Re: Camden Trams

["John Kerr" <jkerr@gil.com.au>]

The last of the Camden tram was a great weekend. I was in Canberra on
vacation work, others came from Melbourne, quite a number of us slept in the
waiting room at Campbelltown and travelled on most of the last day's regular
trips. The tiger cutout was commander from the local service station and we
had the tiger in the tank. Lots of motorcaders on the road caused heaps of
congestion. One of the biggest fan turnouts to that time I think - certainly
as a Queenslander I hadn't seen anything like it. But also sad that a
heavily graded line that would have been fine with electric traction was cut
off - would it not be rather valuable now? or am I one-eyed. John Kerr
bf0017@hotmail.com wrote in message <8ttrna$og1$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>That's the idea, if it is adopted.
>
>18 was donated to the NSWRTM in pieces and without tender.  When the
>NSWR re-assembled it, the present tender (TAB 62 - 2408) was coupled to
>it to make 18 more complete.
>
>When labour & time permits, a more appropriate livery will be applied.
>
>Brett
>
>In article <971863652.100296@unity.swspn.net.au>,
>  Craig Warton <craigw@wolf.net.au> wrote:
>> Regretably Chris, most (all) of the groups are only really
>playing "choo choos"
>> and have no interest in preservation or a sense of history - or an
>appreciation
>> of history. Going by the RTM, private railways do not count either -
>have a look
>> at the butchered condition of number 18. It is painted in a very
>fanciful colour
>> scheme and fitted with a B class tender. There is a Beyer Peacock 6
>wheel tender
>> down the back and it would be quite easy - and appropriate to restore
>it to
>> Corrimal Coal and Coke condition (Now that is an idea!)
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> Chris wrote:
>>
>> > I am really amazed that there are a few large rail groups who seem
>to think
>> > that only the 1960's era is worth preserving. Look out the back of
>their
>> > museums any you can see historically far more important 19th and
>early 20th
>> > century exhibits neglected and rusting away. Like the 10,12, 13, 18
>class ,
>> > and Mersey tank, E18, plus early passenger and freight vehicles at
>the RTM.
>> > They are far more interested in acquiring crapped out diesels with
>little
>> > historical significance and spending large sums on repairing them.
>> > I wonder how long before the SRA takes back some of the exhibits at
>RTM?
>> >
>> > Chris
>> >
>> > "Craig Warton" <craigw@wolf.net.au> wrote in message
>> > news:971694293.293019@unity.swspn.net.au...
>> > > Thank you Bob for adding a bit of historical - and factual
>information to
>> > the
>> > > guesses! One day people may realise that the history and
>operation of the
>> > NSWR
>> > > actually predated the 1960's!
>> > >
>> > > Craig
>> > >
>> > > Bob Merchant wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > "Tezza" <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
>> > > > news:39ea5645$0$11607$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
>> > > > <snipped>
>> > > > | But why were they called Camden trams?
>> > > >
>> > > > In 1879 an International Exhibition was held in the Sydney
>Botanical
>> > Gardens
>> > > > and to provide transport from the Redfern Station the
>government built a
>> > > > street tramway operated by small Baldwin-built steam "motors".
>This was
>> > > > hugely successful and engendered the "Tramway Extension Act" of
>29 April
>> > > > 1880, which authorised construction of 14 additional tramways
>to extend
>> > the
>> > > > service to those suburbs not having railway communication with
>Sydney.
>> > > >
>> > > > During the debate prior to the passing of the act, it was felt
>that a
>> > rural
>> > > > route should be included to test whether such a line would be
>> > successful.
>> > > > The route selected, and included in the act, was from
>Campbelltown to
>> > Camden
>> > > > because it was close to Sydney, well populated and could be
>expected to
>> > > > generate large quantities of goods for forwarding to the
>markets in
>> > Sydney.
>> > > >
>> > > > The Sectetary for Public Works stated "...the object of the
>government,
>> > in
>> > > > proposing the construction of a tramway from Campbelltown to
>Camden, was
>> > to
>> > > > test the practicability of working tramways for goods traffic in
>> > connection
>> > > > with the railways and because ... it afforded means for a fair
>test."
>> > > >
>> > > > The tramway opened on 10 March 1882 using two Baldwin steam
>tram motors
>> > and
>> > > > three large end-loading trailers.  These were similar to but
>smaller
>> > than
>> > > > the American type end-loading carriages.  Goods traffic was
>carried in
>> > > > railway wagons.
>> > > >
>> > > > It should be noted that until 1932 the Tramways were under the
>control
>> > of
>> > > > the Commissioner(s) for Railways and Tramways so harmonious
>relations
>> > could
>> > > > be expected in the matter of interdepartmental dealings.
>> > > >
>> > > > The use of tramway rolling stock was a temporary expedient, as
>two small
>> > > > 0-6-0 tank engines were ordered from Manning Wardle in 1883 and
>two
>> > > > specially constructed composite cars, by Hudson Bros., later
>coded KA,
>> > took
>> > > > over all services and to a great extent vitiated any "fair
>trial" of the
>> > > > tramway principle as applied to feeder branch lines.  The
>pretence was
>> > > > abandoned altogether on 1 January 1889 when the line was
>officially
>> > > > transferred to the Railway Department.
>> > > >
>> > > > Here endeth the lesson... :-)
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > >
>> > > > Bob Merchant
>> > >
>>
>>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.