Re: The gauge question ...
Peter Evans <pevans@...>
Thanks Brad,
Point taken. I think this group is an excellent idea and
congratulations on getting it up and running.
Cheers,
PeterE. From: LRRSA@... [mailto:LRRSA@...] On Behalf Of BLI BLI Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 2:22 PM To: LRRSA@... Subject: Re: [LRRSA] The gauge question ... 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 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. > > > > > #### LocoShed Australasia Website #### http://www.geocities.com/steelhaven_ee/LocoShed.html ** Australian Industrial & Preserved Railways. ** Railways of the Philippines and South East Asia ** LocoShed Express in 'Railway Digest' ** Asst editor: Asia-Rail magazine. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
|
|