Re: Camden Trams

[jshugg@westpac.com.au]

In article <39EAFAD6.72ABAB5D@cia.com.au>,
  Hunslet <hunslet@cia.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>

In addition to all the thoughts expressed by others, could it also have
something to do with construction standards?  A chappie at Yass station
last year told me that the Yass line was constructed more to tramway
than railway standards, with for example the rails fastened to sleepers
directly with dogspikes, rather than the more elaborate/durable
fastenings used on "proper" railways.  He noted that the light
construction meant that the relatively small X200 rail tractor was
pretty hard on the track.

I'm no track expert but I note that on some maps the Ida Bay Railway in
deep south Tassie is called a tramway, and it too was built using light
constuction methods.

James


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.