changes and, if we do, they are more likely to be primary sources). I don't think it's such a great idea to only describe the property in its "current" form because that's not what it's notable for. It's notable for what it *was* at the point of heritage listing rather than for what it may subsequently have become, so that's the "as listed" description I think people would want to see, even it has been subsequently degraded to the point of being delisted. Kerry (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I found a couple of newspaper hits in Factiva concerning the basics, so updated the article changing things to past tense and added mention of the destruction. I don't think we have the same sort of problems as New Farm Cinemas here because there's such a short description section: it really just describes the basics of the bridge, and describing the surviving remnants would require more info than I've got access to (and doesn't seem as important as it's pretty obvious that there's just some form of ruin left). The QHR delists stuff when they get around to it (which we know from that set of delistings a while back sometimes takes quite a long time) so who knows about that, and it seems unlikely that the bridge will be restored judging from the little I could find. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Although we can't upload it for copyright reasons, this appears to be a photo of the bridge after the floods. Clearly it's not looking good but not competely disappeared without a trace either. 10:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how to incorporate that much into the article though. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it might be a situation where I need to go and eyeball it. I suspect we will struggle to find "reliable sources" about its current state. But hopefully I can get a photo of it (but not until after the deluge of rain we are having). Looking at it in Google Maps satellite view it seems that someone has removed the bridge decking that can be seen in that Facebook photo (perhaps for safety reasons) and just left two supports one on either side of the creek. I notice that the Brisbane Valley Rail Trail (a pedestrian/cycle/horseriding path) which used the former railway line and its bridges has now got an "unofficial bypass route" that avoids the Harlin bridge, which might be a consequence of the bridge's destruction. Kerry (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The 2016 article included in this article mentions that the bridge's destruction had been a major blow to the rail trail, so presumably so. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)