Re: The gauge question ...


Frank Stamford
 

When the LRRSA changed its name from Victorian Light Railway Research Society to Light Railway Research Society of Australia in 1968 (only 36 years ago) the coverage was intended to be:

(i) Any Australian railway or tramway with a gauge of less than 3 ft 6 in

(ii) Any Australian railway or tramway with a gauge of 3 ft 6 in or more which was not owned by the state government railways or the Commonwealth Railways.

This definition included city passenger carrying tramways, but these were largely (and deliberately) ignored because they were already well looked after by another organisation.

This definition was designed to include operations like the Emu Bay Railway, Kerang - Koondrook Shire Tramway, and the Queensland Shire Tramways.

I don't think we have ever officially changed from these definitions, although they have become more complicated to define since most of the operations in item (ii) above are now privatised.

I think if we changed our definition of "light railway" to the extent that it excluded operations like the 3 ft 6 in gauge Aramac and Beaudesert Shire Tramways, and the 5 ft 3 in gauge Koondrook Shire Tramway, we would be narrowing our focus too far, since they were all weird, poverty-stricken and eccentric operations, and surely these are some of the essential features of the traditional "light railway"!

Regards,

Frank

At 02:34 PM 15/08/2006, you wrote:
Thanks Brad,

Point taken. I think this group is an excellent idea and congratulations on getting it up and running.

Cheers,
PeterE.


----------
From: LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au [mailto:LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au] On Behalf Of BLI BLI
Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 2:22 PM
To: LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au
Subject: Re: [LRRSA] The gauge question ...

Hi Peter,
The front page may require a rewording I
think. I just threw it together in a hurry this
morning.
Such operations would of course be considered in
topic. I tend to consider logging railways to be an
industrial operation and thus fit into #1 on the front
page. This may indeed be a wrong decision on my part.
The main reason for having the 3ft6 in #2 was to
avoid items like Queensland Rail which isn't within
the scope of Light Railways.
I pretty much use Light Railways as a guide to
topics covered with a small diversion in the inclusion
of modelling of industrial topics.

Anyway welcome to the group guys, it is great to
have you here.

Regards
Brad

--- sawdustoz <pevans@solutionred.com.au> wrote:

Hi All,

Perhaps this group might like to consider light
railways with a gauge
greater than 3-ft 6-in? Victorian lines that spring
to mind are the
McIvor firewood line (5-ft 3-in), the early horse
trams of the Wombat
Forest south of Bendigo (also 5-ft 3-in), and the
David Mitchell
firewood tram (3-ft 6-in and, later, standard
gauge). In addition,
there were heaps of very traditional "light
railways" with a gauge of 3-
ft 6-in, especially in the Otway Forest and east of
the Powelltown line.

Cheers,
PeterE.

Join LRRSA@groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.