Talk:Huntly rail bridge bombing

1951 coal to a 1982 power station?
It is impossible for a 1951 incident to block coal supplies to the Huntly Power Station, since the power station was only commissioned in 1982. Can someone please check this, then remove the disputed tag. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 05:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. From what I can tell on google books, the two sources cited just say the rail bridge linked the mines to Huntly - and don't mention the power station. Mattlore (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Council and power board were calling for a power station in 1936, but nothing seems to have happened until 1982.Johnragla (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Huntly power station wasn't there in 1951. And anyway, the power station is on the same side of the river as the coal mines, and receives coal via conveyor belt from the Rotowaro mine. So destroying the bridge wouldn't disrupt supply of coal from the Huntly mines to the power station even if it had been there. However, it would have disrupted coal being carried by rail to other destinations. The bridge was later used for the power station, such as carrying the imported Indonesian coal that came in (about 50 years later) via Port of Tauranga. --Pakaraki (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * However, there was a power station from, "1916 (started in 1915) with our own Power Plant which was owned by the Huntly Town Board, however this was taken over in time by the Central Waikato Electric Power Board." The 1500kW 'Huntly steam plant' is also mentioned in many government reports, eg Table N.—Electric-supply Stations of New Zealand at 31st March, 1923, 1934 standby plant, 1947 still used as standby to cover peak loads 5 days a week in winter. It's not clear where the power station was, but the aerial photos of Huntly West seem to show just houses. A sub-station is marked on Glasgow St on the 1946 map. Having said that, disruption to a small standby power station would not have been a significant motivation for the bombing.Johnragla (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * One needs to remember that, in 1951, New Zealanders burnt coal for heating their homes. Electricity was for lighting and hot water. Disrupting coal supplies was seen as an attempt to intimidate the government. Also, a lot of local councils operated gas-works, making reticulated town gas from coal. This was 20+ years before natural gas was being extracted in Taranaki. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Damaged, not demolished
What "... contemporary New Zealand reports ..." say that the bridge was "demolished"? New Zealand newspaper reports on 1st and 2nd May 1951 say an attempt was made to blow up the bridge with charges of dynamite being shot off in holes bored into the bridge timbers. A early morning train crossed the bridge before the crew discovered the damage, and trains were reported running on the line a couple of days later, so it is unlikely the explosion demolished the bridge. The New Zealand reports are more detailed than those in Australian newspapers, which appear to be a summary of various New Zealand reports. For example: Perhaps the story has been retold and embellished with time. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Australian newspaper coverage of this event was also widespread, with 60+ hits for the search term "bridge dynamited" appearing between 30 April and 4 May 1951. Many of these similarly worded articles are credited to a 30 March report by A.A.P-Reuter that summarizes reports in New Zealand newspapers. And if one digs deeper, one does find more serious coverage, like: . As well as editorial opinion from both sides of the political fence, including:, and . - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Even Prime Minister Sid Holland is clear the bridge was only damaged, not demolished. He is quoted as saying "Immediately I received reports about the affair at Auckland and the dastardly attempt to wreck the railway bridge near Huntly I gave the Minister in charge of Police (Mr W. H. Fortune) directions to deal with the situation, and I also spoke personally to the Commissioner of Police (Mr J. B. Young)," - see

Disrupted coal supply
The lead section says the bridge [explosion] "... disrupted the supply of coal from nearby coal mines." This statement comes from the Te Ara source, but I wonder if that is an accurate interpretation of what happened. The underground coal miners were on strike at the time but the open-cast mine workers had continued to work the open-cast mines. This information comes from a 30th April 1951 report by the New Zealand Press Association (NZPA). The NZPA also reported that trains were "running normally" a day later, so presumably, some coal was still being produced and transported by rail. Could the "severe disruption" be due to the miners strike, but has been attributed to the dynamiting of the bridge in the official history, for other reasons? There are conflicting sources when comparing the 1951 newspaper reports and later "histories". - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Revised - 08:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, there are several reports dating from the beginning of April 1951 of coal-burning freight steamer having to burn wood on a run between Auckland and Lyttelton because no bunker coal was available in Auckland, such as "WOOD USED FOR FUEL: LOCHYBANK’S TRIP FROM AUCKLAND" Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26391, 9 April 1951, Page 6, also reported in Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26384, 31 March 1951, Page 6, Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26380, 3 April 1951, Page 6, Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26387, 4 April 1951, Page 3, and also reported some Australian newspapers:
 * This is a month before the bridge explosion. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC) - updated 19:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a month before the bridge explosion. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC) - updated 19:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a month before the bridge explosion. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC) - updated 19:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Reporting restrictions
The statement that reporting restrictions result in conflicting sources seems to be editorializing in an attempt to explain conflicting interpretations by sources. The imposition of reporting restrictions at the time appears to be a reaction to the bridge explosion. A 1st May 1951 report, about Emergency Powers says that emergency regulation under the Public Safety Conservation Act were "tightened up" that day to include publication restrictions. This was in reaction to the bridge being dynamited and other violence. To state that any reporting restrictions were in place when the explosion occurred on 30 April 1951 needs sources to articulate what sort of restrictions were in place at a particular time and explain what could and could not be published. The reporting restrictions seemed to be targeted at statements made by the strikers and the opposition after 1 May 1951, factual reporting of events do not seem to have been restricted, but political propaganda was. One cannot conclude that the conflicting stories in early 1951 sources is due to publication restrictions, if none were in place at the time. One might consider that the conflicting stories appearing in later sources could be due to a misinterpretation of whatever sources those later (conflicting) sources have relied upon. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The "Restrictions on the N.Z. Press" were explained on 3 May 1951 in the "Melbourne Herald" as being limited to "... forbidding the local press to publish the views of the strike leaders ..." The fact that news reporting was being restricted was still able to be reported on. See Restrictions on Press: Journalists' Protest (The Press - 1 May 1951) for example. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Railway bridge near Huntly
The various sources cited mostly say the location of this event was "a railway bridge near Huntly", although one source says "in", rather than near. This can be interpreted as a quite differently location to "the Huntly rail bridge". Richardson, p292 gives the location of the bridge as "near Mahuta, three miles from Huntly" and describes it as "more of a culvert". This is supported by the NZPA report of 30 April 1951, which also says three miles from Huntly and that the bridge was about a chain (22 yards/20 metres) long. That report also mentions passengers saying the train stopping at 3 or 4 bridges before reaching Rotowaro. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Consistency story in other articles
The Huntly rail bridge bombing is mentioned in several other Wikipedia articles. The factual accuracy of this event that is portrayed in those articles varies, depending on the sources used and when the articles were edited. I have edited the Glen Afton Branch [railway] article History to say that "A bridge near Mahuta was damaged by dynamite during the 1951 Waterfront dispute."; citing Richardson (Page 192) and 1 May 1951 newspaper reports from both New Zealand and Australia. However, in other articles there is an inconsistent story compared to the current article. The problem I have with both Lance Beath's Te Ara story and the NZ History article, which Beath cites, is that the story is inaccurate, their sources are unclear, and not given. The source by Gunaratna and Kam, from 2016, is also citing the NZ History article, seemingly misinterpreting it in the process. On the other hand, Richardson's account accords with the newspaper reports of the day from Papers Past and Trove, and his detailed footnotes indicate his research includes newspaper sources not available on-line via Papers Past or Trove. Curiously, past editors of this article have noted the inconsistencies in the source material, yet still preferred the brief accounts from NZ History and Te Ara, both operated by the Ministry of Culture and Heritage, over the more detailed accounts by Richardson and the newspapers of the day. Editors have been reluctance to say that "reliable sources" have got the story wrong, while rejecting detailed news sources of the time that say something quite different happened. I do understand that articles from the Press have only recently become available from Papers Past, but the articles from Trove were already available in 2017 and clearly told a different, and more believable, story than NZ History and Te Ara. It is now time to believe the news of the day and correct the story to explain what actually occurred. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1951 in rail transport - Under §April, an uncited statements says "a bridge is blown up to disrupt coal supplies during an industrial dispute."
 * Bridges in New Zealand - Under §Bridge disasters and incidents, citing NZ History, it misinterprets the source, saying that "... a rail bridge was blown up ..." when the source just says the bridge was "... dynamited ..." without mentioning the bridge was only damaged, not demolished.
 * Rail sabotage - Under §Damage to infrastructure,an uncited statment says "... a rail bridge in Huntly, New Zealand, was blown up in order to disrupt coal supplies to a nearby power station, aiding the cause of striking workers."
 * Terrorism in New Zealand - Under §Huntly rail bridge bombing, citing both NZHistory and Beath, says that "... a rail bridge was blown up near Huntly, Waikato." and also inaccurately claims that "The train drivers were warned and the bombing severely disrupted coal supplies.", because of inaccuracies in the source material.
 * Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 - Under §Background, citing a printed journal article from 2002 not cited elsewhere, says the bombing was of "... the Huntly rail bridge ..." Although the on-line version of the article requires a subscription, its references, which are visible, suggests the cited source does not examine the 1951 incident as none of its sources either date from 1951 or appear to refer to the 1951 dispute or bombing.
 * In the article about the 1951 New Zealand waterfront dispute the bridge bombing is only listed in §See also without commentary, though its significance and aftermath should probably be discussed in this article.
 * While in the Huntly, New Zealand article, there is no mention of the bombing at all.
 * In the Glen Afton Branch article, I updated the §History section on 26 November 2022. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated wiki-links in Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 article, §Background section, to point directly to the relevant terrorism articles, not locations, on 27 November 2022 - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated Rail sabotage article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated Bridges in New Zealand article, in §Bridge disasters and incidents section. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated 1951 in rail transport article, in §April section. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Update Terrorism in New Zealand article, §Huntly rail bridge bombing section. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

NZ History source updated on 28 November 2022
The source 'Division and defeat', nzhistory.govt.nz, (Ministry for Culture and Heritage), was updated on 28 November 2022. It has been changed to read: "On 30 April a railway bridge near Huntly was dynamited, presumably by striking coal miners. Train drivers were warned in advance and no No one was hurt when a train crossed the weakened structure, but coal supplies were severely disrupted. Prime Minister Holland ..." An archived version is also available. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)