Re the bulkhead question, I reckon the drawing shows only checkered wear plates on the steps between the back to back seats near the centre door. These seats would have been on different levels, with the door-adjacent seats lower. No bulkhead is apparent between the seat backs, and presumably any handholds would have been mounted to the ceiling.

I say this because the door steps and the end saloon steps have similar cross hatching to indicate the step wear plates. Also, the other difference with the R/R1 hybrids is the longer dropcentre of the R underframe, which is absent here.

The bookshop at STM is R/R1 1933’s body (first R1), last used as a first aid station at Randwick workshops. It was still in that role when I worked there for six months in 1977.

Tony

> On 12 Aug 2020, at 11:42 am, 'Richard Youl' via TramsDownUnder tramsdownunder@...> wrote:

>

> I don’t think that anyone has shown this plan beside an actual R/R1 (or however they were designated) but this Ian Brady photo shows the plan to be a ’never was’. Note the 4 standard R windows and 2 smaller windows as opposed to, in the plan, 5 R class windows and one even smaller window.

>

> Regarding the debate about whether there was a bulkhead proposed in the ‘never was’, a plan of an actual R would show how the bulkhead was depicted.

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

>

> <1936_LowerFortSt_1958_IanBrady.jpg>

>>

>>

>> <R1 outline drawing ex BCC Archives 325.tif>

>

>

> --

> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TramsDownUnder" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email totramsdownunder+unsubscribe@... mailto:tramsdownunder+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/3110B2F8-B319-46E0-8772-0B807A59B439%40yahoo.com.au https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/3110B2F8-B319-46E0-8772-0B807A59B439%40yahoo.com.au?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer.