[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cane: Tramways or Railways?
- Subject: Re: Cane: Tramways or Railways?
- From: dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage)
- Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 01:20:55 GMT
- Newsgroups: aus.rail
- Organization: Another Optus Customer
- References: <5pEV4.38652$PL4.809469@ozemail.com.au> <0592bc38.a3ec3c7d@usw-ex0106-048.remarq.com> <3930db13$0$2611@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <3934cb09.0@news.topend.com.au> <16bb0c9a.4941d631@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com> <tX6Z4.5456$N4.204852@ozemail.com.au> <077024d0.693d04ac@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com>
- Xref: bclass.spectrum.com.au aus.rail:10972
John Dennis (jdennisNOjdSPAM@acslink.net.au.invalid) wrote:
> >The General Tramways Act 1884 was, I assume, a Sth Australian
> >act and hence of no effect east of Cockburn (or, more correctly,
> >Burns).
> I am sure you are right Barry, but all I was trying to say was
> that whether tramways or railways, it wasn't safeworking that
> differentiated.
The legal difference between a railway and a tramway was he amount of land
the owner was required to maintain. A tramway only had to maintain the
land to the edge of the sleepers. A railway had to maintain (I think) 12
feet wither side or to the fenceline, whichever was closer.
Cheers
David