Re: Cane: Tramways or Railways?

["Kosh Naranek" <richardcremovethis@tpg.com.au>]

In NSW it had more to do with crewing requirements and platforms eg Yass,
Camden
Barry Campbell <campblbm@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
BssZ4.6194$N4.233181@ozemail.com.au">news:BssZ4.6194$N4.233181@ozemail.com.au...
>
> Mark Bau wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> >> From: dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage)
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >Of all of the "definitions" of the difference between a railway and a
> >tramway this is another "official defintion" to add to the collection.
The
> >definitions obviously varied from state to state otherwise we would have
> had
> >the Hamersly Iron tramway!
> >
> >I don't think the above definition is in any way correct. If it was it
> would
> >mean VR had to maintain the entire main street of Wycheproof.
> >Someone needs to research this subject so we get an "official" definition
> >and end all of this conjecture.
> >
> You got it, Mark. It varied from state to state and from time to time and
> even from place to place in any particular state.
>
> For example, in Qld there were for many years three types of tramways.
>
> The first type were the street tramways in Rockhampton and Brisbane. I
don't
> know what sort of legislation they came under, but unless they were
> specifically deemed to be something else (unlikely) they would be tramways
> because that's what the word "tram" meant in common usage. I can't find my
> copy of the Qld Acts Interpretation Act at present but the general
principle
> is that words have their ordinary meaning unless otherwise specified.
>
>
> The second type were the numerous shire tramways which ultimately either
> became part of QR or various sugar tramways or were closed. (The last was
> the Aramac Shire Tramway which lasted into the 1970s.) These were ordinary
> railways and substantial parts of the QR North Coast line were originally
> shire tramways. They were deemed to be tramways under the legislation that
> allowed divisional boards (the predecessors of shire councils) to borrow
> money and levy rates for the construction of tramways, thereby relieving
the
> State of the necessity to provide such railways.
>
>
> The third type were cane tramways. I don't know the legal background of
> these prior to the present - maybe they have only been called tramways in
> popular usage. Who knows?
>
> Queensland is different, but it is a good illustration of the fact that
> simple answers are not always correct.
>
>
> Are there any lawyers lurking, or even law students (other than me - I'm
too
> busy). This would be a good research exercise.
>
>
> Barry Campbell
>
>