Random questions on the CPH railcars.

2001 · Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:29 am

The search engine is not my friend... you bastard.

I have a few items of curiosity regarding the CPH railcars. First up is First... Class, that is. Having examined inside a CPH I came up with not a clue as to the difference between First and Second Class accommodation. What exactly might that be ? Perhaps a few extra centimetres of legroom ?

Were any of the CPH units retro fitted with a speedometer ? I can't fathom how speed could be accurately judged by tacho (rev counter) alone.

2001

Member Falls Creek 2018 Olympics Committee.

42101 · Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:39 am

Speed was calculated using the drivers watch and the mile posts x amount of time between posts = x amount of mph.

Banned

villierstrike · Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 1:54 pm

The only thing that is different between 1st & 2nd class is that the WC is in 2nd class end

PClark · Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:07 pm

The difference between the classes had more to do with the "class system" than any physical differences.

Back in the '20s it was considered quite unsuitable for the squatter's wife and daughter to travel in the same compartment as the drover and his dog.

The two classes simply were a continuation of the system on the connecting "Mails" to and from Sydney. The Squatters and their families would be in the TAM sleeper and the drovers and shearers would have boozed on all night in an eight-seat sitter.

FPB 1101 · Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 4:56 pm

None of the CPH railmotors had speedos whilst in revenue service.

PClark · Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 5:36 pm

The original seating in the CPHs was fixed back-to-back type (again the same in both classes) This was uncomfortable and unpopular on what could be quite long journeys and between 1934 and 1940 the seats were replaced with the Hale and Kelburn turn-over seats.

Interestingly, the original design had no flushing cisterns in the loos. There was a big watering can standing beside the pan. Flushing toilets were not provided until about 1967.

remotemants · Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:35 pm

I was told the only difference between first and second was not what you travelled in, but who you travelled with Wink

DHT · Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 7:05 pm

GeoffreyHansen · Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 7:08 pm

Did both Second and First class have 2+3 seating or did First class have 2+2?

PClark · Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:40 am

It was generally 2+3 in both classes although the need to squeeze three abreast would usually have been less in first class due to fewer passengers.

2+2 first class and 2+3 second came in with the Silver City Comet cars.

Scott_AUS · Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:56 pm

2001 · Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 2:41 pm

KngtRider · Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 2:59 pm

Note what remoterants said

the priveliege civilised people travel tgether in 1st and lesser folk in 2nd and 3rd, so that the classes do not mix, and a fare surcharge ensures this. Surely youve heard of how steerage/third class were left locked in the titanic

Dominic Sharoo
Editor
NitroWare.net
http://www.NitroWare.net

2001 · Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:04 pm

For how many years did the CPH's operate before they abolished the First/Second Class divide ? - I'm assuming this did eventually happen.

Those plebs sitting back in Second Class don't look so uncouth to me Smile

2001

Member Falls Creek 2018 Olympics Committee.

42101 · Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:54 pm

So you did not use the info i gave on how speed was calculated before speedo's were fitted then.

Banned