Re: The gauge question ...
Peter Evans <pevans@...>
Point taken. I think this group is an excellent idea and congratulations on getting it up and running.
From: LRRSA@... [mailto:LRRSA@...] On Behalf Of BLI BLI
Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: [LRRSA] The gauge question ...
The front page may require a rewording I
think. I just threw it together in a hurry this
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.
--- 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.
#### LocoShed Australasia Website ####
** 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