The First Electric Road
A history of the Box Hill and Doncaster tramway
To the memory of my grandparents who were all born during the brief existence of the first electric road
Robert Green
An Intriguing Saga in Melbourne's Early History
They said it wouldn't pay for its own axle grease. They threatened it with shotguns and dynamite. They ripped up its tracks and chopped down its power poles. They took it to court. They seized its property and auctioned it off to pay its debts. They compared it unfavourably with a switchback railway and called its directors lunatics. Yet they complained when it didn't run on time.
The history of the first electric tramway in Australia, and the southern hemisphere, is a fascinating glimpse of the conflicts and challenges faced by the promoters of the Box Hill and Doncaster tramline together with the residents, businessmen, politicians, orchardists, passengers, and all the other people who became involved.
The story has been outlined in a brief history marking its fiftieth anniversary, but the full saga has never been told. Now, The First Electric Road’ has been written to present a fully detailed account in commemoration of the centenary year of this pioneer tramway.
Robert Green has been fascinated by trams since his earliest years. He was born in Melbourne, and educated at Caulfield Grammar School and the University of Melbourne. A practising architect, he is a keen historian, particularly of Melbourne’s early tramways, past Chairman of the Tramway Museum Society of Victoria, and former Councillor of the Royal Historical Society of Victoria.
Contents
- Illustrations
- Conversions
- Acknowledgements
- Foreword
- Introduction
- 1 Sitting over a coil of lightning
- 2 On exhibition
- 3 Forging the road
- 4 The capital,the wisdom and the enterprise
- 5 Up hill and down dale
- 6 The bob-a-week tram service
- 7 Footprints in the sands of time
- Appendices
- References
- Bibliography
- Sources of illustrations
- Index
Illustrations
- Electric railway, Berlin Exhibition, 1879
- ‘Third rail’ system electric railway, Baltimore
- Overhead wire electric railway, Asbury Park
- Lynn and Boston electric railway
- Thomson-Houston advertisement, 1889
- William Masters
- Thomas Draper
- Plan of Centennial International Exhibition
- Centennial International Exhibition, Melbourne
- Thomson-Houston tramcar truck
- Thomson-Houston dynamo
- Ball Engine Company advertisement
- W. H. Masters and Company advertisement
- Centennial Exhibition medal
- William Meader
- Robert Gow
- Doncaster Road looking west from tower
- ‘Doncaster Heights’ auction poster
- Doncaster land sale
- Locality map
- Sectional drawing of tramway
- Box Hill and Doncaster Tramway Company share scrip
- Station Street looking north from Whitehorse Road
- ‘Gem of Box Hill’ auction poster
- Arthur Arnot
- Plant at tramway engine house
- Map of tramways proposed and constructed
- Box Hill terminus on opening day
- Doncaster terminus on opening day
- Cover of banquet menu
- Station Street showing tram shed and engine house
- Handbill advertising tramway
- Intersection of Tram Road and Elgar Road
- Pass issued to Richard Serpell
- The original tramcar ‘on the road’
- Map showing Doncaster section of tramway
- The second tram
- Doncaster as seen from Woodhouse Grove
- Richard Serpell
- Alfred Tankard
- View south from near Whittens Lane
- The second tram at Box Hill terminus
- Mathew Glassford
- Doncaster and Box Hill Electric Road Company share scrip
- Henry Hilton
- Day return tram ticket
- Lease between Henry Hilton and tramway company
- William Hilton
- Open tram at Box Hill
- Advertising poster
- October 1893 timetable
- Station Street in 1923
- Site of former engine house, 1933
- Replica tram, Box Hill Jubilee Parade
- Replica tram, Doncaster-Templestowe Historical Society
- Henry Hilton and advertising poster in later years
- Commemorative cairn at Box Hill
- Koonung Creek bridge, 1940
Conversions
- 1 mile - 1.61 kilometres
- 1 yard - 0.91 metre
- 1 foot - 0.31 metre
- 1 inch - 2.54 centimetres
- 1 acre - 0.41 hectare
- 1 lb (pound) - 454 grams
- 1 ton - 1.02 tonnes
- 1hp (horsepower) - 0.74 kilowatt
- £1 (pound) - $2 (as at 1966)
- 1s (shilling ) - 10 cents
- 1d (penny) - 0.83 cents
Acknowledgements
Many people and institutions have contributed in various ways to make this work possible. I am indebted to the following organisations for their co-operation and permission to reproduce material from their collections: Public Record Office of Victoria, State Library of Victoria, National Library of Australia, City of Box Hill, City of Doncaster and Templestowe, Box Hill City Historical Society, Doncaster-Templestowe Historical Society.
I must also thank the large number of people who have assisted by supplying information, suggestions and clues, and by allowing their material to be reproduced; they include the Serpell family, Mavis Draper, Merrick Hilton, Bill and Mary Hilton, Alan and Harold Williamson, Mary Wallace, Ken Smith, Les Cameron, Peter Duckett, Carmel Moss, Aileen Johnston (nee Serpell), Joan Webster, Keith Atkinson, Billee Henry, Barry Deas, Daryl Bunting, Bob Barnett, Jean and George Beavis, Norm Houghton, Ken McCarthy, Bob Prentice, Keith Kings and Jack Cranston.
I am most grateful to Marjorie Boag who contributed so much to the design and production of the book. Bill Green, Heather Kelly, Geoffrey Boag, Andrew Jeffrey and Sue Chadwick all contributed to its final production. Irvine Green and George Scott provided assistance with the reproduction of photographs and Andrew Nguyen and Vladimir Kapusta prepared the maps. Michael Norbury helped clarify some of the technical intricacies of the story and checked the manuscript. John Keating, Trevor Hart, Jack McLean and Irvine Green also provided valuable criticism of the manuscript. Andrew Lemon graciously provided the Foreword. I sincerely thank them for their contribution and encouragement. I am especially grateful to Norma and Bill Green for their forbearance and support.
Forewood
A road named Tram Road with never a tram in sight, but filled instead with the incessant suburban motor traffic of a metropolis, is about the only visible reminder of a unique past. One hundred years ago this was a country landscape, of rolling hills marked by fences, trees and hedges into paddocks, most of them filled with fruit trees. In spring, when Australia’s first electric tram made its surprising journey through this rural scene, the blossoms were giving way to the fresh leaf. So too, the promoters of the strange new electric traction machine believed, would the horse give way to a fresh form of transport. The tram had the power to transform the city. Could they have even begun to imagine the urban landscape that now adjoins the route of the former Box Hill to Doncaster electric tramway?
It would be easy to grow sentimental about their vanished enterprise. Robert Green in this finely researched study reminds us that the promoters had as their first priority an increase in the value of their considerable land holdings in the district. The project was initiated at the very height of Melbourne’s notorious land boom of the 1880s, and shareholders tumbled over each other like sheep from the pen to take up shares or buy the conveniently subdivided building blocks which were close to the tramway.
The initial success of the tram gave way to a saga of intrigue, dispute, litigation and fraud, leavened only by the enthusiasm and dedication of those who tried to keep the doomed enterprise afloat. It is the same enthusiasm and dedication that Robert Green has brought to this book, which for the first time unravels the tangled facts about a remarkable chapter in the history of our city. It is a keen delight, indeed, to plunge down these hills of the past.
Andrew Lemon, October 1989
Introduction
During the latter half of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century, street tramways changed the face of cities throughout the world. At their zenith street tramways were perceived as the mark of a city’s progress and success.
The Australian city of Melbourne has always enjoyed the reputation of being one of the foremost tram-cities. At one time it had the largest cable tram network ever constructed; in recent times it has developed probably the largest electric tramway system in the English-speaking world. But in addition to this envied reputation, Melbourne boasts the honour and distinction of having cradled Australia’s first electric tram.
This primitive vehicle first appeared as a working exhibit at the Melbourne Centennial International Exhibition in 1888; less than one year after the technology of the overhead-wire electric tramway was perfected in America. Within a further year this little tram was carrying sightseers up and down the hills between the outlying rural townships of Box Hill and Doncaster, 10 miles east of Melbourne. This was the first electric tramway in the southern hemisphere. Here was an example of the latest technology in urban street transport, operating through 2 1/4 miles of virgin countryside, in an antipodean outpost far removed from where it had its origin.
That this tramway should have been constructed in this locality is incongruous, but not entirely surprising. At the time Melbourne was about the thirtieth-largest city in the world and the seventh in the British Empire. The city and its surroundings were booming, and provided fertile ground for entrepreneurs willing to try new innovations.
The promoters of the Box Hill and Doncaster tramway were true pioneers. With sheer determination they made a bold concept into a reality. They were also true ‘landboomers’, all eager participants in the ‘scramble for wealth’ then being waged. In the end the primitive tram, which was underpowered and inappropriate for the job demanded of it, was pushed beyond its limits. After a long series of legal battles and physical disruptions to the line itself, the promoters were left with nothing. Although the line was later resurrected and ran successfully for a short time, the 1890s depression finally precipitated its demise.
In his book Mind the Curve John Keating accurately summed up the Box Hill and Doncaster line when he referred to it as the ‘rather freakish’ electric tramway. It was an oddity; the first and last of its kind. Surely there was no other tramway where the track was physically torn up and the overhead wires torn down over a long-running dispute concerning right of way; and no other tramway operator so beset with litigation. Surely no other tramway could have had such a baptism of fire.
Although the precocious infant did not survive long, it was the first of a family of tramways scattered throughout Australia. Within a decade of the birth of the Box Hill line, all major capital cities except Melbourne and Adelaide installed electric street tramways. Paradoxically these two cities are now the only Australian cities where tramways still operate, although in the case of Adelaide there is but one solitary line.
While vehicles, relics and records relating to the various Australian tramways have been preserved to illustrate the history of a once widespread and important public utility, only a handful of scattered relics of the Box Hill and Doncaster tramway survive. This centenary history has been compiled from written and printed records to compensate in some measure for the absence of more tangible reminders of the first electric road.
Chapter 1: Sitting over a coil of lightning
Electric motors for trams are rapidly coming to the front, and bid fair in the not very distant future to beat all other motors out of the field.
(The President, The Victorian Railways Electrical Society, ‘The electric light in railways’, Building and Engineering Journal of Australia and New Zealand, 11 August 1888, p.88.)
The first street tramway ever built was horse drawn and opened between New York and Harlem in 1832. Although successful, the idea did not immediately catch on, and it was not until the 1850s that horse-operated tramways became widespread. In Australia the eccentric American tramway promoter, George Francis Train, established a horse-operated tramway in Sydney as early as 1861 and at the same time tried unsuccessfully to get a similar line running in Melbourne.
But while horse tramways were an improvement in urban public transport, they had certain drawbacks. Horses had a limited capacity to draw heavy loads up steep gradients and they could only work a small number of hours per day. High operating costs and consequential low profits forced tramway operators to find more cost-effective types of motive power.
Steam-powered trams were an obvious improvement over horse trams, for as long as fuel was applied the steam engine would work non-stop. But steam engines emitted smoke, noise and vibrations. Although steam-powered locomotives were appropriate for railways, which had their own exclusive right of way, they were an unwelcome addition to public streets.
In 1879 Andrew Hallidie perfected a tramway system powered by an underground cable. This was ideally suited to the steep terrain of San Francisco. This method of propulsion could be applied to any tramway, but the high cost of construction put cable tramways beyond the reach of most cities. Although they were quiet, clean and capable of carrying heavy loads, cable tramways had one disadvantage: if the cable was put out of action the whole line was stopped.
While horse, steam and cable power enabled street tramways to operate with some success, the future lay with electric traction. The refinement of electric traction and its application to tramways, as they were known in Britain and Europe, or street railways or street railroads as they were known in America, took place rapidly - within the decade of the 1880s.
Soon after the introduction of the first street railway at New York in 1832, experiments in the use of electricity for motive purposes were carried out around the world. At first batteries were the only source of electricity available, but most inventors soon realised that the small and transient current they produced limited their application for traction on a larger scale. Some, however, persisted with the idea that they were a practical means of propulsion, and during the 1880s and 1890s battery-powered trams ran in a few towns and cities around the world. The main disadvantages of battery-electric propulsion were the heavy weight of the batteries themselves, the offensive fumes they produced and their inability to propel a vehicle over any distance at an acceptable speed. For electricity to be an efficient means of traction, some way had to be found to provide a higher and continuous power supply.
Major developments occurred in 1870 when the Belgian, Gramme, perfected the dynamo, and two years later when he realised that if electricity was applied to a dynamo the machine worked in reverse and produced mechanical energy. Electricity could then be generated by a dynamo and transmitted via electrical conductors to another location, where it could be converted to mechanical energy by means of a second dynamo working in reverse as a motor. This notion created new possibilities for the propulsion of vehicles using electricity.
Until this time railways and tramways had relied upon the primary source of motive power being attached to and moving along with the vehicle. Cable trams were of course different because the cable acted as a medium to convey motion from the stationary power source at a cable-winding engine house to trams scattered remotely along the line. Initially inventors tried using rails to conduct electricity from the stationary power source to vehicles along the line.
Von Siemens, a German, first demonstrated this. Using a Gramme dynamo, he and his partner Halske constructed a small narrow-gauge electric locomotive. This locomotive first appeared at the 1879 Berlin Industrial Exhibition. It ran on a circular track and carried passengers seated on three flat-top trucks which trailed behind. Electricity was supplied to the locomotive via a fixed steel conductor or ‘third rail’ located between the running rails. To complete the circuit back to the generating dynamo, the motor was connected via the wheels to the running rails, which acted as the ‘return’ conductor.
Within a short time Siemens and Halske transformed the principles of their miniature electric railway into a full-size passenger tramway at Lichterfelde near Berlin. They fitted an electric motor to a converted horse tramcar and opened their 2.5 kilometre long, metre-gauge line in 1881. Here Siemens and Halske abandoned the principle of the ‘third rail’ and used each running rail as a separate conductor. While use of running rails and ‘third rails’ as conductors had demonstrated that vehicles could be successfully powered from a remote source, this method had an inherent flaw. Any person or animal which contacted both conductors simultaneously received an electric shock. The line could be fenced to protect man and beast, but this method could never be made to work in public streets. Some alternative method of distribution had to be found if electricity was to be applied to street tramways.
Siemens and Halske soon came up with a new concept which relied on a pair of rigid, slotted conductors (one positive, the other negative) suspended above the ground and running parallel with the track. This was first demonstrated at the 1881 Paris exhibition, where a converted horse tram fitted with an electric motor conveyed visitors from the Place de la Concorde to the Exhibition Pavilion. Power was conveyed to the motor by flexible cables extending up from the car and attaching to shuttles which slid inside the slotted conduits. At last some practical solution to electrical distribution which could be used in public streets had been found. During the next six years Siemens and Halske installed their overhead system in three European cities.
In the British Isles inventors persisted in using the rails as conductors. On the Giant’s Causeway tramway at Portrush, Ireland, a ‘third rail’ was mounted on short posts beside the line and the return circuit was made via the running rails. A steel brush, cantilevered off the side of the vehicle, rubbed along the conductor to make electrical connection. Another interesting Irish line was at Newry, where the ‘third rail’ system was installed in a private right of way.
Where the line road crossed a public road a short length of overhead wire took the place of the ‘third rail’. Power from the overhead wire was transmitted to the vehicle by means of an elementary form of pantograph mounted on the roof. A similar system was adopted at Baltimore, Ohio, by Leo Daft. At road crossings he used a length of rigid gas pipe as the overhead conductor. A pole with steel brush extending up from the roof of the tram made contact with the rigid overhead conductor.
The idea of employing overhead conductors along the whole length of the track was soon taken up by other American inventors including Van Depoele, Short, Henry, Bentley and Knight, and Daft himself. Both single and dual wire systems were developed. In the former the track acted as the negative conductor. With a dual wire system, where one wire was positive and the other negative, power was conveyed to the motor by a flexible cable which extended up from the car and attached to a wheeled ‘trolley’ running along the wires. One of the problems with the trolley system was the tendency for the trolley to become detached and fall from the wires. It also posed design difficulties at intersections and points of divergence.
An alternative type of current collection method that achieved limited success during this developmental period was the underground conduit system. Here a thin contactor or plough attached to the vehicle extended down through a slot in the pavement to make electrical connection with single or dual conductors located in a tunnel under the roadway. In the latter case the running rails were not part of the electrical circuit. The first conduit system was installed at Cleveland, Ohio, by the Bentley-Knight Company in 1884, but it was short lived because a fire destroyed the power plant. Similar systems were built in other American cities and elsewhere but the largest was constructed by Siemens and Halske in 1887 at Budapest, where overhead wires were considered aesthetically unacceptable.
By now it was clear that the overhead wire system was the most promising way to electrify existing tramways and to build new ones. The final breakthrough which led to the superiority of the overhead system came at the beginning of 1888 when the American, Frank J. Sprague, perfected a simple but ingenious method of power collection. Sprague’s system consisted of a rotating grooved wheel on a spring-loaded pole which extended up from the car roof and pressed up against a single overhead wire conductor. The return part of the circuit was formed by the wheels and running rails.
Sprague had devised this idea back in 1882 when he was experimenting with the New York elevated railway, but lack of satisfactory motors at the time caused him to abandon the experiment. Having resurrected the idea, Sprague opened a 6-mile line at Richmond, Virginia, in February 1888. Despite initial technical difficulties with motors and control equipment, Sprague’s system was a triumph. Within a year his line was extended to 12 miles in length and was worked by forty electric cars.
As well as perfecting a simple and effective overhead current collection system, Sprague also devised an improved method of mounting the motors. He was the first man to make the truck (a self-contained frame for the wheels, axles and motors) a separate structure from the car body so that the truck, instead of the car body, took all the stresses developed by the motor. He also supported the motor partly on the axle and partly by springs from the truck frame. This helped to prevent the gears from getting out of mesh.
The evolutionary process of electric traction had reached a climax which enabled practical electric tramways to be constructed. The system which employed a single overhead wire and under-running trolley wheel was superior to other systems on all grounds. It was neat, intersections and turnouts were simply made, and because the wheel and pole were permanently attached to the car, there was no chance of a ‘trolley’ falling from the overhead wire. But above all else, electric traction using the overhead wire system was more economical than any other form of traction.
The flurry to build new electric lines and to electrify lines previously powered by horse or steam began. During 1888 eight electric lines opened in America using the Sprague system. But development of electric street railways was not confined to Sprague. His main competitor was the Thomson-Houston Company established in 1883.
For some years previously Elihu Thomson and Edwin Houston had experimented with dynamos and systems of lighting. During 1888 their company entered the electric railway field by acquiring all the key Bentley-Knight, Van Depoele and Sprague patents. The Thomson-Houston Company, which later merged with the Edison General Electric Company to form the General Electric Company, was in a strong position to exploit the demand for street railways. In 1889 Whipple gave the following description of the progressive and successful Thomson-Houston enterprise:
The Thomson-Houston ‘system’ comprises everything about a street railway that is electrical and mechanical. The Thomson-Houston generator is a powerful machine of low voltage, which occupies small space and is free from many of the objections of the average dynamo. The motor and truck are of special design, and are in practical use on many of the electric roads of the country. For general street car work, one fifteen horsepower motor was used, but on the later roads two of such motors have been placed, one upon each truck [axle?]. The motors are placed under the car floor, out of the way, and are protected from dirt and dust by neat coverings. The ordinary hand brake is attached, so as to be the only apparatus required for starting, stopping, and regulating the speed of the car. Reversing is done by means of a small wrench attached to a bar on either platform. The motors are wound for 220 to 600 volts, depending upon the length of road and number of cars to be run.
The trolley wire, in overhead service, is carried over the center of the track at a distance of seventeen to eighteen feet from the ground, on insulators supported by span wires running across from pole to pole, and provided with additional insulators at their ends, or else by brackets which extend from poles placed on the side of the street.
The whole structure is very light looking, and it seems wonderful that it can be made the medium for the transmission of sufficient electrical power to propel any number of cars over any length of track, as the size of this wire is independent of the number of cars operated or the distance over which the line extends.
The current is taken from the conductor by an ornamental structure on top of the car. This consists of a low skeleton framework, which carries an adjustable, swivelling trunnion having at its upper end a jaw, in which is hinged a counter-balanced trolley pole, having at its extension a grooved wheel, making a running flexible contact on the under side of the working conductor. Owing to the flexibility of this arrangement, it is able to follow with facility variations of the trolley wire two or three feet in either a horizontal or vertical direction, and at different rates of speed or around any curve. The curves are formed of a series of short cords which approximate the central line of curvature.
The Thomson-Houston Company has recently substituted carbon brushes for those of copper previously employed. It is claimed for the new brushes that they have longer life and a much better effect upon the commutator of the motor. (Fred H. Whipple, The electric railway, Detroit, 1889, pp. 140-2. (Republished 1980, Orange Empire Railway Museum)
While the Lynn tramcar trucks were equipped with two 15-horsepower motors, the Thomson-Houston truck under the Melbourne Exhibition tram had one 15-horsepower motor only. Although this was satisfactory for operation under exhibition conditions, when the tram later ran between Box Hill and Doncaster the single motor proved inadequate on the hilly terrain. This contributed to the premature demise of this pioneer line.
As they evolved, electric cars proved their superiority over horse-drawn trams. Referring to the Lynn Road, Whipple said, ‘On the grades which the electric car easily climbs with a full load of passengers, four horses with great difficulty pulled the car with small loads’.(Fred H. Whipple, The electric railway, Detroit, 1889, pp. 128. (Republished 1980, Orange Empire Railway Museum) The new means of locomotion fascinated yet bewildered the travelling public. While some people had the idea that a tramload of passengers was pulled along by the little wheel running along the underside of the trolley wire, others mistakenly supposed that the electricity or ‘coil of lightning’ was stored in a corner under the tramcar seat.
Chapter 2: On Exhibition
The collection of machinery, both silent and in motion, was greater both in extent and importance than any previously brought together in the Southern Hemisphere. (Official Record of the Centennial International Exhibition Melbourne, 1888-1889, The Executive Commissioners, Melbourne, 1890, p.1131)
Of all the Melbourne groups and individuals promoting the use of electricity during the 1880s, the firm of W. H. Masters and Company was probably the most progressive and enterprising. William Masters, a Canadian, migrated to Melbourne in 1870 to introduce a special make of sewing machine.
His partner, Thomas Draper, had arrived from London sixteen years earlier. From an early age Draper conducted many electrical experiments. He illuminated the Melbourne Cricket Ground with arc lights for night football matches in 1879 and together with the Government Astronomer arranged to light the Public Library. Later he installed an imported Edison lighting plant in the Legislative Council Chamber. This was the first incandescent lighting system used in Australia.
Meanwhile the telephone had been perfected and news of this new development spread around the world. Masters and Draper saw a potential market for telephones in the booming Melbourne metropolis and began importing telephone equipment. Masters was familiar with wire communication, as he had worked in a telegraph office as a boy and had erected a telegraph line in Canada. Together with a syndicate of others they formed the Melbourne Telephone Exchange Company, which opened for business in 1880. The venture was an immediate success. A larger replacement exchange was soon built in Melbourne and new exchanges were constructed in the provincial centres of Ballarat and Bendigo. In 1887 the Victorian Government purchased the telephone system for £40,000 and Masters and Draper turned their attention to electricity for lighting and other applications.
By the late 1880s they were agents for many overseas electrical firms and offered their services for practically anything connected with electricity. As agents for the Thomson-Houston International Electric Company, Masters and Draper would have been informed of latest developments in lighting technology as well as the company’s recent involvement in the field of electric traction.
The Grand Avenue of Nations terminated at the middle of the line. Here a broad set of steps led down to ground level, where a ‘station’ was constructed for passengers. From the bottom of the steps a narrow pedestrian bridge spanned the electric railway to give access to a switchback railway along the Carlton Street frontage .
The exhibition, which ran for six months, was opened by the Governor of Victoria in August 1888. During the time it was open more than two million visitors, nearly twice the population of Victoria, attended. More than ten thousand exhibitors from thirty-four countries participated in the event of the decade. In addition to the exhibits there was a wide array of other attractions, including a seal pond, an aquarium, ‘fish river caves’ and orchestral and choral concerts. Sustenance could be had from the temperance and licensed dining rooms, a ‘German Beer Kiosk’ and a ‘Colonial Wine Bar’. A special electric lighting plant enabled the whole place to be illuminated after dark.
Although the exhibition was within walking distance of the city, many visitors arrived by cable tram in Nicholson Street. There was also a temporary service of horse-drawn trams using the completed tracks of the unopened cable line along the north part of Swanston Street as far as Queensberry Street, South Carlton. But while the horse and cable trams were carrying record loads of passengers to the exhibition, Masters and Company were having difficulty in simply getting their newfangled electric tram onto its exhibition track.
Thomson-Houston despatched a tramcar and electrical equipment from its factory in Boston but unfortunately the vessel on which it was shipped encountered bad weather in the Atlantic Ocean. The tramcar, possibly carried as deck cargo, was so badly damaged during a storm that it was off-loaded at London and not sent on. Nothing is known about this tram, but it was probably similar to the enclosed cars supplied by Thomson-Houston for the line at Lynn near Boston.
Although the tram body was discarded in London the electrical equipment, and presumably the truck, escaped damage and eventually arrived in Melbourne. By this time the exhibition was well underway and Masters and Company were anxious to get the tramway running. According to Chauncey Belknap, who later represented Thomson-Houston in Australia, Masters and Company had ‘a car built as expeditiously as possible in Melbourne and the apparatus was put in’.(New South Wales Legislative Assembly Votes and Proceedings 1891-92, vol. 5, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. Report together with minutes of evidence, appendices and plans relating to the proposed cable tramway from King Street via William Street to Ocean Street, Minutes of Evidence, p.34)
The simple open vehicle had a flat roof, six transverse seats with tip-over backs, a motorman’s platform each end and double running boards each side. With room for six people on each bench, the car had a total seating capacity of thirty-six. The timber-framed body rested on the Thomson-Houston truck, which carried a single 15-horsepower motor.
This motor was typical of the low-powered motors used in the pioneering days of electric traction. In order to make the early motors light, economical and capable of fitting beneath the tram-car, they were run at high speed. It was then necessary to gear down to a lower speed at the car axle. In the case of the exhibition tram, this was achieved with double reduction spur gears having rawhide pinions. In later years as the design of motors evolved, it became possible to make a motor run slow enough for single reduction gearing to be used, thus dispensing with one gear. By the turn of the century 50-horsepower motors were being used.
A prow-shaped timber wheelguard around the truck carried small steel brushes which cleaned the rail ahead of the wheel to improve electrical contact between rail and wheel. Rotating staffs, mounted on each end-platform to the right of the motorman, controlled steel brake shoes fitted to the four wheels outboard of the axles. The roof-mounted current collector comprised a small trolley wheel attached to a 4 feet 6 inch long pivoted mast of four, 3/8 inch diameter iron rods extended apart in the centre. A set of springs attached to the base of the mast kept the trolley wheel at the upper end in constant contact with the wire suspended overhead.
A single rheostat mounted under the car regulated the amount of power supplied to the motor. It operated by means of a leather strap encircling a wooden barrel. A fuse was mounted on the car framing and main switches were provided above the driving positions each end of the car. Eight incandescent lights were provided for night operation, including a bare bulb headlight with simple circular reflector mounted on the end of the roof. Passengers could signal the driver by means of a communication cord running along the centre underside of the roof. This connected to a small bell mounted above the motorman’s head.
The builder of the car body remains a mystery. There is the possibility that it was built by the Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Company which was then rapidly turning out horse and cable cars at its large carriage works in North Fitzroy. As the exhibition tramcar resembles two open cross-bench cars which operated at Beaumaris, there is also a possibility that it was obtained secondhand from that line. However, a more likely proposition is that it came from the Adelaide tramcar builders Duncan and Fraser. This firm had recently established a Melbourne branch workshop in Alfred Street, Prahran, where presumably it assembled horse trams for the local Coburg, Caulfield and Beaumaris lines.
Before establishing the factory at Prahran, Robert Gow and his brother William were the Melbourne agents for Duncan and Fraser.
In addition Gow was secretary of the Beaumaris Tramway Company and was to become secretary of the Box Hill and Doncaster Tramway Company which ran the tramcar after the exhibition. Reflecting the uncertain direction of electric traction, while arrangements were being made to get the exhibition tram running, Duncan and Fraser provided a double-deck tram and charged the accumulators for a demonstration of the Julien battery-electric system on the then unopened Toorak cable tram track. Duncan and Fraser also exhibited tramcars in both the Victorian and South Australian sections of the Centennial Exhibition.
The belated appearance of the electric tramcar at the exhibition was reported in the Argus on Thursday 15 November 1888. Although several trips had already been made, the tram was not running regularly, as arrangements for admission and registration of passengers were incomplete. The following evening a party of invited guests made a trial trip and next day the tram made more occasional runs when passengers were carried free. After two turnstiles were erected at the ‘station’ the line finally opened for paying passengers on Monday 19 November 1888. The fare charged was threepence per ride.
‘The Thomson-Houston electric tram-car is the first thing of the kind that untravelled Victorians have seen, and the smoothness and noiselessness with which it runs are warmly commended’ wrote one correspondent. (U.S. Senate Executive Documents, 1st Session 51st Congress, 1889-90, vol. 4, Reports of the U.S. Commissioners to the Centennial International Exhibition at Melbourne 1888, Government Printing Office, 1890, ‘Report on the machinery at the exhibition by Andrew Semple of Melbourne’, p.143) He also pointed out that electric tramways were contemplated for Ballarat and other inland cities but there seemed little chance they would displace the admirable cable tram in Melbourne. The Argus took an opposing view, saying the exhibition tramway showed how easy it would be to electrify the cable system by installing wires in the existing underground conduits. It also noted the capital cost savings of electric traction when compared with the cable system. The Age also remarked on the smooth working of the car and the way it ran with ease up the gradient of 1 in 16, even when loaded with over twenty people.
From all accounts the Masters and Company display in the American Machinery Court was one of the largest and most interesting exhibits. It contained a range of dynamos and motors, arc and incandescent lighting, other minor electrical appliances and ‘a large enclosure specially devoted to the display of Electoliers from single to large clusters of lights, and fitted with glass shades in every variety of colour’.(Australasian Ironmonger, Builder, Engineer and Metalworker, 1 January 1889, p22) The display ‘is at night one of the most brilliant places in the exhibition’ wrote the Age. (17 November 1888)
Power for the tramway came from one of the dynamos in the Machinery Court. The overhead trolley wire was apparently divided into insulated sections, to demonstrate on a small scale how power was fed into the trolley wire at each section along the length of a full-size tramway. The Age described this as:
"an arrangement by which the electric current wire can be fed at different points along its course, so that the current need not necessarily be turned on at one end and have to make its way along the whole length of the wire."
Cut-away and exploded view of a Thomson-Houston open-coil dynamo containing spherical armature.
The Thomson-Houston dynamos were of open-coil design with a spherical armature revolving between the poles of two horizontal field magnets. A feature peculiar to these machines was a small air-blowing device which extinguished destructive sparking at the commutator. According to Moir, the dynamo running the exhibition tramway was a ‘400 Incandescence Machine’ which operated at 1,000 r.p.m. and gave an output of 400 volts. (J. K. Moir, Australia's first electric tram, Melbourne, 1940, p.4).
The exhibition dynamos were run by one or two high-speed horizontal steam engines manufactured by the Ball Engine Company of Erie, Pennsylvania. A continuous supply of steam was supplied to exhibitors by the commissioners from noon to 9 p.m each working day. One source states that the Ball engine operating the dynamos was of ‘60 I.H.P.’ (indicated horsepower) and ran at 300 r.p.m. (Australasian Ironmonger, 1 January 1889, p.22)
Moir implies that there were two similar engines at the exhibition and says that the one which later went to Box Hill operated there at 275 r.p.m. and was ‘10 x 12 with overhanging flywheels’. One 4 feet 6 inch diameter flywheel housed the governor. The other flywheel was 5 feet 6 inches in diameter and carried the belt to the dynamo. (J. K. Moir, Australia's first electric tram, Melbourne, 1940, p.4) Contemporary reports of the opening of the Box Hill tramway all state that the engine was rated at 50 horsepower and ran at 300 r.p.m.
Ball engines were distinguished by their unusual governors and valves. The latter gave long and economical service and could be inspected by removal of the steam chest cover while still operating under boiler pressure. Despite these advantages the engines had a small piston clearance at the end of the stroke and due care had to be taken in correctly adjusting the crank and cross head connections. Moir relates that the ‘mate’ of the Box Hill engine disintegrated when later installed for lighting purposes at the Nicholson Street cable tram engine house, possibly on account of incorrect piston clearance.
Well before the tram arrived at the exhibition Masters and Draper formed a syndicate to acquire their Thomson-Houston franchise. In September 1888 the syndicate became registered as the Southern Electric Company Limited Melbourne, with an authorised capital of £ 100,000. Thomas Draper became the company’s managing director.
With the exhibition tram running satisfactorily, the newly formed company was in a better position to promote its potential as a supplier of tramway and lighting equipment. Early in December it invited members of the local Footscray and Coburg councils to inspect the completed display. Although Coburg councillors enthusiastically supported a proposed new electric tramway along Sydney Road, this was not to be. The operator chose horse traction instead, and it was not until the middle of the First World War that the line was finally electrified. Although the company failed to establish an electric tramway at Coburg, it did gain a contract to install electric lighting in the nearby suburb of Essendon.
Despite the late arrival of the tram and the disappointing patronage, the jury adjudicating on electrical apparatus described the Thomson-Houston display as ‘a most complete exhibit’. It said that it deserved ‘great praise for its completeness of system, lighting (arc and incandescent), motors and traction’. (Official Record, p.849) It awarded the display a First Order of Merit and special mention. As a result the Exhibition Commissioners presented the Thomson-Houston Company with a gold medal. The Ball Engine Company was also awarded a First Order of Merit for its high-speed engines.
Unfortunately the tramway was not the success the promoters and exhibition executive had hoped for. The daily average number of passengers was less than three hundred. The Official Record noted that although the tramway was scientifically interesting, patronage had been poor. The tramway closed on 29 January 1889. During the fifty-eight days it operated, 16,928 passengers were carried. The Exhibition Commissioners and Masters and Company each received £105 15s l1d from the sale of rides.
Chapter 3: Forging the road
They cut the route through from Whitehorse Road in the south out across the paddocks, over the Koonung Creek, and up to Doncaster, leaving a brand new road behind them. (Royal Historical Society of Victoria memorandum, quoted in Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board Annual Report 1978-79, p.11)
During the late 1880s there was considerable activity among enterprising electricians who were promoting electricity for new applications. ‘In Melbourne the air is thick with electrical projectors’ claimed the president of the Victorian Railways Electrical Society in 1888. Referring to the development of tramways, he hoped and expected that within a year there would be ‘a tramway or tramways in the neighbourhood of Melbourne worked by electro motors’. (Building and Engineering Journal, 11 August 1888, p.88)
Exactly how far advanced proposals were to construct tramways in the shires of Nunawading and Bulleen when the president made his observations is not known, but he may have been alluding to these early plans when he made this specific reference. The adjoining shires lay about 10 miles east of Melbourne and had the townships of Box Hill and Doncaster as their respective administrative and principal centres. Together these centres were the third-largest fruit-growing areas in Victoria.
The Nunawading shire was described as ‘undulating, picturesque and very healthy’. Box Hill, with a population of 500, was situated on the railway line to Lilydale. It had a bank, two hotels and a brickworks. Box Hill was booming and well serviced. The railway had arrived in 1882 and by 1888 the town had regular letter deliveries and a telegraph service. ‘The property in this district is increasing in value, and buildings are being erected in all directions’ wrote one observer. (Victorian Municipal Directory and Gazetteer for 1889, p.420)
Doncaster, on the other hand, was slightly less fortunate for it did not have a railway. It did, however, have a service of horse-drawn omnibuses plying between Kew Post Office and the Doncaster Hotel, and a daily horse-cab service between Box Hill Station and the Tower Hotel, Doncaster. The latter service was begun in 1887 by William Meader, the proprietor of the hotel. Although it lacked a rail transport facility, Doncaster was still a pleasant place to live and the population of 660 was well served by two schools, two hotels, a post office, two churches and an Athenaeum hall.
The most prominent landmark in the district was the 285 feet high Beaconsfield Tower, standing in Doncaster Road beside the Tower Hotel (near the present-day Tower Street). The Victorian Municipal Directory observed that:
Excursionists and tourists who have visited many places of note in the old countries all agree that the beautiful scenery and extensive field of view to be seen from the Beaconsfield Tower cannot be surpassed. (Victorian Municipal Directory and Gazetteer for 1889, p.275-6)
The earliest evidence of a syndicate planning tramways at Bulleen and Nunawading dates from August 1888, when the ‘provisional directors of the Box Hill, Blackburn and Doncaster Tramway Company’ applied to the Bulleen shire for permission to break up the road and construct what appear to be two separate tramways. The first was to run from ‘a point on the Doncaster Road opposite Mr Clay’s orchard westerly to the intersection of Williamsons Road thence along Williamsons Road to Hanke’s corner’ (Manningham Road), and the second ‘from the Koonung Creek along the Blackburn Road to the section corner at the intersection of Blackburn and Andersons Creek Road being a distance of about 1 1/2 miles’. (Shire of Bulleen minutes, 27 August 1888)
The reasons behind these proposed lines are not clear and they appear to have led from nowhere to nowhere. The name of the proposed company suggests it aimed to build tramways in Box Hill and nearby Blackburn, but there is no evidence that the company applied to the Shire of Nunawading for permission to construct such lines. The first line, about 3/4 mile long, would have commenced near the Tower Hotel and made a wide boomerang-shaped sweep across the west edge of the Doncaster plateau. This line would have passed Richard Serpell’s land at the comer of Doncaster and Williamsons Roads and the second line would have passed William Sell’s property on the east side of Blackburn Road. Both men were probably syndicate members because they were prominent participants in the tramway company that subsequently developed.
The Bulleen Council agreed to give its consent to the proposal when more specific details were submitted. It also requested its secretary to obtain the Governor in Council’s approval to construct tramways within the shire. No mention was made of the type of traction to be used. The council was obviously keen to promote new projects, because only the previous month a deputation of representatives of the Evelyn Tunnel Water Power Company proposed to generate power for transmission to Melbourne via overhead or underground conductors. Although the council agreed to the company laying overhead or underground conductors through the shire from a proposed generator station on the Yarra River, nothing more was mentioned of this scheme. Whether or not this proposal had any connection with the projected tramways is a matter of conjecture. There is the possibility that this scheme could have provided power for the tramway. The precedent of running an electric tram with hydro-electric power had been set five years earlier on the Giant’s Causeway tramway at Portrush, Ireland.
Although the electric power syndicate plans apparently lapsed, there was much activity over the tramway proposal. Within a short time the Blackburn route was abandoned, the Doncaster route was altered, the Box Hill and Doncaster Tramway Company Limited was floated and tenders were called for construction of the line. The prospectus of the new company listed the following thirteen provisional directors:
- J. H. Bussell, 16 Collins St West
- R. G. Cameron, 67 Swanston St
- T. W. Dally, Collingwood
- Joseph Davis, Western Market
- W. Ellingworth, Director Centennial Land Bank
- F. Illingworth, Director Centennial Land Bank
- H. McDowall, Doncaster
- Cr W. Meader, Bulleen Shire
- W. C. Palmer, Queen Street
- Cr W. Sell, Doncaster
- Richard Serpell, Doncaster
- T. Smith, Mayor of South Melbourne
- Cr C. F. Taylor, Selbourne Chambers
The company planned to construct tramways to be drawn by horse or other power ‘for passenger traffic in the Shires of Nunawading and Bulleen, starting from Box Hill railway station along Station Street to a point in Elgar Road Doncaster, 2 miles 68 chains long’. The provisional directors were very keen to get the line operating to capitalise on the approaching holiday season and estimated the cost of constructing the ‘Box Hill section’ and furnishing ‘tramcars, sheds, horses, stables etc’ at £6,500. No specific mention was made of operating the tramway with electricity. (Prospectus of the Box Hill and Doncaster Tramway Company Limited, in K. Smith collection)
The company was officially registered on 24 October 1888, with an authorised capital of £15,000 in £l shares. Its stated aim was to construct and operate a tramway from Box Hill station to the corner of Williamsons Road and Heidelberg Road (now Manningham Road), Doncaster. Such a line would promote sales of land being subdivided north of Whitehorse Road and south of Doncaster Road, would boost tourism and provide Doncaster with a connection to the railway at Box Hill. As no road existed along much of the proposed route, the company had to forge a new one through private property.
Commencing at Box Hill station, the line was to follow Station Street as far as Whitehorse Road. From here it was to proceed along a private road through the properties of C. F. Taylor, the Box Hill Township Estate Company, W. Sell, R. Serpell and W. Meader to the Shire boundary at Koonung Creek. Crossing the creek the line was to zig-zag in a north-westerly direction to the corner of Doncaster and Williamsons Roads, along a road surveyed through the properties of Frederick Illingworth, John Woolcott and others, William Ellingworth and others, a second parcel of Illingworth land then land belonging to Edward Gallus.
Through the first three properties the road was to be named Station Street but through Illingworth’s second property it was to be called Frederick Street, presumably to perpetuate his name. From Doncaster Road the line was to traverse Williamsons Road until its intersection with the present-day Manningham Road.
In addition to constructing and operating the tramway, the company was authorised to supply any form of lighting wherever it wished, and could manufacture and maintain omnibuses. The type of tramcars and method of motive power were at the company’s discretion. The five subscribers to the Memorandum and Articles of Association and the number of shares they pledged to take in the new company were as follows:
- William Meader 500 shares
- Percy J Russell 500 shares
- William Sell 500 shares
- Richard Serpell 1,000 shares
- Charles F.Taylor 1,000 shares
C. F. Taylor, a thirty-nine-year-old barrister, was soon to become Member of the Legislative Assembly for Hawthorn. During the previous year he purchased 345 acres of land on the north side of Whitehorse Road at £150 per acre for residential subdivision. Within days he sold it for £175 per acre to the Box Hill Township Estate Company which he and a syndicate of estate agents, merchants and contractors had just floated for the purpose. With land close to the heart of Box Hill and near the station, Taylor and his partners were destined for success. Percy Russell, a solicitor, had entered into partnership with Taylor’s father. The Hawthorn and Boroondara Standard disparagingly referred to him as Taylor’s aide-de-camp, for Taylor was a captain in the militia.
William Sell owned land in the area and had been elected councillor for the Doncaster riding of the Bulleen shire just the year before. William Meader, a fellow councillor, was president of the Licensed Victuallers’ Association and had just sold the Tower Hotel.
Last but by no means least of the subscribers was Richard Serpell. He settled in Doncaster in the early 1850s and became a pioneer fruit grower. Although he never held civic office, he played a long and distinguished role in the life and development of the locality. He remained a staunch supporter of the tramway through all its vicissitudes.
With the exception of Percy Russell, all subscribers to the Memorandum and Articles of Association became directors of the company. C. R. Staples, a man deeply involved in land speculation and nefarious financial deals, became a director, together with William Ellingworth and Frederick Illingworth. Presumably the latter appointments were made in return for allowing the line to pass through their land. Ellingworth, a Nunawading councillor, also speculated in land and was a director of Illingworth’s infamous Centennial Land Bank. Illingworth bought large areas of land around Doncaster and elsewhere, and in 1889 became Member of the Legislative Council for the Northern Province.
William Meader became company chairman and Robert F. Gow was employed as secretary and manager. Gow was already secretary of the Beaumaris Tramway Company.
Taylor and Russell, Percy Russell’s firm, naturally became the company’s legal advisers. An account was opened with the Doncaster branch of the English Scottish and Australian Chartered Bank and Squire Aspinall and Fred McDonough accepted the role of auditors.
Muntz and Bage (later Muntz, Bage and Muntz), Civil Engineers and Surveyors, were retained to carry out the company’s engineering work. Whether they were paid or given shares in lieu of payment for their services is unknown. By the time the line opened they held 200 shares in the company. Muntz and Bage had considerable municipal consulting experience and were engineers for the Beaumaris, Caulfield and Royal Park horse tramways and the Sorrento steam tramway on the Momington Peninsula.
By the time the line was about to open, fifty-seven individuals held 10,130 shares in the company. Sixty per cent of the shareholders lived outside the area and the local shareholdings were divided approximately equally between the two shires. With 1,500 shares, Frederick Illingworth was by far the largest shareholder; then came Richard Serpell, C. R. Staples and C. F. Taylor (in trust for the Box Hill Township Estate Company) with 1,000 shares each.
Arrangements were made with land owners for the tramway to be laid through their properties, but some were merely verbal agreements and this led to complications later on. The wily Illingworth made sure he would not be caught out; he gave the company a ninety-nine-year lease of a strip of his land abutting Koonung Creek, consideration being that the company would actually ‘make, lay and construct’ the tramway. (Land Titles Office Memorial No. 975, Book 352, Illingworth to the Box Hill and Doncaster Tramway Company Limited, 12 January 1889)
Advertisements for the ‘Doncaster Heights’ subdivision at the north end of the line proudly claimed:
The Box Hill and Doncaster Tram Line will run through this Estate, thus connecting it with and bringing it within 15 minutes of the Box Hill Railway Station. This, together with the duplication of the Box Hill line will bring Doncaster within 40 minutes of the City. (Advertising poster for ‘Doncaster Heights’ subdivision auction, 25 October 1888, Map collection, State Library of Victoria)
| 20-Oct-1888 p.6. The Argus Newspeper. Doncaster Heights No. 2. Clay's Orchard Auctioneer's plans. Batten & Percy (Firm) Publisher: T Smith & Co., Printers: Litho. & General Printers. Elgar Road -- Frederick Street -- Station Street -- Petty Street -- Whittons Road -- Alice Street -- Doncaster Road -- Clay Street -- Arthur Street. Batten & Percy Collection |
Agents and auctioneers for this estate were F. L. Flint, a shareholder in the Box Hill Township Estate Company, and R. G. Cameron, owner of 100 shares in the tramway company. They too had reason to puff up the new enterprise.
For some unknown reason the advertised plan of subdivision for the ‘Doncaster Heights’ estate showed the tramway running north along Frederick Street then bearing north-west through three of the sixty-six allotments being auctioned. Perhaps the agents were so anxious to tell potential purchasers the tramway was coming that it was immaterial exactly where its route lay.
During October 1888 Muntz and Bage called tenders for constuction of the earthworks and permanent way. An offer of £2,900 from John M. Turnbull of South Yarra was accepted for the work, which was expected to be completed early in February 1889. The proposed sections of tramway north of Doncaster Road and south of Whitehorse Road were never constructed.
Arrangements were made for Frank G. Duff of Launceston, Tasmania, to supply some 200 tons of second-hand rails, bolts and fishplates. The first of six deliveries took place on 27 October. The rails cost £5 1Os per ton and the whole order totalled nearly £1,200. The rails weighed 35-40 pounds per yard.
The contractor arrived on site on 7 November and set up camp ‘just the other side of Koonung Creek’. W. J. Moffatt, one of Turn-bull’s men, turned the first sod ‘on the little rise down from Whitehorse Road’ (south of the present-day Thames Street) on Monday 12 November 1888. Some of the occupiers of land through which the line was to pass were jealous of their peace and privacy and many locals were bitterly opposed to its construction. Moffatt later recalled:
As we entered a property the owner was inside with a double barrelled gun to shoot the first man that entered. But the men rushed the fence and the owner walked away so no one was shot.(Box Hill Reporter, 31 January 1941)
As well as contending with the locals, the contractor also had difficulties with his own men. In December work stopped for a few days when the carters called a strike over increasing costs of horse feed .They had been getting 11s per dayand demanded a further 2s. Turnbull agreed to an extra 1s 6d and the men returned to work .
The 2 1/4 mile long tramway between Whitehorse Road and Doncaster Road comprised a single track of 4 feet 8 1/2 inch gauge. It had a maximum grade of 1 in 15.4 (6.5 per cent), an average grade of 1 in 25 (4 per cent) and only 75-100 yards of level track. The section between Koonung Creek and Doncaster Road was particularly steep and included one very sharp 2 chain (132 feet) radius curve. The hilly terrain necessitated some heavy cuttings and embankments and bridges had to be erected over Koonung and Bushy creeks. In March 1889 the Shire of Bulleen received complaints about the dangerous cutting being made by the tramway company at Whittens Lane. A council committee was sent to examine the complaint and the council later agreed to pay half the cost of extra work needed to widen the cutting and reduce the gradient.
The Age fully appreciated the hardships faced by the tramway company, and its determination to apply the new technology of electric traction in an already difficult terrain, when it reported that:
On account of the difficulty in obtaining land along the route, it has not been possible to lay the track in a straight line, so that sharp curves have combined with steep gradients to give the experiment a severe and searching test. (Age, 15 October 1889)
Two different types of construction were employed; about two thirds of the line had the track centred in a 30 feet wide formation with overhead wire supported from rows of poles either side (span wire construction); the remainder comprised a 24 feet wide formation with the track along one side and the overhead wire supported from a single row of poles having cantilevered bracket arms (side pole construction).
The rails were spiked to 4 inch thick blue-gum sleepers 6 feet 6 inches long and 8 inches wide. These were placed about 2 feet 6 inches apart on a 3 inch thick bed of crushed metal. A guard rail was installed on curves as a precaution against derailments. Stone for the ballast was obtained from a quarry beside Station Street near the south bank of Koonung Creek.
The contractor made steady but rather slow progress. By the beginning of March 1889 rails were being laid and by the middle of April the line was almost complete. The Box Hill and Camberwell Express was pleased with the new thoroughfare, claiming that if the job had been left to the council it would not have been built for years. It also predicted the likelihood of increasing property values as a consequence of the road and noted the quality of housing being erected.
Early in February 1889, when construction was well underway, the company requested the municipalities to obtain the Governor in Council’s approval to construct tramways along and across roads under municipal control. Normally a municipality would obtain an order from the Governor in Council to construct tramways within its area, then either build the lines itself or delegate its authority to others.
On 15 February 1889 the Shire of Bulleen advertised its intention of obtaining an Order in Council to permit construction of the line between Koonung Creek and Doncaster Road. The Nunawading shire advertised on 22 March for that part between Box Hill station and Koonung Creek. Despite municipal activity, no Order in Council was necessary to construct the tramway between Whitehorse Road and Doncaster Road because the tramway ran over private land and crossed no government roads. An Order in Council was only necessary when government roads were involved.
However, once started, the bureaucratic process of obtaining an Order in Council continued to roll. In July the Secretary for Railways advised the Roads and Bridges Branch of the Department of Public Works that there was no ‘railway objection’ to construction of the tramway. Four months later, when the tramway was in operation, Muntz, Bage and Muntz were still providing the Department of Public Works with technical particulars of the permanent way and rolling stock. The whole exercise appears to have been futile. There is a lack of any ready evidence that an Order in Council was made.
Although the Bulleen shire gave the question of an Order in Council scant attention, the Shire of Nunawading examined the matter more fully. The Box Hill Township Estate Company was already pressing the Nunawading shire to take over Station Street north of Whitehorse Road and declare it a public highway. So when the question of a tramway along the same thoroughfare (which was still a private street) arose, it discussed the question of road maintenance and arrangements under which it would lease use of the street to the tramway company. Although Moir states that well after the tramway closed Richard Serpell handed over the ‘Delegation Deeds of the road to the Box Hill [Nunawading] Council’, there is no obvious evidence that the council delegated its authority to construct the tramway or was even capable of so doing.
In the tramway company’s first half-yearly report, issued in August 1889, William Meader reported that three-quarters of an acre of ground had been acquired from the Box Hill Township Estate Company ‘at a nominal sum, on a convenient spot at Bushy Creek’, and that the housing for machinery had been constructed. The land, on the south bank of the creek, situated on the east side of Station Street (north of the present-day Wimmera Street), was probably leased from the estate company as the tramway company never became registered on the title as proprietor. The power-generating equipment was installed in a simple corrugated-iron building, which also housed the tramcar. A dam, constructed on Bushy Creek, provided water for the boiler.
Installation of the generating equipment and distribution wiring was carried out by the newly established Union Electric Company of Australia Limited under a £2,350 contract dated 31 May 1889. This company had been formed the previous month by merger of the Southern Electric Company Limited Melbourne (formerly W. H. Masters and Company) and the Electric Light and Power Supply Company of Australia Limited. B. J. Fink, a notorious speculator and land boomer, had a large shareholding in the Union Electric Company and, together with Thomas Draper, became one of its first directors.
In addition to installing the electrical equipment the Union Electric Company was to run the tramway in a satisfactory manner for six months from the date of commencement. Arthur Arnot, a young up and coming electrical engineer and secretary of the Union Company, superintended the contract. Arnot later became the Melbourne City Council’s first electrical engineer.
The power generating plant comprised one of the Ball engines and one of the Thomson-Houston dynamos from the Centennial Exhibition. When the Box Hill tramway opened, the dynamo operated at 1,100 r.p.m. and produced 80 amps at 400 volts. The output was later increased to 500 volts by speeding up the dynamo to 1,200 r.p.m. An under-fired boiler built by Wright and Edwards of South Melbourne provided steam for the engine. The 12 feet long, 3 feet 6 inch diameter boiler had fifty tubes and a 30 feet high iron smoke stack. It operated at a pressure of 100 pounds per square inch. Water from the nearby dam was delivered to the boiler by a Vauxhall pump and Penberthy injector.
Control equipment for the generating plant was simple but effective - a steam pressure gauge, a main knife switch and a number of lamps wired in series which glowed to show that the dynamo was operating. A lightning arrestor was mounted above the switchboard.
The single overhead trolley wire was suspended about 18 feet above the ground. Where the track was centred in the roadway, the wire was supported from cross or span wires attached to timber poles placed about 160 feet apart along each side of the formation. Elsewhere bracket arms cantilevered from poles located along the side of the road supported the trolley wire. The 25 feet long poles were embedded 5 feet into the ground. Many poles carried a sign with the initials of James Barnes, one of the men who erected them. Barnes later became a well known honey producer.
All the overhead electrical equipment was designed and manufactured locally. The egg-shaped insulators, with hooks screwed into each end, were made from the hard and dense wood Lignum Vitae, boiled in oil. A cap fitted to the top provided additional weather protection. The 1 1/4 inch diameter hard-drawn copper trolley wire (No. 4 Birmingham wire gauge), was simply soldered onto the span wires.
In those pioneering days the track, comprising rails simply connected together with fishplates, was inadequate to form a continuous electrical circuit back to the dynamo. To overcome this difficulty a separate ‘ground return’ wire, attached to each rail, ran along the complete length of the track. At Box Hill every rail on the west side of the track was connected with a short wire to a pair of return wires. These were located in some places between the rails and elsewhere outside the track.
Late in September, when the line was almost complete and ready for operation, the tramway company was confronted with the first of a series of legal battles which were to become a characteristic of its brief existence. On 23 September 1889 J. M. Turnbull, the permanent way contractor, issued a Supreme Court writ against the tramway company, claiming £1,538 16s 1d for the balance of his account, the return of his deposit and for extra work done.
The company claimed that the uncompleted work was unsatisfactory and that it had to take possession of the line and complete the work itself. The case was further complicated by the fact that Muntz and Bage had mistakenly issued a final certificate for the work early in May. It is interesting to note that Matthew Glassford, who later held a substantial interest in the second tramway company, was somehow involved at this time and provided an affidavit in support of Turnbull’s case. After many months of disagreement the dispute was settled out of court. It seems likely that Turnbull lost heavily on his contract with the company.
The official opening of the line was scheduled for Monday 14 October 1889. Although the local press reported a successful test of the line on Wednesday 8 October, preparations went wrong the day before the opening when the car apparently derailed nine times. Arnot later recalled spending the rest of the day and much of the night increasing the super-elevation of the curves and greasing the guard rails to avoid mishaps during the opening ceremony.
Chapter 4: The Capital, The Wisdom and the Enterprise
It was a keen delight to plunge down the hills from Doncaster and to speed up the ascents as we sped through the orchards. (Unidentified news cutting in Serpell family papers)
The tramway was to be officially opened by the Victorian Premier, Duncan Gillies, on Monday 14 October 1889. The Box Hill people declared it a ‘red letter’ day and the shire council suspended its usual meeting so that councillors could attend the celebration. A large number of invited guests assembled at the Box Hill terminus about noon and patiently awaited the arrival of the Premier. When it became clear that he would not be coming, the tramway company directors invited Ewen Cameron, the Government Whip, to perform the ceremony. Cameron was the Member of the Legislative Assembly for the electoral district of Evelyn, which included Bulleen. He was also the founding president of the adjoining Shire of Eltham
In an introductory speech the tramway company chairman, William Meader, strongly criticised the locals for their determined and persistent opposition to the tramway. He said that those associated with the company had been considered lunatics for investing in such a venture. He felt sure the opponents would be proven wrong by the success of the line, which was the first electric tramway in the southern hemisphere. He prophesied that within a short time electric lines would be constructed throughout the colony.
In officially opening the line, Ewen Cameron predicted that the tramway would be a great benefit to the district and a boon to visiting tourists. He then severed a cord restraining the car and ‘it glided swiftly away to Doncaster, amidst the vociferous cheers for the success of the company’.(Reporter, 17 October 1889) Two return trips were then made to convey the hundred or so guests to Doncaster, where a celebration banquet costing 10s 6d (half a guinea) per head was held at the Tower Hotel. The hotel was situated on the north side of Doncaster Road about 1/4 mile east of the tram terminus.
The Age reporter enjoyed his outing on the tram and recounted the journey as follows:
The gentlemen who assembled at Box Hill yesterday to try the new means of propulsion had a very pleasant experience, as the trip was of a most enjoyable character. . . When all was ready for a start, the brake was removed and the vehicle glided down the track with a smooth and easy motion. Starting down a considerable slope the pace was allowed to increase after the fashion of the switchback railway until the car was travelling some 12 or 14 miles an hour, and the impetus attained in this way was used in mounting the opposite slope. The pace was slackened considerably in going up the hills, and on the steepest grades only 5 miles an hour was attempted, but still the average speed was good throughout, and the whole distance of 2 1/4 miles was covered in 20 minutes. (Age, 15 October 1889)
Arthur Arnot and the directors were no doubt relieved when all the guests arrived safely at Doncaster. Meader had alluded to the unfinished state of the permanent way during his speech at Box Hill, and Arnot later recalled that on account of the derailments the day before, no risks were taken in transporting the invited guests.
During proceedings the chairman, William Meader, read a telegram from the Premier expressing regret that an afternoon meeting of the Executive Council prevented his attendance. But while the Premier was engrossed in affairs of state, the guests at the Tower Hotel were settling in for a convivial afternoon of oratory.
After loyal toasts to Queen Victoria and the Acting Governor there followed a series of toasts: to the Ministry and Ewen Cameron, the Parliament, the Municipal Corporations, the Tramway Company, the Union Electric Company, the Officers of the Tram Company, the Press and finally ‘The Ladies’. Three parliamentarians and three shire presidents responded to the toasts to the parliament and the municipalities.
Several speakers referred to the long and pressing need for a railway service to Doncaster. Cameron said that locals had been wrong in opposing construction of the tramway on the grounds that it would be an excuse for further postponement of a railway. The guests cheered heartily when he said that he felt satisfied the Doncaster railway would be included in the next Construction Bill. William Meader was not prepared to wait that long. With the troublesome construction of the tramway now over, he buoyantly declared that if the government refused to build the railway he was prepared to float a company and make a start within twenty-four hours.
From all accounts the opening and banquet were successful and enjoyable events. The Box Hill Reporter praised the enterprise in glowing terms and made special mention of the Nunawading shire secretary’s toast to the Press:
His utterances were full of wisdom, and his speech throughout was pregnant with rich thoughts, expressed in choice and elegant language. We do not remember ever having heard the toast of the ‘fourth estate’ being proposed in such a true and effective speech. (Reporter, 17 October 1889)
With the official opening over, the tram began trundling back and forth through the countryside on a regular basis. For the time being opposition to the tramway was overwhelmed by the success of the official opening. The Reporter rode the wave of enthusiasm with the following euphoric editorial:
The opening of the Box Hill-Doncaster Electric Tramway marks a new epoch in the history of this rising district. Doncaster is now connected with the city of Melbourne with a motive power which bids fair to revolutionise the world. What the State has failed to accomplish private enterprise has taken in hand and carried out in a successful and praiseworthy manner. Every resident in the district should be proud of the action which has prompted the promoters to rise and make the tramway which connects Doncaster with the leading metropolis of the southern hemisphere. They have carried out an undertaking which will tend to immortalise their names in the bright and sunny land of Australia. They have been the instruments of demonstrating one of the actual facts and revelations of science, and when the directors of this company shall have joined the great majority they will leave behind them footprints in the sands of time. Is it not a high honour to think that the first Electric Tramway which has ever been made in the southern hemisphere should have been laid down between Box Hill and Doncaster? Of course it is. Thousands of influential people in London and about England who read the London Times on Tuesday will have been made acquainted with the fact that the first Electric Tramway in Australia was successfully opened on that day between Box Hill and Doncaster. These places will therefore be well known in future in the great mart of the world, and we venture to say that our Council could float another loan tomorrow for £50,000 on more advantageous terms than the loan which is now an accomplished fact. All over the Australian colonies, too, Box Hill will be known as the place which had the capital, the wisdom and the enterprise to inaugurate an undertaking which will place her in the foremost van of progress. In the course of a few months hundreds of tourists and sightseers will specially visit Box Hill to see for themselves what was hitherto believed to be a physical impossibility - a tram car run by electric motive power. This is one of the effects of the march of science, and to the thoughtful mind it suggests a great deal. Only fancy for a moment such a dangerous element as electricity being made subordinate to the power of man’s intellect, and that force which can travel eight times round the world in a second being so contracted and guided at will that it will drive six tons up a steep hill at the rate of six miles an hour. Why, had Galilleo prophesied such an occurrence as that he would have been court-marshalled and crucified head downwards. Yet such is, nevertheless a fact, and we in Box Hill have ocular demonstration of it. Science in its onward march will always be opposed by men of small minds who cannot see further than their nose, and this being the case it is no wonder that the promoters of this tramway should have met with determined opposition; but when we consider that the opposition in this case came from men who cannot tell a gooseberry bush from a sunflower, they should treat it with the contempt it deserves. (Reporter, 17 October 1889)
Despite this lofty editorial the Reporter analysed the new enterprise in more down-to-earth terms. It noted that the tramway would induce people to settle along the line and that it had brought Doncaster within an hour’s journey of Melbourne. It questioned whether the line would pay and concluded that although the company deserved success only time would determine the outcome. The financial feasibility of the line was also taken up by the Express, which reported that on opening day many people said the line would not even pay for axle grease.
But that was for the future and meanwhile money was to be made wherever possible. With the tramway in place and running, the real estate agents were no doubt pleased. In their advertisements for the Box Hill Township Estate, auctioneers C. J. and T. Ham proudly advised ‘The electric tram, the first constructed in the colonies, which connects the Box Hill railway station with Doncaster, traverses the main street in the estate’.(Hawthorn and Boroondara Standard, 18 October 1889) But Cornelius Ham had further reason to be proud. Arthur Arnot, the superintending engineer of the tramway, had just become his son-in-law.
In typical land-boom style the auctioneers offered free rail and tram passes to get people to the land which was described as being ‘within the suburban radius’. Their advertisements also referred to things such as the perfect drainage of the allotments, the quality of the soil as testified by the surrounding orchards, the magnificent elevation and commanding views, the healthy nature of the locality, the fact that gas would be available shortly and the number of handsome villas already constructed.
On the first Sunday after the official opening the tram was taxed to its utmost capacity. The Reporter presented this Arcadian description of the phenomenon:
This is just what we predicted: hundreds of excursionists who wish to enjoy the pure oxygen of Box Hill, flock out on the only day in the week which they can call their own, in order to have a ride on the smooth-running car which plies between Box Hill and Doncaster. Those who have been caged up in the city and crowded suburbs of Melbourne all the week, can readily be excused if they come out to this salubrious and exhilarating part of the country during Saturday afternoons and Sundays. They find that they can rely upon inhaling the pure ozone, which braces and invigorates them for the rest of the week. Worn out nature is recuperated by the trip, which is an exceedingly pleasant and agreeable one. The intervening country is lovely and enchanting, and is of such an undulating nature that the eye never becomes weary in gazing upon it. When Bushy Creek is reached it is such a romantic spot that visitors have all they can do to ride by it. They want to get off the tram and have a run up the hill sides, and pluck the wild flowers which deck the face of nature at this juncture. The people who Visited this part of Victoria for the first time in their lives on Sunday last were loud in their praises of the rural nature of the scenery and its special suitableness for picnics. They were also much pleased with the easy running motion of the tramcar. (Reporter, 24 October 1889)
The Reporter was requested to advise readers that another tram-car would be placed on the line by the following Saturday. The additional tram did not eventuate and how the directors thought they could achieve this feat is a mystery. An electric tram could not simply be purchased off-the-shelf, and the steep grades of the line and limited power capacity of the first tram would have prohibited use of a trailer car towed behind.
On the first Tuesday in November tourists flocked to Box Hill for the Melbourne Cup Day holiday. The Reporter estimated that by 10 a.m. there were five thousand visitors meandering around. It noted that the tram was literally besieged by excursionists and that ‘it would have taken twenty trams instead of one to cope with the demand that was made upon it’. It attributed much of the district’s popularity to the presence of the tramway and predicted that ‘Box Hill will become at no distant date a second Brighton’. (Reporter, 8 November 1889)
From all accounts the route of the tramway was very picturesque. Leaving Whitehorse Road the line fell gradually then rose again to a slight crest just south of the present-day Thames Street. Across Thames Street it climbed again to a second crest at Tyne Street; this rise was known as Tate’s Hill (spelt ‘Tait’s Hill’ in the 1893 timetable). From here the road was straight and downhill all the way to the tram shed on the bank of Bushy Creek. The line curved slightly as it crossed the creek then made its way uphill to a third crest just south of Woodhouse Grove (abbreviated to ‘Grove Road’ in the 1893 timetable). From here the Doncaster terminus was clearly visible across the valley containing the Koonung Creek. From Woodhouse Grove the line descended in a straight line then turned sharply north-west across the creek and up the rise to Whittens Lane and then meandered in a north-westerly direction up the steep hill to the Doncaster terminus.
An excellent description of the tranquil countryside through which the tram ran has been recorded by the walker and writer R. H. Croll. Although these observations of his were published in 1928, the landscape would have changed imperceptibly since the passing of the tramway:
If you would have a pleasant road walk, turn north as you leave the Box Hill station, cross White Horse Road, with its market to the left and its soldiers’ memorial in the centre, and follow the plane-lined way called Station Street. It heads for Doncaster, once marked conspicuously by its tower, now merely the highest ridge of the orchard-covered slopes ... The outlook north and west becomes good at once. Mount Macedon is a prominent object on the sky line, closing the view across long stretches of undulating country . . . The town straggles with you for a while, but gradually it drops behind, and you find yourself among open fields and orchards . . . Where the road is narrowed down by fences to cross the first branch of the Koonung Koonung Creek [Bushy Creek], there is a fine plantation of clean, healthy looking silver wattles. It is evidently appreciated by the birds. Many, including magpies, were calling there when I passed recently . . . The creek is not much more than a deep gutter here, but it gives you a rise to climb on the other side. Dropping down from that to the more important branch [Koonung Creek], you get the orchards ahead of you in mass, yielding often some charming effects. There are broad washes of green, representing grass, superimposed upon which are splashes of the crimson and gold of fruit-tree leaves. Ploughed fields are shown as chocolate smudges. The whole is divided up, and framed as separate panels, by hedges of varied tones . . . An impression of the creek in passing is that it contains everything but water. Gum trees there are, and Bursaria and tea-trees and wattles, and even grass, but evidently the true business of a creek is attended to when there is rain, and at no other time. Long is the slope which follows. Here you get the orchards in detail, and may find that the leaves are falling fast, the more hardy specimens fluttering in the wind like the gay ribbons of a Highland regiment. Robins are flashing their scarlet breasts in staccato flights, and every hedge is musical with goldfinches. Half-way up the hill is a right-hand branch [Whittens Lane] to be avoided. Your immediate objective is a two-story store on the corner of Doncaster’s main street, known earlier in its career as the Bulleen Road. It comes in on the west from Kew, and passes on easterly, to reach Mitcham, Vermont and the Dandenongs after many twists and turns. A few hundred yards up is the hotel where the ‘Doncaster tower’ stood for so many years. The elevation of the ridge is about 350 feet, so the extra height supplied by the tower commanded a wonderful outlook. Even from the ground level the Bay is plainly visible, with the You Yangs indicating its limits on the one side, and Arthur’s Seat standing sentry on the other. Macedon, with its Hump, is much in evidence, and the turrets of the Kew Asylum mark the middle distance. Looking back over the short 2 1/4 miles you have come from Box Hill, every detail seems under review. (R. H. Croll, The open road in Victoria, Robertson and Mullens Ltd, Melbourne, 1928, pp. 19-20)
Soon after the line opened, Edward Gallus capitalised on the fact that the terminus was situated on his land by erecting a refreshment room. A verandah on the east side of the small timber building provided a convenient shelter for waiting tram passengers. The Laurie family lived in the building and ran the refreshment room. The importance of the northern terminus was further enhanced by Richard Serpell, who constructed a large two-storey brick store on the north-east corner of Williamsons and Doncaster Roads. Although Serpell obviously had plans to extend this building along Doncaster Road they came to nothing.
As part of its contract with the tramway company, the Union Electric Company operated the tram for the first six months. During this time the car made ten round trips each weekday, leaving Box Hill at 8.00, 9.25, 10.55, 11.55 a.m., 12.55, 1.55, 2.55,4.05,5.05 and 6.00 p.m. On Saturday afternoons it ran at more frequent intervals. A Sunday afternoon service was also provided. Three men operated the tramway in its early days; one as driver or motorman, a second as conductor and the third as engine house attendant.
The fare for a single journey along the line was sixpence. In the early days of the line fares were registered by means of a bell-punch. This system was already in use on the Melbourne cable trams and on the Beaumaris horse trams. Under this arrangement the conductor had a long, thin cardboard trip-slip pinned to his jacket. On being given a cash fare he punched the trip-slip. The ring of a little bell within the punch indicated to the passenger that a hole had been made in the trip-slip. The circular clippings from the trip-slip were trapped in a locked chamber within the bell-punch. When the conductor paid in his takings the clippings were removed and tallied against money received as a check on his honesty. The bell-punch was attached to a long strap which draped over the conductor’s shoulder. When not in use the punch was placed in his coat pocket.
Under an arrangement with the Victorian Railways, combined tram and train tickets for journeys between Doncaster and Melbourne were issued from 24 February 1890. The fare charged for the First Class Return ticket was 1s 6d, from which the company received 8d and the Victorian Railways 10d. A notice on the back of the ticket warned passengers:
This ticket is issued to, and accepted by, the holder on condition that the Victorian Railways Commissioners are not liable to the holder for any damage or disaster while travelling on the tram. (Chronological history of passengerfares, embracing the period 1 July 1884 to 30 June 1897, Victorian Railways, Melbourne, 1 January 1898, p. 12; Molly Rodda, ‘When Doncaster had its tram’, Herald, 15 July 1939, p.34)
Pass issued to Richard Serpell one of the tramway company directors, authorising travel over the newly opened line.
Within a fortnight of the official opening, it became obvious to directors that the undertaking would be remunerative and that the single tram could not cope with the traffic offering. To raise money for additional rolling stock and alterations to the permanent way, the company offered the balance of 5,270 new shares to the public; payable 5 shillings on application, 5 shillings on allotment and 5 shillings per share within one month.
But while the tramway company appeared to be enjoying success and the public was delighted with the new conveyance, Frank Duff, who supplied the rails for the line, was most upset. On 27 November 1889 he issued a Supreme Court writ claiming £53 5s 6d for the cost of permanent way materials delivered but not paid for, and interest outstanding on the alleged debt. The company chose to contest the case and pleadings began, with the plaintiff increasing his initial claim to £100 to cover interest from the service of the writ to the time of judgement.
Taylor and Russell, representing the company, issued a defence and counterclaim of £500 for loss sustained. They argued that some materials supplied were unequal to sample and that the delivery had been some 9 tons short. Duff rejected the company’s claim and in April 1890 requested a trial by judge alone. The trial did not eventuate and unfortunately there is no known record of how the dispute was resolved.
Although the company had called up more capital by issue of further shares in November 1889, the need to obtain more money to settle accounts and purchase a second tram was ever present. On 5 March 1890 the company issued a Supreme Court writ against Frederick Illingworth, one of its own directors. Illingworth had failed to pay part of the first share call payable by 17 January 1889 and all of the second call which became due on 1 March 1889. Together with interest, the amount claimed by the company was £430. While there appears to be no record of the outcome of this dispute, subsequent events suggest the debt was never paid.
An insight into the routine working of the tramway during its early months can be gleaned from a contemporary report of a New South Wales Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, considering the type of motive power for a proposed Sydney tramway. When the committee asked whether the Box Hill line was a fair specimen of how electric trams could perform, Chauncey Belknap, the Australian representative of the Thomson Houston Company replied:
No. You can take it as a surprise that the road can work at all. It only shows what they are capable of. It is a wonderful test... Except it is an electric tramway it is not a specimen at all. (New South Wales Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works Report, Minutes of Evidence, p.34)
Belknap said that although the line was constructed in the crudest manner he had seen, it demonstrated just what electric trams could do under the most adverse circumstances.
He clearly distanced the Thomson-Houston Company from construction of the Box Hill line and its power plant. He stressed that if he had been involved when the equipment was sold for use at Box Hill he would have stopped the sale. It seems likely he considered the equipment inappropriate for the steep terrain of the line. He said that if he had constructed the line he would have had an additional motor on the car. This perceived deficiency of power was also taken up by D. H. Neale, mechanical engineer of the Government Railways of New South Wales, in his evidence to the committee.
Neale had visited the Box Hill line and reported that ‘The speed on the worst gradients was about 5 miles per hour, but, I believe, could be materially increased were a more powerful motor employed’. (New South Wales Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works Report, Minutes of Evidence, Appendix E, p.19) He considered the permanent way unfinished due to the lack of lining or surfacing and noted that as a consequence the curves gave some trouble. He observed that men were still working on the line and that when put in proper order the curves would be satisfactory.
Neale also described the operation of the line and the control of the tramcar:
One man fires the boiler, drives the engine, and attends to the dynamo. The driver on the car is a lad of about 16 or 17 years of age. His duties are very light, notwithstanding the heavy gradients and sharp curves on the line. He has simply to manipulate in all three handles. One is an ordinary car brake. One varies the amount of current used, and, consequently, the amount of power used to propel the car. This gives a very ready and effective means of varying the speed of the car. The third handle reverses the direction in which the car travels, and need only be used at the end of a journey, or in cases of emergency. The fares are collected by another youth of apparently similar age. (New South Wales Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works Report, Minutes of Evidence, Appendix E, p.19)
During Neale’s visit to the line he was told by Robert Gow that the tramway company was pleased with the results so far and that working expenses were half those on the Beaumaris Tramway Company’s horse-operated line.
Jacob Garrard, another member of the committee, also visited the Box Hill tramway. Garrard revealed that there appeared to be little vehicular traffic on the road and noted the dangerous projection of the rails above the road level. On Saturday 7 June 1890 he made one round trip and reported:
There were nine passengers outward, and twelve inward, with five stoppages, en route, to pick up and set down passengers. It took 33 minutes to do the journey of 4 1/2 miles, nearly 9 miles an hour. (New South Wales Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works Report, Minutes of Evidence, Appendix H, p.25)
H. T. Jordan, treasurer of the Melbourne Tramways Trust, also gave evidence to the committee. In referring to the Box Hill line he disdainfully quipped, ‘I do not call that a tramway at all; I call it a switchback railway’.(New South Wales Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works Report, Minutes of Evidence, Minutes of Evidence, p. 185)
Chapter 5: Up Hill and Down Dale
It is now nearly twelve months since this line was opened, and for more than half that time the tram has been allowed to get rusty for the want of work . . . there must have been a blunder somewhere, because the undertaking, as it present stands, is absolutely useless. (Reporter, 7 November 1890)
On 12 April 1890 the Union Electric Company ceased to operate the line and the tramway company assumed full control of the daily running. With the single tram unable to cope with the traffic offering, a contract was signed with the Union Electric Company on 13 May 1890 to supply a more powerful tram for the sum of £1,367 10s.
The directors optimistically predicted that the profit of £58 7s 2d for the first six months’ operation would increase tenfold when the new car arrived from America. Shareholders were told the directors had personally advanced the company more than £800 as the company was unable to meet immediate liabilities. In order to liquidate the debt the directors decided to call up the balance of five shillings on the subscribed shares, making them fully paid up. Shareholders were urged to increase their interest by taking up unallotted shares to keep the potentially successful investment among themselves.
Although the tramway appeared to be successful, the directors’ revelation that current liabilities could not be met was the first disconcerting sign that there might be underlying problems. Within the following six months the company was rocked to its foundations by activities of its management and physical disruptions of the tramway itself.
In June 1890 Frederick Illingworth, one of the directors, left Melbourne on the pretext of a business trip to Europe. In fact he departed to avoid the crash of his Centennial Land Bank, the funds of which he had misused for land speculation. As well as possibly leaving the tramway company in financial straits, he left owing the Petty family of Doncaster £13,000. Illingworth never reached Europe, having abandoned the voyage in Perth, Western Australia. There he settled, opened up a real estate agency, entered parliament and rose to the position of colonial secretary and treasurer. His problems with the tramway company were more than 2,000 miles behind him.
A further shock for the tramway company came in July 1890, when it was called to defend itself in the Box Hill Court of Petty Sessions. The action was brought by James Barnes, one of its employees, who claimed £22 3s 5d for non-payment of wages and other expenses. Barnes’ counsel opened the case by stating that if in the ‘scramble for wealth’ any magistrate on the Bench had a pecuniary interest he should step down. That promptly removed William Ellingworth, one of the tramway company directors, from the Bench.
Arthur Arnot was called as a witness and testified that the wages owed had been earned after the Union Electric Company’s liability to operate the line had expired. When he mentioned that Ellingworth and Serpell were directors of the tramway company, C. F. Taylor, representing the defendant, protested that such fact would have to be substantiated by a Government Gazette notice verifying the company’s registration. When this could not be found the case was adjourned until the next month.
It was further postponed in August and by the time it came before the court at the September session two other employees, Joseph Nagle and William Le Brun, had joined Barnes in the dispute with the company. Nagle claimed he was owed £25 and Le Brun was claiming £12. The Court of Petty Sessions finally abstained from adjudicating on all three cases; in December they were heard in the County Court at Melbourne. Judgement was obtained against the company by the three plaintiffs.
As soon as the Union Electric Company’s responsibility to run the tramway ceased, and the tram was being operated by the tramway company, serious technical troubles developed.
The primitive electrical equipment was no longer being maintained by experts and consequently broke down. The heavy grade up the hill to Doncaster would have certainly taxed the primitive and underpowered little car. The public, which by now had accepted the tramway as a necessary means of communication, agitated for a more powerful tram and alteration of the permanent way to provide a more reliable service. The Reporter summed up the predicament with the observation that:
Whilst the tram remains in its present condition it is an obvious fact that the undertaking will not pay a dividend, consequently the sooner it is put into working order will there be a likelihood of the shareholders getting a return upon the capital invested. (Reporter, 18 July 1890)
By the middle of November the new tram arrived from the Thomson-Houston Company of Boston. It had a saloon body built by the Brill Car Company and was equipped with two 15-horsepower motors (double the power of the first car). A new shed to house the two trams was erected north-west of the engine house. This structure contained a maintenance and inspection pit long enough to accommodate one car. William Meader assured shareholders that the new tram would make up for lost time and advised that the line between Koonung Creek and Doncaster would be straightened to give an easier run.
However directors not only had the public complaints to deal with. A more complex problem concerning the right of way was emerging and that threatened the very existence of the line. At the outset of the venture Edwin Wilson had given permission for the tramway to be laid through his land situated between Elgar Road and Whittens Lane.
In July 1889 the South Doncaster Estate Company Limited was formed to purchase his 31 acres. William Ellingworth, one of the tramway company directors, also became director of the estate company. He also had an interest in the land immediately south. As far back as August 1888, before the tramway company was formally established, the syndicate which later evolved into the estate company consented to a tramway being laid through Edwin Wilson’s property.
When the tram service became disrupted because of technical problems the estate company sought from the tramway company a written guarantee that a certain number of trips would be run daily. With the prospect of a reliable replacement car within its grasp, the tramway company refused to sign the proposed agreement, which provided a penalty of £1,000 for failure to run the tram as specified. The estate company then insisted that the rails be removed from the land. Again the tramway company refused.
As a result, the estate company arranged for about 50 or 60 yards of rails and sleepers to be pulled up sometime between Saturday 22 November 1890 and the following Monday morning. The dispute was further complicated by the zeal of the men employed. They were not familiar with the boundary location of the estate company’s land and extended their operations about 8 feet onto land supposedly belonging to directors of the tramway company. ‘This unpleasantness is to be regretted as it was anticipated that in a few days the electric tram would be in good going order’ lamented the Reporter. (Reporter, 28 November 1890)
Unable to operate the tramway for its full extent, the directors attempted to sell the entire line and plant to a syndicate in Bendigo. The syndicate was probably the Sandhurst and Eaglehawk Tramway Company Limited, which had tried unsuccessfully to introduce a system of battery-powered trams five months earlier. Nothing came of the negotiations and on Christmas morning 1890 a truncated service was resumed between Box Hill and Whittens Lane, using the new enclosed car.
A rumour circulated that a group of locals had offered to reroute the line from the tram sheds north-east towards East Doncaster at their own expense, while allowing the shareholders to retain their interest. In a letter to the local press ‘Pro Bono Publico’ urged the west-end Doncaster residents and the syndicate in question to:
wake up and do everything in their power to retain the present route by coming forward and giving assistance to help to straighten the road from the Koonung Creek to the old terminus at Gallus’ corner [Intersection of Doncaster and Williamsons Roads], which will not only give us a cooler, cleaner, cheaper, and more pleasant means of transit than can be obtained in the colony, besides reaping a benefit ourselves, and conferring the greatest boon the district has yet had or likely to have for many years to come. (Reporter, 16 January 1891)
In the new year the disputing parties evidently came to some agreement and the tramway company relaid the track. Although by the end of January 1891 the tram was again running along the whole line, the dispute was still simmering. As a result of its trespass and removal of the track on neighbouring land, the estate company had incurred £100 in legal expenses. It considered this should have been paid by the tramway company and requested reimbursement. When this was denied the estate company removed the rails crossing Whittens Lane at daybreak on Saturday 21 February 1891.Once more the tram service was truncated nearly 3/4 mile short of the Doncaster terminus. Again the dispute was temporarily settled, the track replaced and the service resumed.
However the tramway company was not out of trouble for very long. Although Barnes, Nagle and Le Brun had obtained County Court judgements against the company the previous December to recover unpaid wages, the company refused to pay. In March 1891 the Barnes and Le Brun cases were removed to the Supreme Court, where the sheriff was directed to levy against the company for the sums owing. Nagle took similar steps in May.
The company was in deep trouble, but a more severe setback was still to come. On April Fool’s Day 1891 the English Scottish and Australian Chartered Bank foreclosed on the company by issue of a Supreme Court writ for recovery of £500 10s 11d due on current account. The action was not defended and in judgement against the company a fortnight later the court again directed the sheriff to recover the money and interest owing.
Facing such adversity, the directors decided to voluntarily liquidate the company. An Extraordinary General Meeting of shareholders held on 8 May 1891 appointed the company secretary, Robert Gow, liquidator at a remuneration of 20 per cent on gross receipts. This resolution was to be confirmed at another meeting on 22 May, and on the very next day the tram service was actually increased: an additional tram left Box Hill each Saturday evening at 11.45 p.m. to convey weary travellers to their beds in Doncaster. For some unknown reason the tramway company resolved to go into voluntary liquidation again in December 1891.
On 24 April 1891 the Sheriff of the Central Bailiwick duly auctioned some of the tramway company’s property to recover money owed to the bank. Although the sale was recorded by the sheriff as having taken place at the engine house, the auction does not appear to have been advertised in the normal way. What the sheriff sold remains a mystery. His Deed of Bargain and Sale provided for the sale of ‘real and personal estate of the said company’. On the back of the deed is a pencilled note saying:
- Engine electric
- 2 cars in working order
- Sundry pieces of iron
- 1 cask of oil
George H. Thomson, a coppersmith of Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, was the purchaser. It is not known whether the £350 he paid at the sale was for all or merely some of the tramway company’s assets.
Because this sum was insufficient to satisfy the bank’s judgement, either all the company’s assets were sold by the sheriff, or the company must have obtained the balance owing from another source. If Thomson purchased merely some of the assets, then in view of the fact that the tramway continued operating during his ownership, a fairly complex legal relationship would have been created between Thomson and the company. No evidence of such an arrangement has been found.
William Ellingworth became Thomson’s manager and he ran the trams satisfactorily until Friday 5 June 1891, when the dispute with the South Doncaster Estate Company erupted again. The estate company advised that if trams continued to run without its terms being met, the line running through its land would be blown up with dynamite.
Ellingworth would not accept the terms, so dismissed the employees and closed the line. On the Saturday rails were removed, fences erected across the estate company’s boundaries and a deep trench excavated across the right of way to prevent passage of vehicles. Overnight, fences were removed, save for one solitary post, and the trench filled in by locals wanting the line to remain open. Not to be outdone, the estate company chopped down poles carrying the overhead wire and strewed the debris all over the road.
Local residents were incensed. After the Doncaster shire council meeting on 8 June, they held their own meeting to consider the dispute (the Shire of Doncaster had been constituted in May 1890 by severance of the Doncaster riding from the Shire of Bulleen). Several speakers were in favour of bypassing the disputed section by rerouting the line west along the Koonung Creek to a point near Lowe and Smedley’s forge at the corner of Doncaster Road and High Street. Tramway company directors Sell and Serpell thought that as the dispute had gone so far, settlement was unlikely but worth trying for. After much discussion, local identities Tom Petty, Gottlieb Thiele and Max Von Schramm were deputed to attempt a settlement.
The Reporter, always a supporter of the tramway company, was anxious in case the line was moved to another suburb where Thomson’s investment ‘will meet with more cordiality and inducement’. On the other hand, the Express supported the estate company and wanted to be rid of the line. It observed that ‘Doncaster folk will never be right till the iron horse supplies their wants’. (Reporter, 12 June 1891; Box Hill and Camberwell Express, 12 June 1891)
Locals expressed their dissatisfaction by hanging an effigy of Alfred Tankard, the estate company secretary, from the tram wire at the Doncaster terminus. A sign attached to its top hat carried the message ‘A. E. Tankard Sad! Sad! The sad effects of rail lifting. The above will be burnt in effigy on Saturday evening next at 8 p.m. All are cordially invited.’(Reporter, 26 June 1891; unidentified news cutting in Serpell family papers) After remaining suspended for a week the effigy was duly burnt. The ashes and some animal bones were placed in a crude coffin which was deposited on the estate company’s land. The coffin was said to have borne the inscription ‘Cantankerous Tanker, cremated 21st June’.(Unidentified news cutting in Serpell family papers) The estate company replied with a public notice in the Express warning that there was no public road over any part of its property, but more particularly that section through which the tram ran.
The dispute had reached ridiculous proportions. In July Tom Petty informed the Doncaster shire council that if it took over the tramway the property owners would be willing to donate their land. The estate company separately offered its land on condition that the whole ‘tram road’ was taken over by the shire. The council was unmoved, saying it could not take any action in the matter.
Frustrated by an inability to properly operate the tramway, George Thomson decided to sell his investment. On 26 August 1891 he sold to Richard Serpell all the interest and claim in the tramway he had purchased from the sheriff four months previously. As the sale price was £850 he made a handsome profit of £500 in a very short time.
Meanwhile, pressure on the Doncaster Shire to resolve the right of way question was increasing. At its meeting on 14 September 1891 the council resolved to accept the offer of the land owners to transfer their interest in ‘tram road’, conditional upon the shire making it a public highway. Within a month the estate company’s strip of land was transferred to the shire. (Land Titles Office Transfer 317015, 15 October 1891, Edwin Wilson (at the request of and by the direction of the South Doncaster Estate Co. Ltd) to the President, Councillors and Ratepayers of the Shire of Doncaster) The remaining transfers took place over a long period. The shire now had more than a passing interest in the tramway and at a subsequent meeting it went so far as to allow its foreman to assist in alteration and improvement of the permanent way.
However, while the land dispute had been resolved and prospects for the tramway appeared to be improving, the former tramway company was again immersed in litigation. On 4 July 1891 the Union Electric Company issued a Supreme Court writ claiming £1,294 7s 4d for goods sold and work done in respect of the tramway. The tramway company claimed it could defend a great part of the claim on account of defects in the first car supplied
and for breach of contract. It responded with a counter claim; the case was never contested in court. Within a year the Union Electric Company was itself being wound up.
Meanwhile, liquidation of the tramway company was being carried out by its former secretary, Robert Gow, who attempted to call in all the unpaid debts. In September 1891 the company issued a Supreme Court writ against one of its shareholders, John Bussell, claiming £514 Os 3d for unpaid share allotment fees and calls. The case was not contested in court and there is no record of how the matter was settled.
During October 1892 Gow arranged to collect further money owing to the tramway company. Charles McDowall, an estate agent, and one of its shareholders, still owed £37 10s in unpaid share calls. Although a County Court judgement was obtained against McDowall in November, he still refused to pay. The case was then removed to the Supreme Court and the sheriff was directed to collect the debt. Again, there is no record of the outcome. As well as having the tramway company troubles to deal with, Gow had worries of his own. During December it was reported that his own business was declared insolvent, with a deficiency of some £2,700.
Chapter 6: The bob-a-week Tram Service
For the space of one year and nine months it has been in the hands of the lessee; pursuing the even tenor of its way with unvarying regularity. Still, fortune declined to smile upon the venture, traffic has steadily dwindled, until hope being past, nothing was left but to allow it to expire. (Reporter, 3 January 1896)
The year 1892 heralded a new era for the tramway. On 25 February a new syndicate called the Doncaster and Box Hill Electric Road Company Limited was registered. With an authorised capital of £12,000 in £1 shares, the company proposed to take over and operate the tramway and deal in virtually any matter connected with electricity. It had wide powers. It could produce electricity for motive power and lighting; acquire rights to erect lines for power, lighting, telegraph or telephone, and acquire water licences for power-generating purposes.
The syndicate had been active since at least August 1891, the time when Richard Serpell acquired George Thomson’s interest in the tramway. Robert Gow was acting secretary of the syndicate. Initially the promoters planned that the proposed company would have a capital of £6,000 in £1 shares. Of the total number of shares, 5,000 were to be fully paid-up shares and the balance would be contributing. For the contributing shares, 2s 6d was payable on application, 2s 6d on allotment and 1s calls were to be made at intervals of not less than one month. Shareholders in the former tramway company were given preference in taking up shares in the new venture. If contributing shares were taken up the shareholders were entitled to a proportional number of fully paid-up £1 shares. Before the company was registered the syndicate doubled the proposed capital.
On 11 January 1892, the syndicate convened a meeting to hear the result of the number of shares allotted to new shareholders, and to allow the original shareholders the last opportunity of taking up contributing shares which they were entitled to under the new arrangement. The meeting also appointed provisional directors and arranged repairs to the line so that it could be reopened as early as possible. J. and H. Tarrant, Engineers and Surveyors, had already called tenders for reconstruction of the line.
The promoters of the syndicate were Matthew Glassford, a Melbourne produce merchant; Thomas Draper, electrician; Richard Serpell of Doncaster and councillors William Ellingworth and Alfred Serpell of the Shire of Nunawading. The number of shares they proposed taking in the company were as follows
- Thomas Draper: 900 shares
- William Ellingworth: 138 shares
- Matthew Glassford: 1800 shares
- Richard Serpell: 884 shares
Glassford became managing director and Robert Gow was appointed secretary. James Fethers, a Melbourne merchant, and William T. Wallis, a merchant of Geelong, were at one time directors of the company. About half the new company shareholders had held shares in the former company. Glassford and Serpell were the two largest shareholders, followed by John Turnbull, the contractor who built the line three years earlier. Robert Gow’s wife had a substantial shareholding and three of Glassford’s spinster relatives were also shareholders.
Although Draper and Ellingworth signed the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the new company, they were not shareholders for very long. It will be recalled that together with William Masters, Thomas Draper was responsible for exhibiting the tram at the Centennial International Exhibition. Late in 1891 Draper dissolved his partnership with Masters and in the new year set up his own electrical business. Draper had no interest in the first tramway company and his initial participation in the second venture probably accounts for the strong bias towards electrical matters in its charter.
On Saturday 19 March 1892 the straightened and overhauled line was opened by the new company. The inaugural car left Box Hill at 3 p.m. and speeches were made on its arrival at Doncaster. It is thought that the line was straightened by removal of a particularly steep section running over the south end of the proposed Frederick Street and a short length of track running east-west along what was to be Arthur Street (now Merlin Street). With a steep grade and two sharp bends removed and a new management in control, the tramway seemed destined for improvement.
As the new tramway company pursued its path hopefully towards success, some personalities of the first tramway company suffered personal disasters. C. F. Taylor, the director who was also involved with the Box Hill Township Estate Company, made a secret composition with his creditors in April 1892, agreeing to pay them 2s 6d in the pound on a deficiency of £18,030. William Meader, the company chairman, also made a composition and paid 1/4d in the pound on debts amounting to £8,040. Another director, C. R. Staples, did not get off as easily. He was gaoled the following year for fraud concerning his Anglo-Australian Bank.
The arrangements under which the new company was set up are unclear. Presumably it purchased the track, and leased or purchased from Richard Serpell the tramcars and plant he acquired from George Thomson. Serpell really cared for his district and believed the tramway was important to its success. He did everything possible to keep the line going and sank more and more money into it. On 21 March 1892 he purchased from the Box Hill Township Estate Company the land containing the engine house and tram sheds. (Land Titles Office Certificate of Title vol. 2423, fol. 484515)
By the middle of 1892 he had spent £1,250 on the venture on behalf of the company. Matthew Glassford had also invested much time and money. From the time of the emergence of the second company the tramway appears to have been owned and managed under various arrangements involving the company and Serpell and Glassford, either singly or jointly. On 12 October 1892 Serpell agreed to sell the company the land, buildings, power plant, tram-cars, poles, wire and about 250 tons of firewood for £1,212. The contract provided for a deposit of £400 within three months and the balance in a further six months.
Within weeks of this arrangement being made, all parties were involved in litigation. In November 1892 Robert Gow issued separate County Court summonses against the company and against Serpell and Glassford for recovery of wages owing. Gow claimed £37 6s and £42 4s 8d respectively. On 2 December 1892, ten days before the hearing of the case, Serpell lent the company £150 for a period of three months. In return for the loan the company assigned all its debtors to Serpell and appointed him its attorney. Presumably the loan was to finance the company’s case and extinguish the debt if it lost. Although Herald and Roberts, the company’s solicitors, had advised Serpell and Glassford that the company’s defence should be abandoned, the case proceeded.
The court judged in favour of Gow and instructed the bailiff to seize the company’s property. At the bailiff's auction, held at the tram sheds on 10 January 1893, Glassford purchased the trams and fittings for the bargain price of £50 5s 6d. Meanwhile Gow severed his involvement with the company and James Cook, one of Glassford’s business associates, took over the position of secretary. Gow promptly left Melbourne and settled in Rutherglen, where he later became a successful vigneron.
Gow’s claim against Serpell and Glassford was not so straightforward. In February 1898 the County Court gave judgement in favour of the plaintiff and granted a stay of seven days for payment by the defendants. Serpell and Glassford elected to challenge the judgement and on 7 September the Full Bench of the Supreme Court upheld their appeal.
However, the tramway company and Serpell and Glassford were not free of litigation for very long. In November 1898 the company commenced proceedings against Thomas Draper in the County Court over a claim of £250 for ‘delivery of goods’. Draper counter claimed and both parties agreed that Draper had a right to issue a plaint against Serpell and Glassford over the subject matter of the counter claim. Within ten days Draper issued separate proceedings against Serpell and Glassford, claiming £115 17s 6d for work and labour. As the court subsequently found in favour of Draper in the action brought by the company, the second case did not proceed beyond issue of the plaint and filing of a defence from Serpell and Glassford.
The tram appears to have operated on a fairly regular basis under the new regime, although there was always the odd technical problem. On one occasion a Mr Meaden of Box Hill was to give an illustrated lecture entitled ‘My trip around the world’ at Doncaster in aid of the local Band of Hope. Meaden’s perseverance was especially praised by his audience, considering he had to walk over from Box Hill in pouring rain on account of the tram being out of action. Although he had successfully completed thousands of miles on his world trip, when it came to a short journey in his own locality the little tram sorely tried his patience!
During September 1892 the company sought permission from the Shire of Nunawading to extend the line south to Box Hill station so that passengers alighting from the train would see and have easy access to the waiting tram. The council agreed, provided that the company indemnified the shire to the extent of £500 and that certain conditions regarding carriage of passengers and number of trips made by the tram were complied with. The idea was quickly abandoned and the extension was never built.
In March 1893 Henry Hilton, a young and enterprising engineer, was appointed manager of the tramway. It is thought Hilton came to Melbourne with his employer in connection with the Centennial International Exhibition. In Melbourne he met and decided to marry a local girl, but first returned to London to settle his affairs. From London he despatched an engagement ring secreted in a hollowed-out book. On returning to Australia Hilton was married at Box Hill in August 1892 and set up house in Station Street North. From the time Hilton took up his position, the tramway seems to have been run on a more regular and profitable basis.
The company widely advertised the tourist potential of the line by displaying posters on railway stations between Melbourne and Box Hill. Isaac Isaacs, who later became Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, was a regular excursionist on the tramway. The cost of an adult ticket for a single journey along the tramway in October 1893 was 6d; a return ticket was 9d.
In addition to the daily First Class tickets from Doncaster to Melbourne and return, the company offered fares for part-journeys along the line. An adult fare of 3d was charged for a single trip from either terminus to ‘Grove Road’ (Woodhouse Grove) and 1 1/2d between Box Hill and ‘Tait’s Hill’ (Tyne Street). Half fares were payable for children under twelve years of age. Hilton later recounted the following anecdote regarding fares:
Several old residents of Doncaster had the idea that the presence of the tramway blocked the possibility of a railway there. One of these who had often aired the view came to the car one morning and tendering a half-crown asked for a ticket to town. He was given a combined Rail and Tram ticket with a shilling change. On reading the ticket he said ‘First class! I want second class’. He was told there was no second class on the tram and that ticket was issued as a special concession by the Railway Dept. Thereupon he said he would take a ticket to Box Hill, so the ticket was exchanged with a refund of nine pence. ‘Now’, he averred, in a tone of triumph, ‘I can go second class’. Quite true it was agreed, and it was then pointed out that the tram ticket was ninepence and the second class rail ticket would be ninepence; together, that was the price of the ticket he had rejected. In his astonishment he ejaculated ‘Mein Gott! Live and Learn’. To add to his discomforture he was informed the exchange was a benefit to the tramway. This caused him to think furiously, to the amusement of others on the car. (J. K. Moir, Australia'sfirst electric tram, Melbourne, 1940, p.26)
On Easter Monday 1893 the line had its busiest day, when a record number of 1,356 passengers was carried. The takings for the day were £43 17s 7 1/2d; but that amount was never repeated and the average daily takings thereafter rarely exceeded six shillings. For the year ending 30 June 1894 the tramway made a loss of £132. But while the little tram was carrying record loads of tourists up and down the hills on that particular Easter Monday, the Victorian economy was poised on the brink of destruction.
Since the collapse of the land boom in 1891 the economy had been in turmoil. Hundreds of boom-time companies and a number of banks had folded and thousands of people had been financially ruined. The last major event which plunged Victoria into a long depression occurred on that same Easter holiday, when several banks decided they could no longer remain open. Just before Easter there had been a tumultuous run on the banks, with depositors wanting to withdraw what was left of their precious savings.
The tramway company’s bank, the English Scottish and Australian Chartered Bank, closed its doors and did not reopen until August. Thus no credit was available to the company and any cash it may have had on deposit was unavailable. Maybe tourists flocked to the tramway on that eventful Monday, sensing that it could be the last time they could afford a pleasure outing for the foreseeable future.
The company struggled on for a further twelve months. Finally it decided it could no longer continue operations and in desperation leased the tramway to Hilton until economic circumstances improved. The simple lease agreement, dated 14 April 1894, provided that the company would let the line, machinery and sheds for a weekly rent of one shilling. Hilton was to pay all working expenses except wear and tear and generally keep the line in good order. The tram was to run according to the winter timetable, with extra trips as required.
Henry Hilton was assisted by his cousin William Hilton. They privately referred to the enterprise as their ‘bob-a-week tram service’. Running the tramway was a demanding seven-day-a-week job. The two men took weekly turns at driving the tram and manning the engine house. At busy times, when two trams were running, a third person was required to operate the line. David Laurie, whose wife ran the refreshment room at the northern terminus, is known to have manned the trams at some stage, so perhaps he helped out on such occasions. In addition to running the trams the Hiltons had to carry out all regular maintenance. Henry was particularly resourceful and enterprising and could overcome most obstacles.
The fragile, primitive overhead wiring was a continual source of trouble. Often the trolley wire would come adrift from its support and dangle freely. When this occurred the driver would stop the tram below the broken connection, scale the roof and temporarily hitch up the dangling wire with a short loop of fencing wire. On Sunday mornings when the service did not operate, the Hiltons would take a car out to the top of one of the five high-points on the line and disconnect the power from the overhead. They would then let the tram coast down along the line until it reached the broken connection. Mounting the roof, the men soldered the wires back together and removed the fencing wire hook for future use.
On one occasion an overhead insulator broke loose as the open car coasted downhill from the Doncaster terminus. As a consequence the trolley pole left the wire and struck one of the cantilevered support brackets. This shattered the wooden casing of the trolley pole, rendering it useless. (According to Moir, a wooden trolley pole with 1/2 inch iron core was substituted for the steel mast used on the tram at the Centennial Exhibition.) At Koonung Creek the driver mounted the roof and wound some fencing wire onto the trolley ‘stick’. After turning the rheostat to its half-way position, he remounted the roof and held the temporary conductor against the trolley wire from a squatting position. Slowly the car climbed the hill between the creek and the engine house. On reaching the top, the driver resumed his normal position and the car coasted down to the tram shed where the saloon car was brought out to take over the service.
After this incident the trolley pole was always tied down out of use on the section between Doncaster and Koonung Creek. Morrison records that as the tram coasted down this part of the line to a regular stopping place at the creek, the engine was turned off, thereby saving an appreciable amount of fuel. He also noted that from this point the driver gave a hand signal to the engine house attendant to restart the engine. As there is no line of sight between these two locations it is difficult to see how this arrangement could be effected. (P. Crosbie Morrison, ‘Melbourne’s first electric tram’, Argus, 25 July 1931, p.6)
Fuel consumption and maintenance costs were vital considerations affecting the viability of the tramway, and Henry Hilton pursued every avenue of economy. The fuel used in the boiler was ‘Wickham Small Coal’ costing fourteen shillings per ton delivered at the engine house. Hilton achieved a 25 per cent saving in fuel by operating the lighter open car
exclusively. He placed one of the two motors from the heavier car into the open car to improve its performance on the hills, and installed roll-up blinds along one side as weather protection for passengers. He also removed the centre section of the running boards from the side on which the blinds were fitted, and installed barrier rails between the roof support posts to restrict passenger access to the opposite side of the car only.
1890s. Box Hill to Doncaster Electric Tram. The open tram at Box Hill. Note the weather blinds attached to the west side of the car. Open tram car after the company had leased the plant to its engineer, Mr Henry J. Hilton (probably centre). The open car was more economical to run than the enclosed tramcar. Mr Hilton ran the tram with his brother. DP0750
Another reduction in coal consumption and an increase in tram-car speed was made by improving the electrical connection at rail joints. Hilton arrested the leakage of current at the fishplated rail joints by connecting each rail to the next with a short copper wire or bond. Over a period of six weeks he hand-drilled more than a thousand holes in the webs of the rails to house tapered pins which spread and secured the end of the copper wire in place. This ‘bonding’ of rail joints made the ground return-wire redundant.
Under Hilton’s prudent management the tramway appears to have operated with little incident. By improving operation of the equipment and electrical system, Hilton increased the average running speed from about 9 m.p.h. to 15 m.p.h. The tram was always busy on special occasions such as Easter and the day of the Annual Doncaster Race Meeting. On Easter Monday 1895 Hilton even had both trams running. Trams could always be hired for special events and in November 1894, 140 Doncaster schoolchildren and 60 adults were carried along the line on an excursion to Femtree Gully.
In later years Henry Hilton recalled with some amusement another special, but more exciting excursion. A booking had been made to pick up a church group of thirty-six people from Box Hill at 6 p.m. for a trip to Doncaster, returning at 10 p.m. At the appointed time the crowd assembled at Box Hill but there were nine passengers more than expected. The forward trip was made without incident but the return journey was rather more exciting as Hilton later recounted:
With all aboard and the brake released the car moved off down the hill, as the speed increased the brake was applied without appreciable effect; the trolly being held off the line wire there was no light on the car, only an oil lamp as head light. The passengers had no idea that things were not as they should be, and forty-five strong voices gave vent to ‘Hold the fort for I am coming’ while the driver put all his energy into applying the brake. At a point near ‘Whittens Lane’ there was about two hundred yards or practically level track over which the car travelled with undiminished speed, then a down grade to the creek. At the creek there was a sharp curve, the centre of which was immediately on the bridge. The writer had always regarded this with disfavour as requiring great attention; periodically the dog spikes were examined, particularly the outer and the check rails, and it was only a few days previous he had taken a ‘beater’ and packed the ballast under the sleepers giving the curve at its centre the proper ‘batter’.
Arriving at the bridge the car swiftly and safely negotiated the curve and took the upgrade three hundred yards to a stop, when the trolly was put in place on the overhead wire. It may be recorded that no accident or hurt to any person ever occurred on the tram line during its existence.(J. K. Moir, Australia'sfirst electric tram, Melbourne, 1940, p.27-28).
Under the terms of his lease, Hilton ran the tram on the winter timetable which appears to have been seven round trips on week days, nine on Saturdays and four on Sundays. For the year ending 30 June 1895 the tramway made a modest profit of £19. Morrison records that after deducting the costs of operation, the Hiltons were left with £1 1s (one guinea) a week each as a reward for their toil. However, this amount does not tally with the wages figures supplied by Hilton to the Reporter after the tramway had closed (appendix 5).
As a result of a continuing decrease in traffic Hilton was forced to cut the service. Commencing on 27 May 1895, it was reduced to five round trips on weekdays and three on Sundays. Although a 28.5 per cent reduction had been made in tram mileage run, by Hilton’s prudent management the revenue decreased only 2.7 per cent. On closure of the line early in 1896, the Reporter commended Hilton’s determination and public-spirited attitude with the following observation:
To effect a running where one mile more or one mile less would entail a loss, would indeed be striking the happy medium, and in the face of a fluctuating traffic and the necessity of keeping to a timetable, it certainly appears that the lessee keenly observed the requirements of the majority and endeavoured to meet them with economy. (Reporter, 20 March 1896)
In November 1895 the timetable was again slightly altered by addition of two round trips on all weekdays except Friday and Saturday, and one extra round trip on Sundays. In announcing the new timetable the local press explained that the lessees regretted that traffic did not warrant further extension of the timetable, and that there was no prospect of the company resuming operations on its own behalf. In fact, at this time Glassford and Serpell were each trying to sell their interest in the tramway to the other. Hopes that the tram would survive the depression suddenly faded.
Within a few weeks Hilton gave notice to terminate his lease and on the closing day of 1895 the combined tram and train tickets were withdrawn from sale. Exactly which day the last tram ran is unclear. In its edition of Friday 3 January 1896 the Reporter announced the impending closure of the line ‘at the end of the present week’. Presumably this would have meant Saturday 4 January. Moir, who obtained much of his information from Henry Hilton, quotes the closing day as 6 January which was a Monday. This is substantiated by a note held by Hilton’s family which bears this date in his handwriting.
The closure was claimed to be one of the greatest calamities to beset the district. Clearly, continued operation was impossible. This was grudgingly acknowledged by the Reporter when it said:
For some time past it has been apparent to even the casual observer that its active solicitation for traffic was but ill rewarded, the car very frequently making two and sometimes three trips in succesion without carrying a passenger. . . That its well-to-do residents should permit this excellent service to cease, instead of coming to the aid of those who have for so long stood by their patriotic venture, surpasses our comprehension.(Reporter, 3 January 1896)
The Reporter debated whether or not the two councils should buy the tramway, but decided civic ownership would be unworkable since Box Hill ratepayers would be subsidising a service of greater benefit to Doncaster than to themselves.
Although Hilton was beaten he had put up a valiant defence.
Throughout his involvement with the tramway he was an enthusiastic exponent of electric traction. In 1894 he wrote two interesting letters to the Argus, drawing attention to the advantages of this method of propulsion for mountainous country and non-paying railways. He noted that low maintenance costs had been particularly important in enabling the line to remain open during the severe depression.
He attributed the low maintenance cost of the permanent way and the suitability of light-weight rails to the fact that the driving force of the electric tram was purely a rotary action, not the pounding motion experienced with railway steam locomotives. The only disadvantage he referred to was the fuel cost. Although he had kept fuel consumption to a minimum he acknowledged that it could be further reduced if the trams ran continuously; at Box Hill the boiler was under pressure eleven hours per day but total steaming time was really only two hours.
After closing the line, Henry Hilton was employed as an engineer at the Chiltern Valley gold mines in northern Victoria. While there, he introduced electric traction for the underground workings.
Returning to Melbourne in 1911 he became resident engineer and manager of the West Doncaster Cool Store, and while in that position he installed an electric light in the street outside, powered from the cool-store plant. This is believed to have been Doncaster’s first electric street light.
On the demise of the Box Hill line, William Hilton moved to Western Australia. Although his efforts at Box Hill had been poorly rewarded he still believed in electric traction and wanted to be part of its development. Within a short time electric tramways were being installed in all major cities. When he heard they were coming to Melbourne he returned and became a motorman for the North Melbourne Electric Tramway and Lighting Company. This company opened lines through Essendon, Flemington and Kensington in 1906.
William Hilton subsequently transferred to the Prahran and Malvern Tramways Trust and by 1913 was its chief inspector. Six years later the trust was taken over by the newly formed Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board. Hilton later rose to become district traffic superintendent of the board’s eastern system. He retired from that position in 1930 after a long and distinguished career in tramways.
Chapter 7: Footprints in the Sands of Time
The roads are the great things; they never come to an end.(‘Lady Gregory’ in Croll, R.H., The open road in Victoria, Robertson and Mullens Ltd, Melbourne, 1928, p.18)
Before the coals in the engine-house boiler had time to cool, Serpell and Glassford were determining what would become of the tramway equipment. Should they leave it in place or should they use it elsewhere? At its meeting on 6 January 1896 the Doncaster shire council gave them permission to remove the rails and sleepers on condition that the road was left passable to the satisfaction of the shire engineer. A week later the Nunawading shire considered the same request but replied that it had no interest in the matter.
Early in January, Serpell and Glassford tried to sell the equipment for a proposed line between the north Victoria township of Rutherglen and the nearby mining settlement of Prentice Freehold. They also planned to illuminate the townships and provide electricity for the mines. This scheme failed because of opposition from local cabmen who claimed the tramway would destroy their business.(B. Deas, Rutherglen, September 1989; Rutherglen Sun and Chiltern Valley Advertiser, 10, 17 January 1896)
Although Serpell and Glassford had the equipment on the market for a further two years it is unlikely that Serpell really wanted to dispose of it. Possibly he hoped that if the plant remained in place long enough it could be resurrected when suburban property was again in demand. In May 1898 Glassford canvassed the possibility of selling the overhead wire, as the price of copper was then high. He particularly noted that a saving could be made if they sold the copper wire and used a newer, lighter, stronger and cheaper wire for any new venture.
The following month he wrote to Serpell saying that in his opinion it would not be profitable to run trams at Box Hill for some years. He suggested that it would be preferable to investigate the possibility of establishing a line at Bendigo where there was a demand for tramways in the outlying areas of Golden Square and Kangaroo Flat.
Glassford’s plans to abandon running trams at Box Hill were unacceptable to the locals. They were more concerned about the return of their tram service than its profitability. In July 1898 a deputation of local identities approached the Shire of Doncaster with a proposition based on the willingness of William Hilton to return from Western Australia to operate the tramway once again. Although the council pledged support for the proposal the scheme was short lived.
Serpell and Glassford finally decided the tramway would have to go. At the next Doncaster council meeting approval was again given for them to remove the track. Arrangements were made for the rails to go to the Cape Otway district of south-west Victoria, to replace part of a timber-milling tramway destroyed by bushfire the previous year. As some Doncaster identities, including Tom Petty and Edwin Wilson, had milling interests at Apollo Bay, it is possible the rails were destined for their operations.
After the rails had been removed there were agitations in Box Hill and Doncaster to properly construct the connecting road forged by the tramway company a decade previously. Although both shires were in agreement about the desirability of constructing the road there was a degree of suspicion between them, each not wanting to move until sure the other would complete its part. A half-finished road would be an embarrassment and of little use to either municipality.
In November 1898 the Nunawading council resolved to make its part of the road on condition that the adjoining property owners paid half the cost; it directed its engineer to prepare rough plans and cost estimates. As far as Doncaster was concerned the matter was more difficult. Before investing funds it had to acquire ownership of the land, and there were still two blocks over which it had no control. One of the blocks was owned by the Australian Assets Company Limited which had purchased it from the Bank of South Australia. Apparently an agreement between the shire and bank had not been finalised and the assets company demanded £100 from the shire. If not paid, the company threatened to fence off the land, thereby obstructing the right of way. The shire solicitor recommended that if the shire really wanted the land it should pay up and avoid costly litigation. The council resolved to let the matter rest until it saw what the Nunawading shire would do about its section of the road.
There was a rumour that the Nunawading council ‘was in a similar fix’ over arrangements with land owners abutting the street. At a meeting of the council in January 1899 a deputation of two Doncaster council representatives explained that their shire may be able to scrape up enough money to make the road passable between Koonung Creek and Whittens Lane. If the Nunawading shire constructed its portion then a through road via Whittens Lane would be possible. A further joint meeting was held in February. During the following month the Box Hill riding councillors of the Nunawading shire recommended that concessions for road costs be made to certain land owners along Station Street. After a later meeting ended in uproar over the issue and an opinion was obtained from the shire solicitor, the matter was dropped.
To further complicate the matter of road construction, Glassford and Serpell had requested £250 compensation from each council for metal remaining on the road. They argued that the value of the metal, culverts and bridges was all that remained of the £5,850 spent in making the road in the first place. Both councils considered the idea preposterous and dismissed it.
On 20 December 1899 all parties except the Australian Assets Company got together to work out a scheme whereby the road could be constructed. Glassford and Serpell maintained their case for compensation but Wilson, Gallus and Hislop agreed to forego their claims provided they were not required to pay construction costs. Councillor Morton of Nunawading was deputed to attempt reconciliation with the assets company. For over a year nothing was done about the matter. Although the Doncaster council had apparently not resolved the problem with the assets company, it forced the issue in November 1901 by having ‘Tram Road’ proclaimed a public highway.
Meanwhile the Shire of Nunawading arranged to construct Station Street between Whitehorse Road and Tyne Street (Tate’s Hill). In April 1905 it considered constructing the remainder of the road, from Tyne Street to the shire boundary at Koonung Creek. There were objections from some property owners along the road and Serpell and Glassford again pressed for compensation. The council was unmoved and at its next meeting resolved to construct the section between Tyne Street and Bushy Creek and to declare the road beyond the creek a public highway. Determined to fight on, Serpell and Glassford lodged an objection with the Department of Public Works. On 9 August 1905 the minister of public works over-ruled their objection and the matter was finally laid to rest.
Although the rails were removed in 1898 some of the overhead poles remained years after as a silent reminder of the tramway. A motion authorising the shire secretary to sell the poles was moved at the Doncaster council meeting in February 1902. In a bid to protect the interests of one of his former fellow directors, William Sell moved an amendment authorising Richard Serpell to perform the task. It failed due to lack of a seconder and the original motion was carried. Poles still stood along Station Street between Bushy Creek and Woodhouse Grove in 1923, and five years later Croll noted that certain weathered poles ‘stand idle here and there’. Some of the copper overhead wire was apparently stolen before it could be dismantled.
1923 . Station Street, Box Hill. Looking north from near where Shannon Street now intersects towards Bushy Creek. The dam beside Bushy Creek, used for the power plant, is visible behind the two remaining tram poles on the right of the road. Dam on Bushy Creek to right. Built to supply water for the Electric Tramway in 1889. Two poles that carried the electric current for the defunct Box Hill to Doncaster tram. A horse and buggy is travelling towards Doncaster. An orchard on the east side of Station Street, south of Woodhouse Grove. After the tramway closed, the trams and power plant had languished in the sheds beside Bushy Creek. Swagmen often broke into the sheds and camped there. Richard Serpell was continually securing the sheds against trespassers. More serious trouble occurred in November 1899 when two young men were apprehended breaking up and removing equipment. They appeared before the Box Hill court, charged with theft of one hundred weight (112 pound) of copper wire, one cog wheel and other items. The court was told that over a number of days the men had wrecked a dynamo, a pump, tram motors and sections of the boiler and engine See 1899 'A SMASH UP AT THE TRAM SHEDS.', The Reporter (Box Hill, Vic. : 1889 - 1925), 8 December, p. 3. , viewed 05 Sep 2021, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article93278051.
In August 1906, Serpell sold the tram shed and engine house land to William Stutt of Doncaster. In a certain sense Stutt had control over an old adversary, but it must have been a hollow victory for the former politician and councillor. During Hilton’s operation of the tramway Stutt became upset over a dispute involving fares. Boarding the tram at Box Hill he tendered his Parliamentary Railway Pass, only to be told that every passenger on the tram had to tender a cash fare. Stutt paid up and two weeks later showed his contempt by starting a service of three horse-drawn cabs between his hotel in Doncaster, and Kew, in competition with the tram. According to Hilton, during the nine days of trial operation the only person carried in the cabs was Stutt himself.
Sometime between the turn of the century and the First World War the trams and plant remaining in the sheds were disposed of. The boiler and steam engine were sold to Robison Brothers and Company, engineers, boilermakers and ironfounders, of South Melbourne. According to Morrison, the two tramcars were sold to H. V. McKay for use at his agricultural machinery works at Braybrook Junction (Sunshine), west of Melbourne. If that is correct the trams must have been sold after McKay established his Sunshine Harvester Works in the factory vacated by the Braybrook Implement Company in 1904-5. On the other hand, the two trams may have been at the factory when he took it over. The Braybrook Implement Company apparently often bought up second-hand buildings and equipment and they may have purchased the Box Hill trams between 1900 and 1904. Whatever the case, the electric motors from them are said to have been adapted for use in the factory.
Morrison said that the bodies of the trams were ‘used for many years as grandstands on the recreation ground at the Works’. This sporting ground is now known as Chaplin Reserve. It has been claimed that the tram bodies first appeared on the south side of the reserve at a gigantic carnival organised by McKay in December 1915 to aid the Wounded Soldiers Fund. (R. G. Barnett, Sunshine, January 1989) For the original open car, the wheel had turned a full circle. It made its debut at the elaborate Centennial International Exhibition and now it was making its swan-song at one of the largest and most successful war-effort carnivals held in the State. As there appears to be no photographic or other evidence showing the trams being used in this location it is doubtful they remained there very long. The elements would have soon destroyed the timber frames and canvas roofs.
By the beginning of the Second World War the dam at Bushy Creek and the concrete foundations for the power plant were the only visible traces of the tramway. In October 1939, fifty years after the tramway had opened, Mrs Margaret Luke, a former Box Hill resident, suggested to the Box Hill council that a plaque commemorating the existence of the line should be fixed to the Post Office wall. After some concern over how the memorial was to be funded, the council finally resolved to construct a brick and stone cairn on the footpath outside the Post Office on the north-west comer of Station Street and Whitehorse Road. A bronze plaque mounted on the cairn bore the inscription:
THIS TABLET WAS ERECTED BY THE BOX HILL CITY COUNCIL TO MARK THE TERMINUS OF THE FIRST ELECTRIC TRAMWAY ROUTE IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE DURING THE YEARS 1889-1896 AN ELECTRIC TRAM RAN BETWEEN HERE AND DONCASTER ERECTED 1940
Unfortunately this small memorial was demolished by an errant motor vehicle in 1988. The existence of the northern terminus of the tramway is also acknowledged on a memorial plaque set in the grounds of the Westfield Shoppingtown complex at Doncaster. The City of Box Hill further commemorated the history of the pioneer line in 1971 by naming the right of way behind the Post Office ‘Hilton’s Lane’ after Henry Hilton, the former manager and lessee.
In 1940 J. K. Moir revived interest in the tramway by publishing an informative booklet titled ‘Australia’s First Electric Tram’. This self-published work sold at local newsagencies for one shilling and is now a collectors item. It was republished three times by Traction Publications over the next twenty years and in 1977 the Rotary Club of Box Hill published a facsimile edition to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the city.
This jubilee was widely celebrated in Box Hill and the 6th Box Hill South Scouts built a full-size replica of the original open car as a float for the Golden Jubilee parade. A more substantial replica was also built by the City of Doncaster and Templestowe for the local Wurundjeri Festival Parade in 1979. This full size unmotorised vehicle is now permanently displayed in the tranquil grounds of the Doncaster-Templestowe Historical Society’s museum at Schramm’s Cottage, Doncaster.
While the pioneer electric road has been commemorated in various ways down the years, there is one memorial to the tramway that stands above all others. That is Tram Road itself. The history of roads is really the history of civilisation. Although the tramway is long gone, and Met buses now thunder along the old tram route, Tram Road remains as a permanent memorial to the aspirations, trials, triumphs and failures of the early pioneers.
Appendix 1: Key events and ownership chronology
- Early 1888: William Masters and Thomas Draper, trading as W. H. Masters and Co., electrical importers, arranged to exhibit Thomson-Houston electric tramway equipment at Centennial International Exhibition, Melbourne
- Sept 1888: Southern Electric Co. Ltd Melbourne registered to acquire import agencies from W. H. Masters and Co
- Oct 1888: Tenders called for construction of tramway between Box Hill and Doncaster
- 24 Oct 1888: Box Hill and Doncaster Tramway Co. Ltd registered (first tramway company)
- 12 Nov 1888: Construction of earthworks and permanent way commenced at Box Hill
- 19 Nov 1888: Electric tramway opened at Exhibition.
- Apr 1889: Union Electric Co. of Australia Ltd formed by merger of Southern Electric Co. and the Electric Light and Power Supply Co. of Australia Ltd.
- 31 May 1889: Union Electric Co. contracted with tramway company to install electrical equipment and operate line for six months.
- 14 Oct 1889: Tramway officially opened .
- 12 Apr 1890: Union Electric Co.’s liability to run line ceased.
- Nov 1890-Feb 1891: Tram service disrupted over right of way dispute with South Doncaster Estate Co. Ltd.
- Mar-May 1891: Tramway company sued by employees (Barnes, Nagle and Le Brun) for wages owing and by its bank (English Scottish and Australian Chartered Bank).
- 24 Apr 1891: Supreme Court Sheriff sold rolling stock and equipment to George Thomson.
- 8 May 1891: Tramway company went into voluntary liquidation
- June 1891: Tram service stopped as a result of continuing dispute with estate company
- 26 Aug 1891: Thomson sold tramway equipment to Richard Serpell
- Dec 1891: Tramway company again resolved to go into liquidation
- Jan 1892: Tenders called to straighten and overhaul tramway
- 25 Feb 1892: Doncaster and Box Hill Electric Road Co. Ltd registered (second tramway company)
- 19 Mar 1892: Tramway reopened.
- 21 Mar 1892: Serpell purchased land containing engine house and tram sheds from Box Hill Township Estate Co.
- Date?: Serpell transferred assets to second tramway company. Matthew Glassford became financially involved with Serpell and together they manoeuvred with the second tramway company to keep the tramway afloat. At some stage Serpell and Glassford were the tramway’s joint proprietors. Later, ownership reverted to Serpell alone .
- 12 Oct 1892: Serpell sold plant and equipment to second tramway company.
- Nov 1892: Second tramway company and Serpell and Glassford were successfully sued by former tramway secretary Robert Gow for wages due to him.Serpell and Glassford later appealed and had original decision overturned.
- 10 Jan 1893: County Court Bailiff sold trams and equipment to Glassford
- Date? Trams and equipment transferred from Glassford to second tramway company
- Mar 1893: Henry Hilton appointed engineer of tramway
- 14 Apr 1894: Second tramway company leased line to Henry Hilton
- 6 Jan 1896: Tramway closed
- Date? Serpell and Glassford ultimately became proprietors either in their own right or else acquired all shares in second tramway company.
- 1898, 1899: First and second tramway companies deregistered.
- S
Appendix 2: Shareholders of the Box Hill and Doncaster Tramway Company Limited as at 3 September 1889
- Adams and McKenzie 104 Elizabeth StShares 50
- J. M. Anderson Melbourne Rd, North Williamstown 100
- William Anderson 308 Bridge Rd, Richmond 20
- Joseph W. Aspinall Doncaster 50
- S. Aspinall Box Hill 50
- John Baillie Doncaster 15
- Mrs John Baillie Doncaster 5
- J.J. Beck 12 Jackson St, St Kilda 100
- John H. Bussell Lisson Grove, Hawthorn 500
- R. G. Cameron Doncaster 100
- George Cockroft Box Hill 100
- Samuel Collier Britwells Rd, Box Hill 25
- Ben Copley Doncaster 10
- Mrs Elizabeth Davis Park View, Johnston St, Abbotsford 25
- William Ellingworth Burley Park, Box Hill 300
- Ellingworth and 3 Queens Walk 100
- Ferdinand Finger Waldau, East Doncaster 10
- T. N. Fitzgerald Lonsdale St 300
- Robert Gill Box Hill 20
- Henry Gray Studley Park Rd 5
- James Hill Post Office, Box Hill 200
- F. M. Hynes Public Works Department 100
- A. E. Illingworth 67 Swanston St 100
- Frederick Illingworth 67 Swanston St 1500
- John C. Illingworth Doncaster 10
- John Inglis Box Hill 500
- A. H. C. Lauer Doncaster 10
- John B. Lawford Doncaster 10
- Charles McDowall Victoria Buildings, City 50
- Herbert McDowall Doncaster 50
- F. A. McMurdie Box Hill 25
- Frank McNamara Doncaster 5
- William Meader Box Hill 500
- William Meader Jr Albion Rd, Box Hill 20
- George Mitchell Mount Noorat Noorat 10
- T. B. R. Morton Surrey Hills 250
- Muntz and Bage 45 Collins St West 200
- J. M. Nicholls 66 Temple Court 200
- Silas Padgham Box Hill 100
- Alfred Rawlings Box Hill 100
- Percy J. Russell Queen St 500
- William Sell Doncaster East 300
- Alfred Serpell Box Hill 25
- Jane Serpell Doncaster 100
- Richard Serpell Doncaster 1000
- Richard Serpell in trust for W. Hanke10
- C. R. Staples Princes St, Kew 1000
- A. R. Taylor Doncaster 50
- C. F. Taylor Collins St in trust for Box Hill Township Estate Company 1000
- Robert Williamson Springfield, Doncaster 100
- Mrs C. Winter Doncaster 10
- I. G. F. Winter Doncaster 10
- Mrs Anne Wright Box Hill 80
- George Wright Box Hill 50
- James Wright Box Hill 10
- John George Wright Box Hill 50
- William Edward Wright Box Hill 10
- Total 10130
Appendix 3 Shareholders of the Doncaster and Box Hill Electric Road Company Limited as at 17 April 1895
- *J. W. Aspinal Land owner Box Hill, 23,
- *Squire Aspinal land owner Box Hill, 23
- *George Cockroft, Land owner, Box Hill, 240
- Alfred S. Colby, Merchant, Melbourne, 100
- *Samuel Collier, Gardener, Box Hill, 12,
- James Cook, Salesman, Melbourne, 200
- *S. B. Cople, Gardener, Doncaster, 5
- James Fethers, Merchant, Melbourne, 200
- *Robert Gill, Carrier, Doncaster, 37
- Agnes C. Glassford, Spinster, Adelaide, 100
- Edith Jane Glassford Spinster, East Melbourne, 100
- Eliza Jane Glassford Spinster, Adelaide, 100
- Matthew Glassford, Merchant, Melbourne, 1,023
- Williamina D. Gow, Married woman, Armadale, 300
- *F. M. Hynes, Civil servant, Public works, Melbourne, 46
- *A. E. Illingworth, Ironmonger, Melbourne, 46
- Henry Jew, Broker, Melbourne, 115
- *A. C. H. Lauer, Baker, Box Hill, 5
- Edwin Lawford, Fruit grower, Doncaster, 58
- *F. A. McMurdie, Land owner, Box Hill, 12
- * Alfred Rawlings, Land owner, Box Hill, 23
- *Percy J. Russell, Solicitor, Melbourne, 138
- *A. Serpell, Land owner, Box Hill, 58
- *Richard Serpell, Land owner, Doncaster, 884
- Charlotte Stevenson, Spinster, East Melbourne, 100,
- *A. R. Taylor, Land owner, Doncaster, 23
- John Turnbull, Manager, Adelaide, 600
- William T. Wallis, Merchant, Geelong, 200
- Total 4,771
Source: Public Record Office of Victoria, VA 679 Registrar-General and Office of Titles, VPRS 932 Defunct trading company files and index 1864-1981, unit 2702.
Appendix 4: Timetables
December 1894.
BOX HILL TO DONCASTER
- Weekdays 8.45, 9.45, 11.05 a.m., 1.00, 3.00, 4.40, 6.05 p.m.
- Saturdays as usual until 1.00, 1.55, 3.05, 3.45, 5.00, 6.00 p.m.
- Sundays 2.35, 3.35, 4.35, 5.35 p.m.
DONCASTER TO BOX HILL
- Weekdays 8.20, 9.30, 10.20, 11.20 a.m., 1.20, 3.45, 5.45 p.m.
- Saturdays As usual until 1.20, 2.17, 3.20, 4.00, 5.15, 6.15 p.m.
- Sundays 2.55, 3.55, 4.55, 5.55 p.m.
On and after 27 May 1895
BOX HILL TO DONCASTER
- Weekdays 8.45, 9.45 a.m., 3.00, 4.40, 6.05 p.m.
- Saturdays As usual until 1.00, 1.55, 3.05, 3.45, 5.00, 6.00 p.m.
- Sundays 2.35, 3.35, 4.35 p.m.
DONCASTER TO BOX HILL
- Weekdays 8.20, 9.20, 10.20 a.m., 3.45, 5.45 p.m.
- Saturdays As usual until 1.20, 2.17, 3.20, 4.00, 5.15, 6.15 p.m.
- Sundays 2.55, 3.55, 4.55 p.m.
November 1895
BOX HILL TO DONCASTER
- Weekdays 8.45, 9.45 a.m., *1.00, *2.00, 3.00, 4.40, 6.05 p.m.
- Saturdays As usual until 1.00, 1.55, 3.05, 3.45, 5.00, 6.00 p.m.
- Sundays 2.35, 3.35, 4.35, 5.35 p.m.
DONCASTER TO BOX HILL
- Weekdays 8.20, 9.20, 10.20 a.m., *1.20, *2.20, 3.45, 5.45 p.m.
- Saturdays As usual until 1.20, 2.17, 3.20, 4.00, 5.15, 6.15 p.m.
- Sundays 2.55, 3.55, 4.55, 5.55 p.m.
- *Fridays excepted
Source: Box Hill Reporter, 14 December 1894, 24 May 1895, 8 November 1895.
Appendix 5: Operating statistics 30 June 1893-30 June 1895
| |
Second tramway company 30.6.1893 - 30.6.1894 |
H.J. Hilton lessee 30.6.1894 - 30.6.1895 |
| Capital value, line and plant | £2,000 | £1,900 |
| Car miles run | 18,200 | 13,000 |
| Revenue | £360 | £350 |
| Working expenses | ||
| - Fuel, lubricants, general stores | £121 | £91 |
| - Renewals | £7 | £6 |
| - Wages | £364 | £234 |
| Total working expenses | £492 | £331 |
| Loss on working | £132 | |
| Profit on working | |
£19 |
| Interest on capital value at 4% | £80 | £76# |
| Depreciation of plant 5% per annum | £100 | £95# |
| Loss on working, interest and depreciation of plant | £312 | >£17# |
| Revenue per car mile | 4.74d | 6.46d |
| Working expenses per car mile | 6.48d | 6.264d |
| Maintenance of permanent way | nil* | nil* |
Source: Box Hill Reporter, 20 March 1896.
References:
(Full text embedded in narrative above)
Chapter 1
- 1 The President, The Victorian Railways Electrical Society, ‘The electric light in railways’, Building and Engineering Journal of Australia and New Zealand, 11 August 1888, p.88.
- 2 Fred H. Whipple, The electric railway, Detroit, 1889, pp. 140-2. (Republished 1980, Orange Empire Railway Museum.)
- 3 ibid., p.128.
- 4 ibid., p.139.
- 1 Official Record of the Centennial International Exhibition Melbourne, 1888-1889, The Executive Commissioners, Melbourne, 1890, p.1131.
- 2 New South Wales Legislative Assembly Votes and Proceedings 1891-92, vol. 5, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. Report together with minutes of evidence, appendices and plans relating to the proposed cable tramway from King Street via William Street to Ocean Street, Minutes of Evidence, p.34.
- 3 U.S. Senate Executive Documents, 1st Session 51st Congress, 1889-90, vol. 4, Reports of the U.S. Commissioners to the Centennial International Exhibition at Melbourne 1888, Government Printing Office, 1890, ‘Report on the machinery at the exhibition by Andrew Semple of Melbourne’, p.143.
- 4 Australasian Ironmonger, Builder, Engineer and Metalworker, 1 January 1889, P22
- 5 Age, 17 November 1888.
- 6 ibid.
- 7 J. K. Moir, Australia's first electric tram, Melbourne, 1940, p.4.
- 8 Australasian Ironmonger, 1 January 1889, p.22.
- 9 Moir, p.4
- 10 Official Record, p.849.
- 1 Royal Historical Society of Victoria memorandum, quoted in Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board Annual Report 1978-79, p.11.
- 2 Building and Engineering Journal, 11 August 1888, p.88.
- 3 Victorian Municipal Directory and Gazetteer for 1889, p.420.
- 4 ibid., pp.275-6.
- 5 Shire of Bulleen minutes, 27 August 1888.
- 6 Prospectus of the Box Hill and Doncaster Tramway Company Limited, in K. Smith collection.
- 7 Land Titles Office Memorial No. 975, Book 352, Illingworth to the Box Hill and Doncaster Tramway Company Limited, 12 January 1889.
- 8 Advertising poster for ‘Gem of Box Hill’ subdivision auction, 20 October 1888, Map collection, State Library of Victoria.
- 9 Advertising poster for ‘Doncaster Heights’ subdivision auction, 25 October 1888, Map collection, State Library of Victoria.
- 10 Box Hill Reporter, 31 January 1941.
- 11 Age, 15 October 1889.
- 1 Unidentified news cutting in Serpell family papers.
- 2 Reporter, 17 October 1889.
- 3 Age, 15 October 1889.
- 4 Reporter, 17 October 1889.
- 5 ibid.
- 6 Hawthorn and Boroondara Standard, 18 October 1889.
- 7 Reporter, 24 October 1889.
- 8 Reporter, 8 November 1889.
- 9 R. H. Croll, The open road in Victoria, Robertson and Mullens Ltd, Melbourne, 1928, pp. 19-20.
- 10 Chronological history of passengerfares, embracing the period 1 July 1884 to 30 June 1897, Victorian Railways, Melbourne, 1 January 1898, p. 12; Molly Rodda, ‘When Doncaster had its tram’, Herald, 15 July 1939, p.34.
- 11 New South Wales Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works Report, Minutes of Evidence, p.34.
- 12 ibid., Appendix E, p.19.
- 13 ibid.
- 14 ibid., Appendix H, p.25
- 15 ibid., Minutes of Evidence, p. 185.
- 1 Reporter, 7 November 1890.
- 2 Reporter, 18 July 1890.
- 3 Reporter, 28 November 1890.
- 4 Reporter, 16 January 1891.
- 5 Deed of Bargain and Sale 91724, The Sheriff of the Central Bailiwick and George Harrex Thomson, 9 July 1891, in Serpell family papers.
- 6 Reporter, 12 June 1891; Box Hill and Camberwell Express, 12 June 1891.
- 7 Reporter, 26 June 1891; unidentified news cutting in Serpell family papers.
- 8 Unidentified news cutting in Serpell family papers.
- 9 Land Titles Office Transfer 317015, 15 October 1891, Edwin Wilson (at the request of and by the direction of the South Doncaster Estate Co. Ltd) to the President, Councillors and Ratepayers of the Shire of Doncaster.
- 1 Reporter, 3 January 1896.
- 2 Land Titles Office Certificate of Title vol. 2423, fol. 484515.
- 3 Moir, p.26.
- 4 P. Crosbie Morrison, ‘Melbourne’s first electric tram’, Argus, 25 July 1931, p.6.
- 5 Moir, pp.27-8.
- 6 Reporter, 20 March 1896
- 7 Reporter, 3 January 1896.
- 1 ‘Lady Gregory’ in Croll, p.18.
- 2 B. Deas, Rutherglen, September 1989; Rutherglen Sun and Chiltern Valley Advertiser, 10, 17 January 1896.
- 3 R. G. Barnett, Sunshine, January 1989.
Bibliography
Official Contemporary Sources- Shire of Bulleen minutes.
- Shire of Doncaster minutes
- Shire of Nunawading minutes.
- Public Record Office of Victoria, VA 862 Registrar-General and Office of Titles, VPRS 932 Defunct trading company files and index 1864-1981:
- item 1211 Box Hill Township Estate Co. Ltd
- item 1523 Southern Electric Co. Ltd Melbourne
- item 1692 Box Hill and Doncaster Tramway Co. Ltd (BH&DTCo.)
- item 2207 Union Electric Co. of Australia Ltd
- item 2702 Doncaster and Box Hill Electric Road Co. (D&BHERCo.)
- Public Record Office of Victoria, Prothonotary of the Supreme Court, VPRS 267 Civil case files 1852-1919:
- item 938 Action No. 1889/5735 Turnbull v. BH&DTCo
- item 948 1889/6798 Duff v BH&DTCo
- item 967 1890/1242 BH%&DTCo.v.Illingworth
- item 1035 1891/1378 Barnes v BH&DTCo
- item 1035 1891/1379 LeBrun v BH&DTCo
- item 1037 1891/1561 ES&A Charted Bank v BH&DTCo
- item 1045 1891/2297 Nagle v. BH&DTCo
- item 1054 1891/3260 Union Elect.Co.v.BH&DTCo
- item 1067 1891/4576 BH&DTCo.v. Bussell
- item 1151 1893/402 BH&DTCo.v.McDowall
- Public Record Office of Victoria, VA686 County Court,VPRS 3159 County Court Registers 1865 -1969
- item 81 Plaint No. 6718 BH&DTCo. v. McDowall
- item 81 6815 Gow .v.D&BHERCo
- item 81 6817 Gow .v.Serpell and Glassford
- item 87 7894 D&BHERCo.v.Draper
- item 87 197 Draper.v.Serpell and Glassford
- Public Record Office of Victoria, VPRS 1499 Box Hill Court of Petty Sessions registers 1883-1968:
- item 4 entry No. 344, 375, 466 Barnes v. BH&DTCo.
- item 467 Nagle v. BH&DTCo.
- item 468 LeBrun v. BH&DTCo.
- Public Record Office of Victoria, VA 596 Roads and Bridges Branch, Department of Public Works, Board of Land and Works:
- VPRS 499 Registers of inward correspondence 1860-1956, unit 10, pp.52, 210.
- VPRS 384 General correspondence files c 1862-1975, unit 40, items 89/2966, 89/3020.
- New South Wales Legislative Assembly Votes and Proceedings 1891-92, vol. 5. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, Report together with minutes of evidence, appendices and plans relating to the proposed cable tramway from King Street via William Street to Ocean Street.
- Victoria Government Gazette.
- Official Record of the Centennial International Exhibition Melbourne, 1888-1889,The Executive Commisioners, Melbourne.
- Official Record of the Centennial International Exhibition Melbourne, 1888-1889, The Executive Commissioners, Melbourne, 1890.
- Serpell, Draper and Hilton family papers and memorabilia
- Age
- Argus
- Herald
- Box Hill and Camberwell Express
- Box Hill Reporter
- Hawthorn and Boroondara Standard
- Australasian Builder and Contractors News
- Australasian Ironmonger, Builder, Engineer and Metalworker
- Australian Town and Country Journal
- Building and Engineering Journal of Australia and New Zealand
- Victorian Engineer
- Bradshaw's Guide to Victoria (1888-96), Stillwell and Co., Melbourne.
- Cassier's Magazine, The Electric Railway Number, August 1899, Louis Cassier Co. Ltd, New York, 1899.
- Slingo, W. 8c Brooker, A., Electrical Engineering, Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1890.
- Smith, J. (ed.), The cyclopedia of Victoria, The Cyclopedia Co., Melbourne, 1903-5, vol. 1.
- Victorian Municipal Directory and Gazetteer for 1889, Arnall and Jackson, Melbourne, 1889.
- Whipple, Fred H., The electric railway, Detroit, 1889. (Republished 1980, Orange Empire Railway Museum.)
- Buckley, R.J., A history of tramways, David and Charles (Holdings) Limited, Devon, 1975.
- Cannon, M., Land boom and bust. Heritage Publications, Melbourne, 1972.
- Croll, R.H., The open road in Victoria, Robertson and Mullens Ltd, Melbourne, 1928.
- Keogh, G., History of Doncaster and Templestowe, City of Doncaster and Templestowe, 1975.
- Lemon, A., Box Hill, Box Hill City Council in conjunction with Lothian Publishing Co., Melbourne, 1978.
- Moir, J.K., Australia's first electric tram, privately published, Melbourne, 1940.
- Thomson, K. 8c Serle, G., A biographical register of the Victorian Parliament 1859-1900, ANU Press, Canberra, 1972.
- ‘The first electric tramway in Australia’, Electrical Engineer, 15 December 1930.
- Thomas, T.H., ‘Australia’s first electric tram’, SEC Magazine, Melbourne, June 1939.
- Doncaster-Templestowe Historical Society Newsletter, December 1985.
Sources of Illustrations
- Page 9 (top and below), 10, 16, 17, 18 (top), 30 (top and below), 43, 46, 50 (below), 53, 56 (top), 57 (top and below), 68, 70 (top), 71 LaTrobe Collection, State Library of Victoria:
- 9 - Australian Town and Country Journal, 19 September 1887, p.548;
- 10, 17 - Official Record of the Centennial International Exhibition Melbourne 1888-1889, Executive Commissioners, Melbourne, 1890;
- 16 - Popular Guide to the Centennial Exhibition, Second Edition, W. H. Williams, Printer, Melbourne, 1888, p. (vi);
- 18 (top) - Weekly Times, 28 March 1896, p. 11; 30 (top) - Scientific Australian, 20 June 1896, p.25;
- 30 (below), 43 - Illustrated Australian News and Musical Times, 9 November 1889, p. 18;
- 46, 57 (top), 68, 71 - Picture Collection H9790, HI 7877, H4942, H42538/3;
- 50 (below), 53, 56 (top) - J. Smith (ed.), The Cyclopedia of Victoria, The Cyclopedia Company, Melbourne, 1903-5, vol. 1, pp.511, 490, 492;
- 57 (below) - J. K. Moir, Australia's first electric tram, Melbourne, 1940, p.23; 70 (top) - Herald, 15 July 1939, p.34 (photo courtesy the Herald, Melbourne). 20, 27 Map Collection, State Library of Victoria 18 (below), 23 Public Record Office of Victoria:
- 18 (below) - VPRS 840 The Exhibition Trustees, Photograph Albums 1888, vol. 2, Exhibitors of Fine Arts, Victorian Exhibitors, Portrait No. 37;
- 23 - VA 596 Roads and Bridges Branch, Department of Public Works, Board of Land and Works, VPRS 384 General Correspondence Files, Unit 40, items 89/2966 and 89/3020 11 National Library of Australia: in Australian Post, 4 August 1888, p.289
- 24, 26, 48, 52, 59 Box Hill City Historical Society:
- 59 - in I. Southall, A tale of Box Hill, Box Hill City Council, 1957, p.85 19, 33, 34, 41, 50 (top), 51, 69 (below) Doncaster-Templestowe Historical Society 6, 8, 13, 15 Fred H. Whipple, The electric railway, Detroit, 1889. pp. 128, unnumbered page, 141, (v) 2, 3, 5 Peter Duckett: in Cassier's Magazine, The Electric Railway Number, August 1899, Louis Cassier Co. Ltd, New York, 1899, pp.358, 367, 320
- 35 Joan Webster: in J. Tully Sr, Doncaster's History, privately published, 1934, p. 19 14 Alan Williamson: in W. Slingo and A. Brooker, Electrical Engineering, Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1890, pp.392, 394
- 58 Carmel Moss: from composite of photographs presented to Chief Inspector W. T. Hilton by the traffic staff officers of the Prahran and Malvern Tramways Trust, as a mark of esteem 2 August 1913 36, 67 Aileen Johnston:
- 67 - from brochure for Mont View Estate Box Hill, subdivision auction 14 April 1923 21,
- 42, 55 Serpell family 40, 64 Merrick Hilton
- 56 (below) Bill and Mary Hilton 62 W. A. Warren and Co. Pty Ltd 69 (top) Daryl Bunting 70 (below) Author
Source: The first electric road : a history of the Box Hill and Doncaster tramway / Robert Green.
- Author: Green, Robert William, 1945- Published: 1989. East Brighton, Vic. : John Mason Press, 730 Hawthorn Rd, East Brighton Vic 3187
- Physical Description: xii, 84 p. : ill., maps, ports. ; 25 cm.
- Subjects: Tramways -- Victoria -- Doncaster Region -- History. Tramways -- Victoria -- Box Hill -- History. Street-railroads -- Victoria -- Melbourne -- History. Trams -- Victoria -- Melbourne -- History. Horse railroads -- Victoria -- Melbourne -- History.
- Bibliography: p. 79-80. Language. English ISBN. 0731667158 (pbk.) : Dewey Number. 388.46099451 Libraries Australia ID. 6430615 Contributed by. Libraries Australia
- Designed by Marjorie Boag, Typeset by Abb-typesetting Pty Ltd, Collingwood, Victoria Printed by Brown Prior Anderson, Burwood, Victoria
Permission History
- 2019 Robert Green personally donated the remaining copies of this work to DTHS and gave verbal permission for DTHS to publish digitally to Stephen Digby (2019) but left the state and closed his email account (robgreen@melbpc.org.au) before signing the copyright permission form. Attempts to contact on old email address failed 2019, 2020, 2021.
- May2020 - Letter to publisher, John Mason Press, 730 Hawthorn Rd, East Brighton Vic 3187, as stated on Trove https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/16511359?q&versionId=19378701. requesting contact with Robert. No response.
- Aug2021 Marjorie Boag (probably same as person who died in 2011 See Notice)
- Aug2021 Facebook page provided phone number (03) 9417 5266
- Aug 2021 Brown Prior Anderson, Burwood. Possibly connected to 25 Arctic Ct, Keysborough VIC 3173 (03) 9808 6622 ?? or defunct website http://ww1.bpabooks.com/ ????
No comments:
Post a Comment