toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
The reference to gauge has now been removed from the article -
which I think is the right approach.
4 ft 6 in is more plausible than 3 ft 6 in, but without
documentary evidence it is just a guess.
On 17/01/2018 8:54 PM, 'David Halfpenny (Yahoo 2)'
The link below
is to a very interesting item about a timber tramway
proposed in 1855 and partly built near Launceston,
Tasmania. (Not to be confused with Grubb's Tramway
near Zeehan, which operated about 40 years later).
There is a very detailed map. I question the
statement in the Wikipedia article that this tramway
was 3 ft 6 in gauge, as that gauge was almost
unknown in 1855. I would like to see some evidence
from the period before accepting that!
It’s been corrected to 4’ 6” Frank, which is the old
Scotch gauge and very plausible for the period.