Re: Sydney Light Rail

["Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au>]

"Barry Campbell" <campblbm@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
V3_D5.22948$O7.338956@ozemail.com.au">news:V3_D5.22948$O7.338956@ozemail.com.au...
>
> Samuel Eades wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> >If a tramway started using the same lines as a railway, then that portion
> >(IMHO) would have to become a railway as well (the difference between a
> >tramway and a railway being that a tramway does not use any safeworking
> >systems.
>
> <snip>
>
> Is that so? I suppose the state government could always change the
> definition (if that is the definition in the first place). The distinction
> is a matter of statute law. Are there any lawyers lurking in this ng?

Ahem - lawyer-to-be, if that is any help.

It is true that the difference between railways and tramways is a matter of
statute law, and can be changed by the Parliament as and when required. What
was interesting in Sam's reply was that he was applying Victorian law to a
NSW situation, since NSW tramways (as well as the current light rail system)
have always used some form of safeworking. One also needs to ask whether or
not traffic signals are a form of safeworking (they control traffic through
intersections, after all, and there are tram-specific signals).

There is also no reason why trains could not be given permission to operate
on a tramway (under special conditions, such as a much lower speed, etc).
This would certainly cover the proposed scenario of trams operating through
to Leichhardt or Ashfield, the railway would be (legally) converted to a
tramway and the trains would operate on it under whatever legal framework
was implemented for it.

It is certainly a viable thing to do.

Dave