Re: Camden Trams

["Tezza" <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au>]

"Hunslet"
>
> Somebody, not Tezza wrote:
>
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > For the same reason as the Yass Tramway. A "tramway" is cheaper to
> > > > > maintain because you don't have to adhere to the same standards as a
> > > > > "railway".
>
> My understanding re the Yass Tramway being called a "tramway" rather than a
> "railway" was that it enabled the fireman to be made redundant.   That is to
say,
> the 13 class steam locomotive was crewed by a driver only, who was also
required
> to tend the fire and water as well as drive.   A guard was also provided.
He
> carried out the shunting duties, whilst on the passenger and mixed trains,
sold
> tickets for local travel to passengers using "flimsies", just as a tram
conductor
> used to do.
>
> Firemen were provided on the Camden line.

But why were they called Camden trams?