I recall that this "problem" was discussed earlier in the series.

IIRC, it was explained (by Steve??) that this terminology was used in
the original documents from which the data is sourced, and it was
generally agreed at that time that it should be replicated here,
rather than attempting to change it to a more meaningful form.

Brian.

At 02:44 PM 6/04/2007, you wrote:

>Tom Fairbairn wrote:

> > I am moved to comment upon a bit of terminology used in these

> > equipment lists.

> >

> > I am used to the term "scrapped" meaning cut up and melted down to

> > make new Utes and sedans. I understand that isn't what is meant here,

> > and I can follow the discussion. But I would submit that the term

> > "withdrawn" (w/d) might better serve, and use "scrapped" to indicate a

> > vehicle has been torched at a specified place and time.

> >

> > What catches my attention is saying a tram was "scrapped," then that

> > it was sold intact or in major parts to somewhere else.

> >

> > Is this being too nit-picking, or am I justified?

>

>Fair comment Tom.

>

>The actual level of dismantling and destruction of tramcars going for

>disposal varies from complete destruction (eg the old wooden w2s that

>were stripped and burnt at Preston) to disposal complete - obviously

>many cars sent to museums, but also some of the Z1s disposed of a couple

>of years back that were (AFIK) complete except for the ticket validators.

>

>Withdrawn doesn't really work, because some trams were withdrawn, then

>later returned to service in times of shortage. Perhaps 'disposed of'

>would be a generic term?

>

>The Z1 at tarnagulla is a good example ... it was disposed of to a buyer

>who was happy to give whatever bits were useful to the Bendigo tramways

>... so it could perhaps be said that the Melbourne tramways disposed of

>it, then the Bendigo Tramways scrapped it! ... or should that be

>dismantled it ????

>

>--

>Mal Rowe in Melbourne