Re: [NSW] Old Structures was Gauntlet Track

["Derick Wuen" <cullend@webone.com.au>]

Further correction to my list....

Lithgow stone underbridge is over Johns St, not James St.

Robert Lee wrote in message ...
>
>Derick Wuen wrote in message <39635a19@iridium.webone.com.au>...
>>>
>>Comments on my own list.... Fairfield surely 1856 not 1858; Liverpool
goods
>>shed on track layout diagram dated 1858, but probably there at opening in
>>1856.
>
>
>I agree with you there.  Fairfield must be 1856 and I suspect that the
>Liverpool goods shed was 1856 too.
>
>>ARHS Bulletin 1955 on Sydney-Parramatta opening has map of Sydney yard
>>showing (ever so slighltly, but ever so clearly) that the single track to
>>Darling Harbour was offset to the right of the tunnel (facing tunnel from
>>Sydney Yard end) insinuating the stone arch was indeed constructed to
>>accommodate double track. Most  major structures on rest of "system" were
>>constructed to double track standards, even though track was single from
>>Newtown to Parramatta on opening day.
>
>That's a relief, so it is the original tunnel (or bridge covered with dirt
>as some would have it!), at least at the Darling Harbour end.  I'm not
>surprised it was built for two tracks since, as you say, the rest of the
>line was.
>
>>1867-68 stone culverts in Picton - Mittagong section near Colo Vale on
>>original 1 in 33 alignment.
>
>Yes, I've seen them, and, if we are real picky, I think it was 1 in 30.
>
>
>>On original line near Werai, main south. Line deviated, leaving "whitton"
>>gatehouse in the middle of a paddock. Can be seen on down side of line
from
>>current trains.
>
>
>A very attractive gatehouse too, if a bit isolated since Werai closed.
>
>>Note question marks. Windsor original station building was demolished and
>>re-erected as a private dwelling some distance away; Riverstone and
>Mulgrave
>>ORIGINAL buildings in existence in 1964. Riverstone building beside the
>1878
>>one; Mulgrave building bumped from station to residence status. See ARHS
>>bulletin 1964. I have not travelled the line in many years, and
>>electrification and modernisation might have done these in.
>
>Very interesting.  I didn't realise they were original.  I'm like you in my
>relationship with the Richmond line.  It gave me so much pleasure as a
>teenager in the 1960s riding the CPHs and S class on LUB sets, that I
have't
>been on it for more than 30 years.  I just don't have the heart to look at
>it now (and I live in Sydney!).  I think I'd find it too depressing, like
>meeting an old flame who's gone to seed.
>
>>I recently discovered an account (in the SMH)
>>>of an orgy in Mittagong to celebrate the line's opening in 1867.  Now I
>>know
>>>where all the booze was drunk, etc, etc.  By the way, John Whitton died
>>>about 200 metres away.
>>
>>What from the cumulative effects of the many opening ceremonies he must
>have
>>attended?
>
>
>No, not from all the opening ceremonies - he was 78 when he died.  In fact
>John Whitton normally did not attend opening ceremonies.  He avoided them
>like the plague.  THe freeloaders always included his many critics in the
>parliament, who went there to enjoy the fruits and grains of the land
>(mostly fermented and/or distilled) at the taxpayers' expense.  Whitton
>though stayed away, not because he was shy but becasue he hated so many of
>the guests.  He did drink though.  His estate included a very respectable
>cellar indeed.  (How do I know all this???  Time for a shameless piece of
>self-promotion..... I've just finished a biography of Whitton, soon to be
>published by the ARHS.)
>>
>>>  (4) Isn't Cox's River viaduct wonderful!!!
>>Its a crying shame that its so tucked away from view and
>"unphotographable".
>>Has anyone taken reasonable shots of this structure?
>
>
>I haven't seen any for ages.  There's a well-known shot with a 17 class on
a
>down goods train on it, but it was taken about 1870!  Nothing since!!!
>THere are good shots around of the two viaducts at Farmer's Creek though.
>(I've even taken a few myself, in the bygone era when there were trains
>worth photographing.)  A problem with Cox's River is that the environs have
>become very industrial over the last 30 years or so.  Looking at it from
the
>comfort of the MBE on the Clandulla trip, I think a shot would be possible
>of a down train that would not be too bad - at least not too many wires and
>no power station.  Another problem is light.  The Whitton bridge is on the
>south side of the current bridge, so most of the year the light would be
>poor.  By comparison the old bridge is on the north side at Farmer's Creek.
>I hope these comments inspire some photographers to get out there and do
it,
>and show it to us in Digest.  Pity about the trains nowadays though!
>
>>Yes I would like to see a list of "bluestone beauties".
>
>Geelong and Ballarat stations aren't bluestone, I think, but they sure are
>interesting, dare I say more interesting than most of Whitton's stations,
so
>come on Victorians!  You can do it!
>
>>SA and Tas probably also have some relics tucked away.
>Let's hear about them....
>
>