According to the article posted, a reason why the Cronulla interurban cars
weren't pursued was the breakup of the NSWGR and the Sydney trams in 1930.
Why were the two systems owned by the same organisation to begin with, and
if the arrangement worked, why break them up?
On 10 Oct 2017 19:42, "Tony Gallowayarg@... [TramsDownUnder]" <
> According to an article in TW I can’t find online after a quick look (2010
> and later are not in the online archive yet, might be there) tenders were
> issued with both MU and direct control specs for the Rs, and direct control
> won because it was cheaper.
> It was 1933, it was the Stevens-Bruxner government that didn’t like trams
> but had a bunch of obsolete rolling stock to replace, and money was tight..
> The Watsons Bay line had the cars that had to go, and conveniently the area
> was mostly UAP electorates. The voters wouldn’t have copped buses, not even
> trolleybuses, whether they drove cars or not so trams it was. It was a
> credit to Maclean that the design was as good as it was, but it didn’t
> spring from nowhere. The basic style had been evolving in the design office
> since the Brisbane dropcentres were conceived there.
> Here’s a very short but intriguing article from the Feb 2003 TW (P17) that
> shows 1926 proposals for “rail coaches” - a 2-motor, 40 seat car intended
> possibly for the never built Narrabeen and Church Point extensions, showing
> the roots of the R and R1 classes, and the second drawing showing a 1500v
> centre entrance interurban type car for an electrified Cronulla line. The
> second car would also have suited an electrified Castle Hill tramway,
> rather than the “useless” railway conversion, the Camden line and West
> Wallsend/Speers Point, with dual voltage 600/1200v equipment maybe :
> I’d like to find out a lot more about this stuff but the information
> appears to have been lost.
> Tony G
> On 10 Oct 2017, at 6:34 pm,prescottt@... [TramsDownUnder] <
> That accident happened just a couple of years after Strickland arrived in
> Melbourne, no doubt still heady with the success of EMU operation in
> Sydney. MU could have been an answer to that risk but the decision was
> obviously made for single cars due to less traffic to handle.
> I think that's also the prosaic reason that the R/R1s were not designed
> for MU. At that stage they were not envisaged as front-line cars for the
> busiest services, that role still being the domain of the crossbenches.
> Ironically, however, the R/R1s exclusively operated the busiest tram line
> in Australia, the Watsons Bay, and accomplished it by the tried and true
> (George St) "moving platform" method, the continuous conga line of trams!
> I reckon with that service, the reason for using the comfortable corridor
> cars was the more exclusive clientele along the line. Class distinction or
> an extra special effort to keep them from driving their cars, who knows?
> Tony P