Steam Scene “Preserving the past, enriching the future”

From the Editor

With Transport Heritage NSW having started off with great prom-ise, we now have a new admini-stration to get used to, having just settled in with the former. Seems not that long ago when the Office of Rail Heritage was in existence and was going to be the answer to our prayers. Change overtakes change and unfortunately, some big issues for heritage rail opera-tors seem never to be gotten around to. The recent fire at STM Loftus, again shows up the inade-quacy of fire protection for most operators. Yes, it was SPER’s sec-ondary or ‘duplicate’ store but none-the-less, important items were held there that would have had a future with someone. Our own fire at Parramatta Park in 1993, the fire at State Mine, Zig Zag and others are testament to the vulnerability of historic collec-tions to fire. It is not only fire pro-tection that is sadly lacking but the availability of fire insurance. This is way too expensive for many opera-tors. So, perhaps when Transport Heri-tage NSW settles down again, these two pressing matters, fire protection and fire insurance could be looked at and most importantly, something done about them before some other priceless collection goes up in smoke.

Bruce Irwin

Editor.

Sad to relate that a meeting of members of South Gipsland Tour-ist Railway on January 16, 2016, it was voted to close the railway, after 21 years of operation. The heritage operation plied between Nyora and Leongatha (36km) and was effectively an isolated section of the original line plying between Dandenong and Leongatha. The operation has been effectively closed since November 29, 2015 with the last train (Red-hen rail motor) operating between Korumburra and Leongatha.

At the meeting of members the following reasons were given for the closure :

Unresolved issues connected with the Safety Management System

Unsustainable low membership numbers

Unsustainable low income

Limited corporate skills within membership

Need to upgrade infrastructure (track etc.)

Generally poor community support.

So the South Gipsland Tourist Railway joins the grow-ing list of failed heritage operators. Zig-Zag in NSW, Mary Valley Rattler in Qld, are two major operators that come to mind. There are several smaller ones over the years that have gone under also—TRAKS (Kurrajong) the Wagga-Ladysmith venture, the Tu-mut-Batlow venture, likewise come to mind. The

larger latter day closures have all suffered a decline to demise because of regulatory compliance issues or ageing and diminishing membership and/or too much infrastructure to look after. Keeping abreast of the present regulatory require-

ments is a mammoth task for a volunteer based heritage operator. Indeed the task in its practical application is way beyond the safe and satisfactory operational needs of most isolated operators. Keeping up with infrastructure maintenance is an-other mammoth task, not only with the labour re-quired but also the expense. Preserving a branch railway line or portion thereof, might seem like a good idea at the time of closure, with enthusiasm abounding, but the ‘hard slog’ in-volved, sees few succeeding. In the absence of any supplementary income, bums on seats and lots of them, are essential to any success. In a small country town, once the locals have had their ride, its over to the tourist trade to make the show pay. A sprinkling of tourists once-a-week is not going to keep the show going. Didn’t work when the Government was the operator and despite the volunteer labour given, it wont work for the heritage operator either. As for volunteers, there is an incredible amount of muscle required to keep a line open, despite the availability of mechanical equipment. Recent retirees of 60-65 years of age may be fit and enthusiastic but come 75, both attributes could well be waning, especially ‘fitness’. Whilst a sprinkling of younger folk may get involved, the numbers required just aren’t there. Why? Railways are very much off the ‘radar’ of modern kids—not like former generations when to be an engineman was many a boy’s dream and fascination. It’s a sad time for those at SGR who have put so much into getting the line and rolling stock up and running. Now that effort having ceased, the process of decay picks up where the volunteers left off. Sadly, the Australian demographic is just too small to sustainably sup-port multiple heritage railways. (The forgoing views are strictly those of the Editor and should not be taken as those of the Society’s management)

Another Heritage Railway Bites the Dust !

February, 2016

Steam Scene Newsletter and Journal of the Steam Tram and Railway

Preservation (Co-Op) Society Ltd. Volume 13, Issue 1

(Above) A ‘red-hen’ rail motor set at Leongatha station

(Above) Extending the life of a bridge span with railway line—part of the infrastructure challenge.

(Above) A ‘mixed’ on the tourist line in former days.

STARPS—the first ten years of sixty plus Major references used in this narrative were re-corded in the minute books of the Society and have been quoted verbatim and are shown in italics.

Other references used were found in the Preserva-tion of Sydney's Steam Trams and Associated Roll-ing Stock (R. F. Moag, 24/7/2001).

Also papers/notes, both official and personal, en-trusted to STARPS by Frank Moag, which includes his extensive historical photograph collection. Other supportive information was sourced through papers and photographs from the late Malcolm Baker, the late Leon Manny and the late Frank Millier also held within those archives. Articles by Peter Stock and others published in Trolley Wire and Steam Scene were sourced.

Unfortunately the records are now not available for the early decades of the society, other than a pho-tocopy of the minutes from 1954 to 1967. The supporting documentation would serve as a window into the society activities since its establishment, but until these records can be located it is sufficient to use the old minutes and any recollections of the present membership.

IN THE BEGINNING . . . We live in a modern and technological age where com-munications are easy and travel is swift but comfortable. Distances around our now vast cities do not bring the frustration and problems they once did. In these mod-ern times just about every part of a metropolitan area enjoys some sort of public transport links to its main business districts. But it was not always that way.

Back in 1879 a steam tramway was established to oper-ate between the then railway terminus at the old Red-fem Station and a temporary terminus established near the International Exhibition at the Garden Palace in the Royal Botanical Gardens. The new tramway was only to last for that occasion as the experiences of then defunct Pitt Street horse tram a few years before were still a painful memory. But when the time came for the tram-way to be closed Sydneysiders of the day protested long and loud about the decision as they could see the opportunity to extend this new tramway to provide a reliable and safe form of transport from their suburb to town. Ultimately the steam tramway system was extended into the suburbs, whilst many isolated tramways were established in the lightly settled outer suburbs of Sydney and served Sans Souci, Enfield, Cronulla, Castle Hill, Manly and Bexley. Even Newcastle was included in this expansion, as was provincial towns such as Broken Hill, Maitland, Morpeth, Toronto, Camden and Yass. All the government steam tramways were gone by 1937, the last being the line from Kogarah to Sans Souci. The majority had been converted to electric tram-ways around the turn of the century, some became full railways and others just faded away. The very last steam tramway in N.S.W. was privately owned. It rat-tled on until 31st March, 1943, when the Sydney Ferries Limited tramway from Parramatta Park Gates to Red-bank Wharf closed down. By now most of the steam tram rolling stock had by and large been scrapped. However some steam tram motors survived and were used in public works or industrial yards, as well as lone steam tram boilers rais-

ing steam in factories, etc. A few steam tramcars also escaped destruction and could be found in use as sheds, storerooms and in several cases habitable residences either near to existing dwellings or at the least incorporated into their construction! This then was the situation those fifty years ago plus. But let the story digress to a time even earlier. Moves had been initiated before the Second World War to actually preserve a steam tram motor. This move took place before the last government steam tram disappeared into history. That tramway was the well-known Kogarah to Sans Souci steam tramway, which closed down in 1937 only to be replaced by the new-age electric trolley bus. This move was not the first time any railway/tramway relic was pre-served. Up to that time there were several examples of preservation. (The following text re 1A has been partly covered in previ-ous SS but is re-quoted for reading convenience.) The society archives yielded a photocopy of a letter dated 23rd August, 1935, directed to the Commis-sioner for Road Transport and Tramways. The writer enquired as to whether steam tram motor 1A could be retained . . . and be mounted on a bank at the Bridge Street Yard, or at any other convenient place as a Memorial to the men who worked these motors in Syd-ney's early tramway history. The letter went on to say . . . the steam motor is held in great esteem by many thou-sands of older people, who recall with sympathy the ef-forts of these fine little engines on Sydney's many hills . . . and . . . she would provide a sentimental and historical link with Sydney's past. The letter was signed A. H. Dunstan, Hon. Secretary, The Railway Circle of Aus-tralasia (RCA). Unfortunately nothing comprehensive is available from this fragmented collection of odd papers as to the reaction and/or comments by the Commissioner. Fortunately there are odd papers attached to that letter. They are copies of correspondence between the Commissioner and Mr. A. R. Penfold, Curator of The Technological Museum, Harris Street, Ultimo (now Powerhouse Museum–ed.). detailing further references and handwritten notations related to the prospect of preserving motor 1A One such letter from Mr. Penfold, dated 27th May, 1937, discussed references in the Commissioner's reply of 5th June, 1936 (unfortunately no copy of that correspondence survives) and a Daily Telegraph article of 25th May, 1937 which referred to the imminent demise of the Sans Souci steam trams. Apparently the Commissioner had by then promised to preserve 1A, but the Museum had yet to make room for its transfer. Mr. Penfold also wrote in his letter the following words, words that are most relevant today . . . As you are aware, it is the general practice these days for the public to mutilate public vehicles when they are being withdrawn from service, and I am a little disturbed that something similar might happen to this steam tram motor on its final run. I assume your Department will take every precaution to see that No. 1A is not disfigured or muti-lated in the interval. Nothing has changed in the inter-vening years! Two curious addendums (quoted as written) are typed and/or written on the foot of the 27th May, 1937 letter. The first one was from . . . Chief Elec. Engr. Referred for comment please. JR. 28/5/37.

Page 2 Steam Scene

(Above) Bruce MacDonald with 103A on its arrival at Parramatta Park 8-11-1956

By Peter Stock ©2015

Page 3 Volume 13, Issue 1

The second was to . . . Engineer for Workshops & RStock re (1) about the transfer, (2) Randwick or Kogarah - would it be alright to keep at Kogarah? - probably no - looks like a transfer to Museum sometime early after shut down . . . and . . . (3) we should be able to take care of the motor. These handwritten notes continued . . . Am wondering whether we had better advise Mr. Penfold that only the design & number is left. (Intd). W.S.c. 216/37. That last comment was most curious. For years it has been rumoured that late one night in the Sandring-ham Depot, 1A and another motor, 28A, changed iden-tity somehow before the closure of the line. Photo-graphs in the Department of Railways collection and from other photographers contain scenes taken during the closing weeks of the Sans Souci tramway and depict motor 1A in a shabby condition, but with newly painted numbers. This observation may lend some credence to those rumours. Another letter from Mr. Penfold of the Technological Museum to the Commissioner, dated 28th June, 1937, advises that . . . arrangements have been made to transfer steam tram motor No. 1A on Friday night, 2nd July, from Kogarah to Randwick where it will be stored until convenient for delivery to be effected to me. The letter further states in a handwritten addendum . . . This motor is to be stored in the steam motor section of the ??? shop. All windows and doors secured to prevent unauthorised entry. Wonder whether the reference to windows and doors referred to those on the motor or the Randwick steam motor section. So this effort, initiated by a group of members from the pre-war Railway Circle of Australasia (RCA) inter-ested in tramways just may well have initiated the first successful effort to interest transport authorities and museum curators to the value of preserving our street transport heritage. These members were known unof-ficially as the steam tram study group. The RCA subse-quently evolved, becoming the highly respected Austra-lian Railway Historical Society.

And this is where the story of THOSE FIRST FIFTY YEARS PLUS begins.

AN UN-FORMED SOCIETY OF STEAM TRAMWAY SENTIMENTALISTS . . . During the second half of 1952 a small, but dedicated group of members of the ARHS who enjoyed a specific interest in steam trams attempted to officially form the Steam Tram Group. Subsequently . . . This proposal was prohibited by the “parent society” . . . so it was decided to establish a “discussion circle” within the ARHS and a sepa-rate society keen to resurrect the “real live animal”. For the record the following members were part of this move, namely Gifford Eardley, Eric Stephens, Noel Thorpe, Keith Upton, Cedric Thomas, Bruce Mac-Donald, Arthur Stell snr., Ken Train, George Barnidge snr., and Frank Moag. The A.R.H.S. monthly Bulletin magazine at that time contained many steam tram arti-cles so evidently this was not the reason for group’s prohibition. In fact steam tramway articles kept ap-pearing in those pages long after our society was for-mally established. The members so affected by this decision then went on to establish a "steam tram discussion circle" within the parent body, whilst at the same time started to form a separate society to resurrect a steam tram museum from the relics still known to exist. And that group even had the temerity to actually think they could build a tramway and to operate such relics in steam! This was truly a brave move to contemplate, although

such rumblings were occurring in Melbourne with Puffing Billy. Also at that time, in the United King-dom, the Tallylyn Railway in Wales was being resur-rected. The new group had evi-dently had some discus-sions with the authorities in N.S.W. about a steam tram motor. It is recorded that . . . December, 1952, was an unhappy month, in that Bruce MacDonald was nonchalantly told that, al-though promised, Tram Mo-tor 84A (stored at Chullora) had suddenly been sent to Newcastle, as scrap??? However . . . In the in-terim the un-formed society (led by B.MacD) obtained our steam tram motor 103A from Com-Eng. Each member paid three pounds ($6) to have it transported to the home of B.MacD at Home-bush on Friday, 10th April, 1953. Motor 103A had been withdrawn from the tramways after the clo-sure of the Sans Souci tramway in 1937 and was subsequently purchased by Sydney Ferries Limited for their tramway between Redbank Wharf and the Parramatta Park Gates. This tramway closed down in 1943, being the last steam tramway in N.S.W. Motor 103A was sold to the Colonial Sugar Refin-ery factory at Rhodes, N.S.W. for use as a works shunter. Subsequently 103A ended up in the same capacity at Commonwealth Engineering, Clyde. The next day . . . was spent dragg i ng the motor over tem-porary track to a suburban back-yard. Next door’s common fence was temporarily dismantled and Mrs. Macdonald’s f e r n e r y w a s trimmed on one corner by a very sharp saw. Further . . . Restoration of tram motor 103A took 3 years and six months at Homebush. Today, one can but wonder at this feat, which necessitated in addition to the fence and fernery alterations the restitution of the broken driveway both into the backyard and out again when the motor was removed. All this in a backyard that still was used for hanging out the family wash and the youthful pursuits of the resident youngsters. Whilst the motor remained at Homebush it was given a thorough mechanical overhaul, with a steam trial being undertaken (and photographed) on 25th April, 1955. It would be safe to assume that other steam trials would have occurred. What a weird experience for the neighbours living either side! One member involved at the time, the late Frank Millier, once mused that in all probability local coun-cils did not have any by-laws to regulate steam boiler trials in suburban backyards.

(Above) 103A’s stable mate at Waddington’s, 31A renum-bered as “ E6-56” (Mobile machinery register)

This observation may well be accurate as many old-time resi-dents owned for their work, traction engines, steam trucks and perhaps steamrollers, which needed repairs and even boiler changes. Why not a steam tram motor? (To be cont.)

(Above) 84A in service at Koga-rah. Bruce Mac Donald just missed out on saving this motor from the ‘torch’ (R.F .Moag Col-lection)

Even to this day, no motor bus service has re-placed the Redbank tram which perhaps is appropri-ate, as those people who remember the fascinating motors and sturdy trail cars will surely agree that no other form of transport could truly replace them.

The Redbank tram-way had been an inte-gral part of Parramatta for 60 years and had been regarded as something of an insti-tution by those gen-erations of local resi-dents, many of whom mourned its passing, if only from a sentimen-tal point of view.

Perhaps the most fitting tribute that could be bestowed on this historical line

would be an extract from a letter of thanks and ap-preciation, sent after the closing of the tramway from Parramatta City Council to Sydney Ferries Limited. The Town Clerk wrote:- “………..I was also instructed

to express appreciation for the service rendered the public of Parramatta by the company in sup-plying transport to many of its residents who worked in the Sandown area and in this regard, allow me to say that the users of that service will always remember the wonderful spirit that existed between the staff and its passengers over the long term of years in which the tramway was operated. Here again the

company must be congratulated on its fine spirit of fair-ness in continuing with the service during the latter part of its operations when the incentive to do so was not encour-aging.”

In his reply to the Town Clerk, the manager of Sydney Ferries ex-pressed the senti-ments of his company and unwittingly, the sentiments of a num-ber of other people who had, and still have, a soft spot for the steam tram. He wrote:- “With regard to the tram service, as you know, it has for many years been any-thing bu lucrative to us, while many of your residents and even some of your aldermen

have resented the presence of the somewhat antiquated transport system in your streets, but it did serve a traffic need for many years and we cannot but some regrets for

its passing.”

Disposal of the Rolling Stock Etc. A fortnight after the passing of the line, on motor (103A) and six trucks were sold privately to Wadding-ton’s. (later Commonwealth Engineering) for use on the railway sidings around that firm’s premises in Gran-ville. This firm like many others at the time, was then heavily committed to the war effort. This motor was sold for £170 and the six trucks for £20 each.

The remainder of the rolling stock and all associated plant was advertised on the 5th June 1943, for sale by public auction. Items offered for sale included three motors, six tramcars, 36 four-wheel trucks as well as rails, the sheds at Redbank and all associated equip-ment,

A surprise offer was received by Sydney Ferries on 9th June, 1943 from a private citizen, who expressed his interest to purchase the tramway as a whole. How-ever the fate of the tramway had already been sealed. The company replied:- “Our Parramatta tramway was discontinued some months ago and since then much of the rolling stock has been disposed of while the tramlines are partially interrupted . Besides………….it is no longer possi-ble for us to treat the business as a going concern….”.

The company’s tramway assets were finally sold by public auction at the old Redbank depot on Monday, 31st June 1943. Amounts realized from the various items offered were:-

Reclaimer plant 170.00

Grab winch 18.00

Shed, partly built 36.00

Waiting Room and platform (80’ X 5’) 115.00

Coke 22.00

Tram shed (105’X38’X13’ walls) 335.00

36 tramway trucks @$30 each 1080,00

6 passenger tramway cars @ $ 15.00 90.00

Locomotive shed (48’X28’X15’ walls) 210.00

2 locomotives (31A and 5A) @$300 600.00

1 locomotive (No 6—10” cylinders) 150.00

Firebars, brake shoes, etc. 40.00

Springs 14.00

Grab crane 700.00

Scrap timber 20.00

Weatherboard shed 46.00

Scrap iron 104.00

Sleepers 160.00

Rails (about 100 tons) 2050.00

Total $5960.00

(In 2014 terms this equates to $398,118.18)

Knowing this line to have been the last of the steam tramways in New South Wales, the auctioneer made a very appropriate declamation, when he brought his hammer down at Redbank for the final time on the last bid with these cogent words : “ Going! Going! - Gone!

Page 4 Steam Scene

(Above) Car No.1 lies derelict at Balmain (since scrapped).

(Below) Motor 5A awaiting the torch at Joseph Edwards’ scarp yard at Sydenham c.1947.

Going! Going! Gone! (Final Part) (by Len Manny) In this final instalment, we read of the post closure of the tramway and the disposal of assets.

(Above) Not far from the end of service. Redbank waiting room. Wheels, motor cab roof and corrugated iron in the foreground.

STRATEGIC CONCLUSIONS ** The whole history of steam trams (worldwide?) could have been altered if even one manufacturer had realised the potential of John Downes’s Patent

** Wilkinson Patent engines seem ideal for fast steam raising and hauling power on long, steep, gradients. They were conveniently ac-cessible for maintenance needs, and reasona-bly suited to double-ended operation.

** Kitson engines seem to be more ergonomi-cally designed for the driver, in one direction of running at least, but had a somewhat awk-ward layout for driving whilst running chim-ney-first. Their design evolution perhaps stag-nated after 1884/5 when key staff moved to Thomas Green & Co., and competed strongly for the steam tram business

** British regulations regarding speed limits, emission of smoke and steam, and the associ-ated governors, were all equally effective in destroying worldwide market potential as steam tram designers had to work on these bases, including boiler, speed, and haulage capacities – in effect assuming ‘genteel’ operat-ing performance – and thus ultimately de-stroying the home product too.

** Baldwin engines have a much wider per-formance profile than the British engines, making them more suitable for the scale and pattern of operations in Sydney (light railway as much as tramway).

** The conversion of the NSW engines to one-man operation from c.1905 had nothing whatsoever to do with a legacy of the British one-man engines, but was simply a reflection of the closure of the Sydney urban steam lines, and the redistribution of the engines to subur-ban or country type services.

MY VERDICTS ON THE FOUR

ENGINES! ** Give me a Kitson for more-level operations (where it can haul 40 tons of freight or 6 laden double-deck trailers), and enjoy the sheer comfort of superb ergonomic design, and smooth and silent operation.

** Give me a Wilkinson for long, steady gradi-ents, rapid steam-raising, and ease of mainte-nance.

**So, to answer my Wigan driver’s question at the beginning of the Paper, I would choose my tram engine according to the hilliness of the route!

** Give me a Baldwin for sheer brute haulage, including at speed (two man for urban opera-tion, but one-man on less intensively trafficked roads).

MY OVERALL ENGINE FAVOURITE! The American Baldwin design would be inap-propriate for British roads because of its poor

driver visibil-ity (in either form), so, sorry folks, it’s (they’re) not my favourite (but well-suited to their chosen tasks)! (But I have thoroughly enjoyed them -- so let me come back and see them again, if I get the chance!)

It is more difficult with the British pair, as one was over-developed to try to enter the Baldwin market, whilst the other was designed as a standard, but early, product for world-wide (!) use. I am sure MBRO No.84, when restored, will be a spectacular sight on the Crich museum line’s gradients.

Much to my surprise, it would be a ………well, I cannot but repeat almost exactly what Dr Whitcombe said back in 1937 – the ‘practical perfection’ was the Kitson, but the Wilkinson was a ‘magnificent machine’ giving ‘every satisfaction’! Route choice would, I think, affect my engine choice – Wilkinson (preferably a proper 1886 ‘best’ one!) for the hills, Kitson (‘Kitty’ – I’ll stick with that!) for the more level routes

So, on balance, my favourite engine has to be the ‘practical perfection’ of ‘Kitty’ – by a full set of whiskers!

THE MUSEUMS: MY FAVOURITE BITS OF EACH

Although all are wonderful and a fantastic credit to their teams of workers, I offer brief comments of my own on the various Muse-ums (in the order I first visited them) purely on their display of different aspects of steam tram operation (I hope I do not offend!).

CRICH Crich is great for its gradients to test out steam tram hill climbing abilities, with its lengthy line (c. 1 mile) and street atmosphere, including George Stephenson-era buildings (as seen). The restoration of MBRO No.84, to haul the Dundee trailer, would be the final link. It desperately needs a steam depot how-ever, for display as well as operation, as the steam significance is rather lost. A working British-operated steam tram is desirable.

PARRAMATTA Parramatta was a truly perfect NSW out-of-town steam tramway, albeit shorter than

Page 5 Volume 13, Issue 1

To Cap It All ! (Final Part) By Dr. Bob Tebb

Crich, but with a testing gradient, a correct corrugated-iron depot, ideal surroundings, and a sense of real history, terminating only a few yards short of a real steam tram terminus at the other side of the Park Gates. Seen by me in 1988 (below), I deeply regret its passing.

VALLEY HEIGHTS Valley Heights, though still relatively short, is on genuine NSWGR ‘home turf’, and with its recent mainline-standard extension, combined with its coal road incline, allows for proper exercising of engine and passenger car, subject to operational limitations. I await too the double-decker and second single-decker 72B, currently under restoration in the new pe-riod-style tram depot. I have to say that this ‘home turf’ angle is, to me, of somewhat lesser value compared to the truly-local recreation at Parramatta!

(Top) 0-4-4ST .1022, with steam trailer 191B in the Park in 1988 (Above) Diesel ‘steam tram’ No.133 (with a ‘genuine’ 1957 works-built two-man steam tram body) with 74B in primer adjacent. – All lost by fire!

Kitty “Smooth, silent, gentle, docile”.

MOTAT MOTAT serves a real tramway purpose with its beautifully-constructed Western Springs Tramway, alongside a public highway, provid-ing a public link between various Museum (and Zoo) sites. The need for the electric cars to maintain an effective daily public service ensures that the steam tram can properly demonstrate its performance capa-bilities – currently light engine, but Wan-ganui passenger car No.21 is under restora-tion to create a full Wanganui steam tram unit with No.100. The section within the ‘town’ area gives a really splendid, if short, city or urban feel, although sadly this does not see regular passenger service tram movements – but I totally loved it!

AUTHOR’S ‘BONUS’ AT MOTAT! With Sydney’s trams being the link in my steam tram interests, MOTAT excited me as being the only place that I have been able to see and photograph both steam and electric cars from Sydney together; I know that No.100 is there for its Wanganui connection, but one cannot see the two together in the Sydney area itself! I find this tragic, with the magnificent Sydney (electric) Tramway Museum at Loftus, and the equally-significant but more-remote Valley Heights (steam) site. Yet here, in Auckland, NZ, I found Sydney steam tram engine No.100 and R class electric tram No.1808 together, whilst No.100 was being refuelled. This is even more exciting to me in that Sydney R class electric trams were delivered in the early 1930s from the Clyde Engineering manufacturers along the NSWGR main lines, hauled by NSWGT steam tram engines! So were the Baldwins ‘light-railway engines’ or ‘light railway-engines’ (see my earlier conclusion)? Indeed, one could argue that No.100 already has a trailer – in the shape of No.1808!

FERRYMEAD Because I was, I suppose, in my quest, ulti-mately seeking the real British steam tram of some 125 years ago, my overall favourite Mu-seum line for complete steam tram recreation (i.e. engine + car) has to be Ferrymead; its combination of rural tramway, developing ur-ban town, an elaborate tramway system therein with a variety of appropriate stops, junctions, loops, triangles, etc and correct period tram engine and passenger cars, was as near perfect as I could imagine, though the recreated town is perhaps rather more ‘frontier’ than ‘urban’ (I confess also that my visit, after an exhausting and badly-planned [by me!] two weeks of air travel–and a hotel disas-ter here, coincided with the most perfect Eng-lish rain to ‘set the seal’ on completing the image–the last time I got that wet in so short a time was on the Weymouth tramway–see below!)

Page 6 Steam Scene

(Above) No.100 in the MOTAT ‘town’, and cross-ing public highway on the Western Springs Tram-way (note the correct presence of a fireman on the front platform of 2-man motor).

No.103A with car 93B at Valley Heights on the NSWGR site with the new ‘period’ depot, and also in service at Arncliffe.

(Above) 103A on its own infrastruc-ture at Valley Heights

THUS MY FAVOURITE FAVOURITES!

TRAM ENGINES

‘Kitty’ by a set of whiskers over ‘John Bull’

TRAMS IN SUITABLE PERIOD

SETTINGS A ‘dead heat’ for No.100 at MOTAT and

‘Kitty’ at Ferrymead.

TRAM ON OWN OPERATOR INFRA-STRUCTURE

NSWGT No.103A + car 93B once again on NSWGR trackage

APPENDIX THE FIFTH OF FOUR TRAM EN-

GINES! There is another preserved and operational ‘proper’ British tram engine, which still has a

(Above) Ex-Sydney No.100, being refuelled, stands with Sydney electric R class tram 1808 at MOTAT. Most (all?) of the latter were hauled along the NSWGR main lines from builder to the city’s tram-ways by NSWGT steam tram engines, as seen here. History recreated!

(Above) 103A passing through Kogarah station

(Above) 100 at MOTAT and see previous for “Kitty” at Ferrymead.

speed governor, which I have also had the privilege of riding behind, and on, and also driving! It was built as a tram engine, for on-highway use, with appropriate speed-governor devices, wheel skirts, cow-catchers, etc. As described by R.P. Bradley in ‘Railway Modeller’ for May 1981, “In layout, the design followed traditional steam locomotive practice, having steel plate frames, stayed and braced in a conventional manner”. It is, maybe surpris-ingly, not a steam tram, but a diesel-mechanical tram engine built in the early 1950s, specifically to replace worn out 0-6-0 and 0-4-0 steam tram engines! As such, it even out-classes the size of the Sydney Bald-win steam tram engines, being authorised to haul 38 4-wheel (unbraked) wagons in a single train!

Built for use on the East Anglian lines of the former Great Eastern Railway, such as the Wisbech & Upwell, and their various urban highway/dockside lines, it was one of a batch of, initially, four such machines (BR Nos. 11100 – 11103); the last, 11103, later D2203, supplied by Drewry but built by Vulcan Foundry (D145) in 1952, is the survi-vor, eventually being converted to a normal railway shunter, before sale for industrial use.

Its ‘alter ego’ has an honourable part in the children’s ‘Thomas the Tank Engine’ series, as ‘Mavis’ the diesel tram. To get back to a semblance of reality; there were eventually over 200 of these engines used primarily as railway shunting locos, and a few others in later batches subsequently also received skirts etc, for tram use. On the built-as-such tram engines, the speed governor was fitted to the transmission below the cab floor between gear box and jackshaft drive, limit-ing speed to 12 mph. (Curiously, while the W & U line speed limit was indeed 12 mph, the speed requirement for automatic activa-tion of the governor thereon was, legally, 14 mph!) Stories indicate that it was indeed effective in preventing speeds above that 12 mph; early attempts with it to ‘fly-shunt’ wagons (as was common practice in steam tram days) with it failed:-

“[in steam days] you’d approach the yard at a fair good speed, ease up as the shunter snapped the coupling off, then go like the clappers. As you accelerated past the junction, the points were changed so that the engine went into one road and the wagons into another. No.11102 tried this but the speed governor automatically applied the brakes and the wagons hit her hard”.

There was an in-cab release mechanism for the governor, so this problem could be avoided! This quote also suggests that, by then, the steam tram speed governors were not exactly treated with the respect they deserved and legally required! When I trav-elled on D2203, the driver’s attempts to get

the speed governor to come into effect failed – perhaps hardly surprising given that it would last have been applied in the mid-1960s.

Of some 204 hp and 0-6-0 wheel arrangement, its weight of some 30 tons put it into rather a different category from the steam tram engines described in our comparisons. It was fitted with the automatic vacuum brake, as it was intended to haul lengthy freight trains (though curiously two of the four tram engines were not so fitted – but still hauled such trains – but this was still in the days when British freight trains were not continuously braked except for the loco and a hand screw brake in the guards van at the rear – almost unbelievable today!), and also with a loco-only air brake. The visibility from the cab on later batches was improved with larger windows all round. Believe me, this was necessary; when seated at the driver’s console of tram D2203, because of the high bottom window line, any-thing nearer than some 200 yards was quite invisible to the seated tram driver – poor design for what was essentially a shunting and tram engine! D2203 has since operated passenger and works trains on the Yorkshire Dales Railway, based at Embsay, where I was privileged to ride on it hauling service passenger trains and to drive it light engine for short distances; the Wil-son semi-automatic gearbox proved easy to use (being essentially of the same design as used on buses), as were the throttle and loco air brakes. The lack of a second cab was eased by the low and narrow bonnet, which still allowed a decent (though not close) view when the cab was at the back – when the cab was at the front it was, curiously, far worse because of the high window line!

D2203 has since operated passenger and works trains on the Yorkshire Dales Railway, based at Embsay, where I was privileged to ride on it hauling service passenger trains and to drive it light engine for short distances; the Wilson semi-automatic gearbox proved easy to use (being essentially of the same design as used on buses), as were the throttle and loco air brakes. The lack of a second cab was eased by the low and narrow bonnet, which still allowed a decent (though not close) view when the cab was at the back – when the cab was at the front it was, curiously, far worse because of the high window line!

Not only were normal railway goods wagons moved along this tramway, but also passenger trains – and heavy ones at that, often of up to 8 or more bogie carriages. On one occasion at least, this loco double-headed with another on a 9-carriage sleeping car train of 450 tons – some tramway! So this class of diesel trams can carry the honour of passenger, as well as goods, haul-age.

Even more curiously, and despite similarly running on-highway in England on the same na-tional rail system, the engines used on this Wey-mouth tramway operated under very different regulations from those in East Anglia; though running in the street (the East Anglian ones op-erated mainly alongside roads), they were not fitted with skirts, or speed governors, but did carry rather-dainty warning bells! They were

Page 7 Steam Scene

required to be preceded by an official on foot, also carrying a red flag or warning bell!

I did ride on, and photograph, this street tram-way in 1993, after regular usage had ceased, with an 8-carriage special train, but hauled by a mainline diesel-electric Bo-Bo loco, on this occa-sion preceded also by both a police car and a policeman on foot, as well as two red-flag-carrying railwaymen, also on foot! (Shades of the red flag Act of the earliest days of motor trans-port in Britain! For on-highway vehicles in Brit-ain, the need to be preceded by a man on foot had disappeared in 1896, the red flag require-ment largely [but not completely] disappearing in 1878!)

I find it curious that, while the ‘railway

trams’ (including both steam and diesel ones) are generally covered quite well in regional tramway history books, the various tramway-related Mu-seums in Britain essentially ignore them; this seems regrettable as several of the diesel ones were still active well into the development of such Museums, and items (from more than one class) could then have been preserved at one or more of them.

The Australasian Museums seem much better at integrating such railway and tramway preserva-tion (although, as we have seen earlier, their normal daily operations were probably more ambivalent in this regard anyway). Much to my annoyance also, the weightiest set of volumes on steam tram history in Britain myopically almost totally ignores these diesel trams (which kept such ‘steam’ tramways going for a further 14 years or so from 1952 to 1966), despite them being simply diesel-powered versions of the former, with most of their operational traditions, restrictions and safeguards maintained intact.

THE END

Weymouth Tramway: 8 coach train preceded by policeman on foot and out of view, a police car and 2 railway workers with red flags.

Wisbech & Upwell line a few months after closure. Every garden should have a tramline passing thru!

From the Work-front: .103A: Prepared for boiler inspection , inspected, reas-sembled Stepho: Prepared for boiler inspection, inspected. (Awaiting steam pipe replacement.) 1022: Progress on installing rear buffer beams and mechanicals.

Last but not least….

Steam Tram & Railway Preservation (Co-Op) Society Ltd.

t/a Valley Heights Steam Tramway ABN 46 193 707 109

P.O. Box 571, Springwood NSW 2777 Web site:www.infobluemountains.net.au/locodepot

(follow link to steam tramway site) Proudly associated with Transport Heritage NSW, ( Blue

Mountains Division). Affiliated with the Council of Tramway Museums of

Australasia and Rail Heritage Australia (NSW) Inc.

Chairman and Works Manager, Craig Connelly 02 9729 3536

Secretary and P.E.O. Peter Stock (02) 9587 9051

Treasurer and Editor “Steam Scene” Bruce Irwin

(02) 9651 1707 Email: starps04@gmail.com Membership Secretary, David Lewis

(02) 9630 6304

The museum is located at 17b Tusculum Road, Valley Heights. Ample parking is available. A train service is available to Valley Heights station. Walk around via

the overhead bridge to the gate at the signal box ,which is opposite the station. Trams meet train arrivals. DO NOT attempt to cross the running lines.

The museum is open between 10 and 4 on the 2nd and 4th

Sundays of the month. Steam tram 2nd Sunday, ‘Valley

Heights Mixed’, 4th Sunday

“Preserving the past, enriching the future”

Do you have Email? If you received this copy of Steam Scene by ‘snail mail’, it cost $1 to

mail it out to you. With six issues per year, that is $6 of your mem-bership fee gifted to Australia Post. This is quite apart from mailing out notices, the annual report and whatever else is nec-essary. We are reluctant to in-crease subscriptions because of this latest postal charge increase and the whole problem can be avoided simply by having your SS Emailed. Help us to contain costs and put your subscription to better use —please send your email address to your editor today.

ooo0ooo

Audit Finalization The five non-compliance findings from the ONRSR audit late last year, have been responded to. The amendments to rules, proce-dures etc. where necessary, have been approved and the audit for 2015 is now finalized.

SAFETY ZONE The above story is a timely

reminder. The cause of the accident was a broken motor axle. As all RSW’s and particularly drivers and firemen are aware, our motor 103A, is 125 years old.

We have an excellent track to oper-ate over and to keep the speed down to 10 KPH seems a chore. However, much of our SMP and Risk Management is predicated on an operating speed of 10kph to mitigate or offset the effects of anything untoward happening at speed.

Not least in this consideration is that metal fatigue can strike at any time. If this occurs in the running gear of the motor, loco or trailer cars, keeping at a speed of 10 kph minimizes potential damage and harm. Operating at faster that 10 kph exponentially increases the damaging effects likely to happen including personnel and passenger injury. Don’t be tempted—keep your speed down to the limit ! Too much is at stake not to.

OTHER NEWS

Coupling Pro-cedure Revision

An incident in operations last December necessi-tated, as part of corrective

action, a consultation (tool box) talk for concerned parties, to ensure that a repeat of the inci-dent does not occur. Following the talk and further consultation, a revised coupling procedure has now been devised where auto-couplers and draw hooks and linkages are involved. Amended Rules, procures etc. will be avail-able to RSW’s shortly if they haven’t in the meantime.

ooo0ooo Museum and Society Rail Safety Workers attended recently, a course “Accessing the Rail Corridor”. This course has re-placed the old ‘RISI’ and has been mapped against the National Track Safety Induction training programme. All participants passed the examination, both written and practical, at the con-clusion. The course is recognized state-wide.

Year’s Mind It is with affection-

ate memory we recall the pass-ing of the following members

Lewin Henry Berrick , Past Secretary and President

January 18, 1975 Rev. Cedric Blake Thomas,

past President February 18, 1987

Cliff Currell , Past Secretary January 20, 2004

Frank William Millier, past secretary and Chairman

February 18, 2010 Kenneth (Ken) Butt,

Past Member January 28, 2013

John Withers, Past Member February 2, 2013

“Their labour was not in vain and we are ever thankful for

their achievements for the soci-ety”

May they Rest In Peace and

Rise to Glory

Latest News from Yesterday—SMH, Monday February 7, 1921

(Above) Scene at the derailment on Saturday