| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Photo
editThe current photo is incorrect, it is of "Hawthorn Railway Bridge" Kmcinnes (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
this is fixed now with one of my own photos Garyvines (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
sources
editI removed the Refimprove tag after adding a few good secondary sources
Proposed merge
editHawthorn Railway Bridge seems to duplicate this article. I have proposed that they may be merged, rather than simply redirecting one, so that no information is lost. If they are not the same bridge, then each article should have a "not to be confused with..." hatnote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- These are two different bridges built around the same time - one for a railway and one a road bridge. I will put in the not to be confused with line. Garyvines (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. I wonder if each article should have a paragraph no the relationship between the two bridges? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- The infobox provides for the 'relationship' with the preceding (upriver) and following (downriver) parameters. Today added. There doesn't need to be anything in the body content of the article. Rangasyd (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you. I wonder if each article should have a paragraph no the relationship between the two bridges? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)




