Re: Cane: Tramways or Railways?

["Barry Campbell" <campblbm@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