That’s right Brian, and that is the line that the STA propaganda video promotes. The video fails to mention the short lived MetropolitanTransport Trust set up when the tramways were initially separated from the NSWGR, but the name of the Department of Road Transport and Tramways, later the Department of Government Transport, says it all about the priorities.
The buses became dominant as a result of the failure of state governments during the 1920s to curb the unfettered proliferation of private bus operators that leeched off the tramway’s already established ridership. That buses with upholstered seats and enclosed bodies were superficially more attractive than pre-WW1, open bodied, wooden benched trams is not hard to understand. The buses didn’t have to make every compulsory stop along a route either, so the bus operators could easily leapfrog the trams, cherry pick passengers till full then run to the destination faster than the tram.
The bus proprietors had no obligation to run late night or early morning low volume services as they were unregulated with no common carrier obligations or franchise requirements to meet, so they skimmed the cream and got fat on it, forming a powerful political lobby in the process. Combine this with the growing number of cars owned by the smug and self-entitled wealthy who thought they owned the roads and trams were an impediment, the tramways were beset with enemies with no “industry lobby” to defend them politically, outside the employees' unions, they were up against it.
They wee lucky to still have the tramways during WW2, but that lesson was soon forgotten. The wartime deferred maintenance and lack of modern rolling stock once again made it easy for the anti-tram forces to portray them as obsolete, and the fixation on road development over public transport as Sydney expanded postwar meant we ended up with the autocentric dystopia we have now.
Tony G
> On 10 Oct 2017, at 8:58 pm, 'Brian'bblunt@... [TramsDownUnder] TramsDownUnder@...> wrote:
>
> The expertise in running rail transport was available from the NSWGR; the Sydney system was initially intended to just be a feeder from the the railway station down to an International Exhibition in the Domain.
>
> The split would have evolved from the governmnet's desire to get into bus operation and remove competition from the trams.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
>TramsDownUnder@... mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.com
> To:
> TramsDownUnder@... mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.com>
> Cc:
>
> Sent:
> Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:41:29 +1100
> Subject:
> Re: [TramsDownUnder] Couplers and Moonee Ponds [Was: Y1 controls ... ]
>
>
>
>
> 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?
>
> Robbie
>
> On 10 Oct 2017 19:42, "Tony Gallowayarg@... mailto:arg@aapt.net..au [TramsDownUnder]" TramsDownUnder@... mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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 :
>
> https://www.sydneytramwaymuseum.com.au/members.old/Trolley_Wire/292%20-%20Trolley%20Wire%20-%20Feb%202003.pdf https://www.sydneytramwaymuseum.com.au/members.old/Trolley_Wire/292%20-%20Trolley%20Wire%20-%20Feb%202003.pdf
>
> 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@... mailto:prescottt@ymail.com [TramsDownUnder] TramsDownUnder@... mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>