RE: Couplers and Moonee Ponds [Was: Y1 controls ... ]
  Noel Reed

How would a PCC/R1 go as an interurban tram from Sutherland to Cronulla ?

Noel Reed.

From:TramsDownUnder@... []
Sent: Tuesday, 10 October 2017 8:41 PM
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?


On 10 Oct 2017 19:42, "Tony Gallowayarg@... [TramsDownUnder]" TramsDownUnder@...> 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 :

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] TramsDownUnder@...> 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