A very rare photo of Timespanner ...

Courtesy of the photographer, my good friend Bill Ellis. Bill and Barbara were the ones who gave me a lift to Glenbrook on Saturday. You won't find many images of me around, they're usually right shockers -- but this one I absolutely love. And what was I doing between two locos, you might ask?

Taking this shot:

Update on the Woes of Mataura

Further to my earlier post here, here's a comment posted tonight by kiwimeg:

"Thanks for spreading the word about the problems we are having in Mataura.

Prior to Christmas Jack Phillips put several buildings up for sale in the town. Some of the shops in the main street, the movie theatre, an old church (as featured on Campbell Live!), the squash club and the old Masonic Lodge.

So we are currently looking for investors, or funding, so we can buy some of our town back and get our community moving again. If you or your readers have any suggestions for us here, please don't hesitate to contact me!

In the meantime, there are lots of fantastic projects underway as we do our best to rebuild our community despite Dr Phillips. From our successful community market to free community events in our beautiful new community centre!

Thanks again for spreading the word!"

Thanks for letting me know, kiwimeg. Much appreciated.

Railway gauges again

Jayne in her comments to my earlier post, It's all in the gauge, posted an interesting link to comments on the difference between states' gauges in Australia, while I found this in response from the NZETC.

But, think not that it was just an Australian thing, with division between states and whatnot. Gauge problems were also had by Americans, as this blog post illustrates.

My word, Sir Julius Vogel has been somewhat pilloried by history for his borrow now, spend lavishly, worry later policies and their contribution to the effects of the Long Depression -- but he was on a winner when it came to the gauges caper, all right!

More on J. S. Macfarlane

John Sangster Macfarlane. I’ve said before that his career here in New Zealand is a truly intriguing one. To date, I’ve written about the accusations made against him regarding incitement to have one sawmill owner murder another sawmill owner in the Coromandel district, and his revenge campaign against the Auckland Star in creating the competing Auckland Echo in late 1874. Then, there’s the Waitemata election of 1874 which he caused to have re-run because he had lost, and the winner was (in his opinion) a non-British alien. What else could this man have done to cause consternation in the young city of Auckland and environs?

The answer? Plenty.

We know from his obituary, that he is said to have been a commissariat officer in New South Wales before coming to New Zealand. The earliest record I’ve found to date for his activities here was as master of the 78 ton Joseph Cripps as at October 1845, so he seems to have come here during the Northland War, but probably not because of it. Up until 1852, he was a master of a number of vessels: Iliomama, Arabia, and the barque Daniel Webster. After this, he became a shipping agent, based at Auckland, but headed to Sydney to marry Marianne Browning at Trinity Church on 13 January 1853.

That year, he was the owner of a racehorse named “Flatcatcher”, and in 1856 he was appointed as a Justice of the Peace. That year the Saint Martin sank off the east coast near Hawke’s Bay, 15 May. It was a schooner, 58 tons, built of oak at Jersey and owned by Macfarlane. All passengers, crew, and “a considerable amount of property” were saved, however (according to NZ Shipwrecks), so Macfarlane’s loss was restricted to the schooner alone, which he doubtless had well-insured.

His career as an influential Auckland businessman during the 1860s appears to have been fairly standard for the time. Apart from a court case in 1861, where he was accused of reneging on a bet as to who would win the Provincial Superintendent’s position (his pick lost, but he won the case, on the technicality that the other bettor hadn’t deposited his part of the stake with a designated third party), he remained as a JP, was a member of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce and a shareholder of the Bank of New Zealand from 1862, and entered into a business partnership with Thomas McHattie around late 1863. Their store was burned down in January 1865, but the partnership survived until later that decade.

Then came Macfarlane’s dealing with Thomas Craig and family, and with Christopher Atwell Harris over the Whangapoua sawmills and timber on the Coromandel. His assertions, made public in the numerous trials, and especially when he was accused of inciting Craig to shoot Harris, that Macfarlane was somehow above the law and able even to bend Parliament to his will earned him the enmity of lawyer W. L. Rees (who would, himself, later gain a seat as M.H.R.) Macfarlane campaigned hard to get his Waitemata seat – against Gustav Von der Heyde twice in 1874, only to lose. In 1875-1876, he had no intention of losing again.

His Riverhead scheme was revealed by Rees at a Court of Revision hearing in May 1875, where Rees contested the inclusion on the Waitemata Roll of over 100 names. The charges flew thick and fast. Macfarlane was accused of bribing a man named Brodie not to contest the names in court. Macfarlane was said to have subdivided his Riverhead holdings and “sold” small pieces to known supporters for pittances, just to have them recorded on the roll. Rees said “he was prepared to prove that Mr. J. S. Macfarlane had gone about boasting that he had made the next Waitemata Election safe enough.” (Star, 28 May 1875)

Employees of Macfarlane’s short-lived newspaper the Echo were signed on as electors. An employee named Carr was said to have scurried around at Macfarlane’s behest gathering false voters. The Star was appalled, and said so in its editorials, calling the affair “one of the most scandalous attempts at stuffing an electoral roll that has ever come before the public eye in any colony of Australasia.”

A meeting of electors at the Whau Public Hall in January 1876 proved almost riotous.

“Mr. EYRE : Did you not say to me the other day that you could poll 140 dead-heads at Huia?

Mr. MACFARLANE : Yes.

Mr. EYRE : And did you not say that, if there was any opposition by the scruitineers, you would have them thrown into the creek ?

Mr. MACFARLANE: Yes; of course I did. What is the use of asking me foolish questions like that?

Mr. REES: I should like to ask Mr. Macfarlane if he did not put 160 dummies on the roll for Waitemata, persons who never had any qualification whatever, in order that they might vote for himself.

Mr. MACFARLANE: I believe there were 60 put on the roll, and everyone was properly qualified, and that Mr. Rees and Mr. Brookfield succeeded in getting them struck off by false means, by false representation, and false law, and that everyone will be put on again I will stake £100 on that. They shall be put on again. I have ascertained that 60 was the correct number, and that included eight men at Riverhead. The whole number struck off was 60, and every one had as good a right to be on the roll as I have, or anyone here, and they shall be put on again.

A VOICE:. I was one man struck off last election, and one as had as good a right to be put on as any man; and I was struck off by your party, Mr. Macfarlane.

Mr. MACFARLANE: Well, that is very likely.

The VOICE: That was by Mr. Lamb, one of your party.

Mr. MACFARLANE: I asked for all the names of the men who were dead and had left the district, and I got them, and sent them in a letter to the Returning Officer. I was leaving the country, and I had no time to go round, and I said, "Send me the names of everyone who is dead or has left the country, as I am going to Sydney." There is not a single thing that I have done that I am ashamed to stand by.

Mr. REES: I ask Mr. Macfarlane if amongst those names that were struck off, there were not two or three persons who are here tonight, also Mr. Carr and Mr. Allender, and if, when they knew that their names were objected to, they did not go out of the room in order to avoid costs.

Mr. Carr: No, I tell you Mr. Rees is telling an untruth. (Uproar )

Mr. MACFARLANE: I can state that Mr. Brookfield is ashamed of his action in the matter, and says that every man shall have his name put back on the roll without a farthing of costs to them.

Mr CARR: And out of the men who were complaining, put 40 or 50 names on who had no legal claim. Mr. Eyre's son was put on, and he had no qualification.

Mr EYRE: That is not my son.

Mr CARR: He is your relation.”

(Southern Cross, 14 January 1876)

Thomas Henderson, who had retired his Waitemata seat in 1874 so that Gustav Von der Heyde could replace him, now came back out of his retirement primarily to oppose Macfarlane in 1876. His decision was unfortunate; the 1876 election ended up being a four-horse race, with vastly more electors against Macfarlane (343) than for him (163) but as this was first-past-the-post, and his nearest rival, Hurst, received only 147 votes, Macfarlane finally won the seat he coveted. Henderson received only 68 votes.

Macfarlane was, by and large, an uncontroversial MHR – but from some instances that come from the newspapers, it seems he wasn’t liked by all his colleagues in Wellington.

Evening Post, 2 October 1877:

“Upon resuming at 7:30, the Speaker read a communication he had received from Mr. Macfarlane stating that Mr. Lusk had been paid £50 for preparing a bill for the Auckland City Council. — Mr. Stout asked whether it was right that such a letter as that of Mr. Macfarlane should be published in an evening paper before it was brought under the notice of the House. The letter in question had that evening appeared in a local print. He moved that the action of Mr. Macfarlane was a breach of the privileges of the House.— The Speaker said the publication of such a letter was highly improper.— Mr. Stout said he would withdraw his motion for the present. — Mr. Macfarlane said he had shown that letter to several members of the House, but had not furnished any copy to the paper in question. — Mr. Reynolds stated that no such letter had been published in the paper named, and Mr. Sharp confirmed this. — Mr. Stout rose to a point of order. The letter, so far as related to its publication, was not now before the House. —After some further discussion, Mr. Lusk complained of the indefinite nature of the charge, but so far as he could see, Mr. Macfarlane was only giving another instance of his unfortunate faculty for discovering mare's nests.”

The Wanganui Herald’s editor (12 December 1878) was obviously not a fan.

“The speech with which Mr. J. S. Macfarlane recently favoured his Waitemata constituents is certainly one of the most extraordinary political deliverances we ever met with. Judging, however, from the applause with which it is said to have been received, it must be allowed that the hon. member fairly represents the views of the Waitemata electors. Certainly Mr. Macfarlane is not an orator— it is in fact rather painful than otherwise to have to listen to him when making a speech— and therefore none of the glamour of manner can have been cast over the electors— their applause and approval must have been won by the solid matter of the speech.

We believe there are few other constituencies in the Colony which would have listened to such a speech with any other feeling than one of shame. Mr. Macfarlane is known as a shrewd and successful man of business, and with an innocence worthy of the Heathen Chinese he carries all his business instincts into politics. To make a hard bargain is evidently his highest idea of statesmanship, and votes in his eyes are fair articles of commerce. When he entered Parliament at the last election he was almost the only member returned from Auckland who was not an out and out supporter of Sir George Grey. While the Atkinson administration was in the full bloom of power, Mr. Macfarlane supported them, and by the means which he has now openly disclosed, got as much out of them as he could. When they became shaky, and Sir George Grey was in the ascendant, Mr. Macfarlane evidently thought more was to be got by changing sides than by remaining constant, and he changed accordingly. How he attempted to make the most of this change is told in the speech before us.

“He gave Sir George Grey, Mr. Sheehan, Mr. Macandrew, and Mr. Ballance an enormous amount of good advice. He told the first how to revise the tariff, the second how to draft a Native Lands Bill, the third how to administer the Public Works Department, and the fourth how to frame a proper scheme of finance and taxation. Singularly enough all four Ministers proved deaf to the disinterested advice so given. Sir George Grey did not see the timber and flour duties question from the stand-point of the Auckland saw-miller. Mr. Sheehan could not see the, advisability of framing a Native Lands Act which would enable Auckland land-sharks to acquire enormous blocks of land on their own terms. Mr. Macandrew betrayed a consciousness of the existence of other railway lines than those of Auckland, and an absurd determination only to make lines which were likely to pay, and to carry those lines by the best routes irrespective of private interests; while Mr. Ballance willfully shut his eyes to the injustice of imposing any direct taxation on the wealthy classes whose properties have been enormously benefited by the expenditure of money raised by the Colony at large.

“Mr. Macfarlane "lobbied" most energetically. No one probably had any idea of the extent of his exertions until he recounted their history to his admiring constituents the other day. He seems to have tendered his advice to Ministers upon every imaginable point, not openly in the House, but privately in the Ministerial room -- where arguments could be used which would scarcely bear being recorded in Hansard, it says a great deal for the firmness of the members of the Ministry that they were able to resist such importunacy, but they did so, and now Mr. Macfarlane has formally shaken the dust of the ministerial camp from his shoes, and denounced them and all their works. It must not, however, be understood that Mr. Macfarlane contemplates a return to the position of a volunteer counsellor of the party which he deserted the session last. He evidently aspires higher now. The leadership of a new party is what he aims at.

“With this object he has boldly challenged comparison personally with Sir George Grey."The Premier," he says, "can make eloquent speeches on constitutional quotations and about the rights of the human race, but he does not get the money. Now speeches without money are very little use. What we want is the money, we want a man who can get the money for us, and I'm the man to do this." Such a policy is of course a delightfully simple one. The new party could explain their political faith in their name if they were to call themselves the "Grab-alls," but we fail to see how Mr. Macfarlane can possibly hope to secure a sufficient following to give him the power of carrying out his programme. No doubt after the experience of last session, Nelson and Marlborough would heartily approve of the general principle of Mr. Macfarlane's policy, if carried out under local leadership. A fellow feeling might for a time make Nelson, Marlborough, and Mr. Macfarlane's Aucklanders wondrous kind to each other, but even if they were to conjointly realise Mr. Macfarlane's ambition and get the money, they would certainly fall out over its distribution.

“Mr. Macfarlane's idea is that Auckland should be bolstered up at the expense of the rest of the Colony until its rich men can get richer still and then clear out. No matter whether expenditure is necessary or likely to prove profitable, so long as it takes place in Auckland, is what Mr. Macfarlane practically says, and the rest of the Colony may, we think, fairly be congratulated on the fact of the terrible disappointment which he has evidently suffered at finding that the Premier, although an Auckland member, utterly repudiates such mercenary and narrow views, and, even at the risk of losing Mr. Macfarlane's confidence, has resolutely carried out with his colleagues a policy of fair justice to all parts of New Zealand.”

Macfarlane, apparently originally professing support for Sir George Grey and provincialism, changed his horses mid-stream and voted against Grey’s administration in 1879. This did not sit well with his Waitemata constituents, who voted a motion of no confidence in their elected representative (August). Macfarlane was also still hounded in his last year of life by a “fool” (his words) who supported Grey – his old enemy, W. L Rees.

To the end, Rees kept at Macfarlane. Macfarlane sued Rees for £10,000 for libel in April 1879 concerning the estate of a settler named Captain Reed; Rees issued writs against Macfarlane for charges of conspiracy and libel in Gisborne in October 1879 over the same matter. Macfarlane counter-sued in December to the tune of another £10,000. Suits and counter-suits were still before the courts when Macfarlane died, painfully but still litigating, in February 1880.

Speaking about external links ...

I've just noticed this on Archaeopedia.

"Timespanner - A journey through Avondale, Auckland and NZ history - has lots of West Auckland historical material - much of archaeological interest."

I've had the Archaeopedia site on the heritage links list for some time now. Really neat seeing a link to Timespanner over there, considering I have a great interest in archaeology, especially where it comes in tandem with history. Many thanks to the team running that site, from a grateful local historian.

NZ and Australian history blogs on US website

Many thanks to my friend Liz from Mad Bush Farm who spotted that her own Back Roads, Jayne's Our Great Southern Land and Timespanner have been included on a regional history blog roll at a site called History News Network. Extremely cool to see Australasian history highlighted in this way.

Litigation from the maritime highways

The highways connecting the main centres of Auckland and Onehunga in this region for the early decades of European settlement were the two harbours, the Waitemata and the Manukau, and the tributary rivers. Transport of goods by sea didn’t always go smoothly, however. Mishaps happened, some due to sudden changes in the weather, some due to overloading or general poor seamanship. The following instances both ended up in the courts – and thus, we have the information on the circumstances today.

John Thomas and the foundering of the Mount Eden – November 1863

(The following adapted from part 1 of Terminus.)

John Thomas, first proprietor of the Star Mill on the banks of the mouth of the Oakley Creek, in Waterview, had for some time regularly used the services of Jeremiah Casey and his 20-ton open cargo cutter Mount Albert to convey supplies of wheat to his mill at Oakley Creek before early November 1863. That year, the Waikato War began in earnest. Auckland’s fleet of small cargo boats were pre-empted and occupied with servicing the needs of the military, while the fleet’s crews and owners were called into part-time militia service (Casey testified at the hearing that he told Thomas “that had it been at any other time I would have gone myself; but I had been carrying a gun all night.”) With certainty of supply for the mill in question, Thomas was even at the point of deciding whether he would build his own boat.

Thomas purchased 14 tons of Adelaide wheat at this time from John Sangster Macfarlane – only to find out that Casey, his usual means of conveying the bags to his mill back at Oakley Creek, had two boats both already occupied with carrying coals to the troopship Himalaya, including the cutter preferred by Thomas, the Mount Albert. Outside the Waitemata Hotel, Thomas secured an offer from Casey to lend Thomas the services of the Mount Eden, an 18-tonner, if Thomas could find men on the wharf that day to crew her. This Thomas did – only to lose much of the valuable cargo to the waters of the harbour when a squall blew up close to the shoreline by Low & Motion’s property at Western Springs and swamped the Mount Eden, ultimately sinking her. Thomas did get as much of his cargo back as could be salvaged, but tried suing Casey for the total cost of the consignment, plus damages; he ended up losing the case heard before the Supreme Court in June the following year. It was a mix, the jury decided, of an unavoidable Act of God, plus the lack of a written contract between Thomas and Casey. I wouldn’t be surprised if Casey had refused to carry any more wheat for Thomas ever again. The Mount Eden was salvaged by Casey, and continued in service on the harbour for some time afterward.

The Gittos Tannery at the Whau and the overladen Scotchman – October 1874

In 1874, the Whau River was still a preferred means of conveying bulk goods to businesses such as the Gittos Tannery, even though the carriage of bulk bark for example most likely meant a bit of a gut-busting haul for horses drawing the carts from the bridge up St Judes’ hill to the tannery next to New North and Blockhouse Bay Roads.

For ten years, Benjamin Gittos, a little later with his sons John and James, had used the waterway’s sole bridge as their off-loading area for bark used in the preparation of tannic acid. When he purchased 600 bags of bark (weighing 50 tons) from off the Tien Tsin out from Launceston, John Gittos contracted the use of John Lamb’s steamer Scotchman to convey the bark from the wharf to the Whau Bridge. Trouble was, the Scotchman was registered to carry only 30 tons (although Lamb would testify that he had conveyed 60 tons in her hold just before the bark incident with no mishap, and could carry up to 70 tons); her engineer suggested carrying only 400 bags as a first of two loads to save a tide at the river, but this was overruled. The steamer left the city wharf on the afternoon of Friday 2 October. Even before reaching the mouth of the Whau River, her master, Frank Hodges, noticed leakage into her cargo hold. Her load had set the Scotchman so deep in the water, that it was lapping six inches over the vessel’s watertight copper skin. At the mouth of the river, with darkness falling and awaiting the incoming tide, the master anchored the Scotchman, and proceeded to pump water out of the hold.

They set off the next day on the tide, but there was further calamity; somehow, the steamer missed the winding channel in the centre of the river, and hit mudbanks. More water sloshed into the hold. The pumps were set going again, and the vessel made its slow way upstream to the bridge landing. 97 out of the 600 bags were found to be in a damaged condition, the salt water having leached much of the valuable tannic acid out from the bark. The Gittos family were livid, left the cargo of damaged bark at the landing place under tarpaulins, and demanded compensation. John Lamb denied all liability, and so it went to court on 27 October 1874. In early November, the tanners were awarded £56 11s 8d in damages.

The Scotchman, by the way, went on to become a long-lasting cargo and excursion steamer on the harbour.

Aside from court cases, another of my favourite sources of detailed information, even if coloured by opinion and often over-the-top description, are letters written to and published by newspapers of the time. While all the argy-bargy was taking place legally between Lamb and the Gittos family over the damaged bark, a short series of letters appeared in the Auckland Evening Star that October.

21 October 1874:

“To the Editor: Sir, -- Allow me to draw your attention to an intolerable nuisance, a nuisance although the party causing it has been frequently expostulated with, remains in all its danger. Close to the Whau Bridge, and tied to the bridge itself, is a large quantity of bark piled, covered with a tarpaulin, which flaps up and down with every gust of wind. Mr. McLeod, of Henderson’s-mill, had a very narrow escape of his life through it a few days back – not only him but the life of a valuable horse as well that shied at it. As the settlers of the Whau are treated with contemptuous indifference when they expostulate with the owners, I have thought it as well to bring it under the notice of the authorities through the Star. – I am, &c., T. B. HANNAFORD for ANDREW DILWORTH.”

McLeod was a well-known Henderson settler, associated in the early 1870s with the establishment of the first hotel in Henderson township, now known as The Falls Hotel. Andrew Dilworth was a settler at Waitakere since the mid 1860s or so.

The Gittos family, Benjamin, John, James (and Francis, who wasn’t part of the firm at that point) weren’t exactly well-known for being difficult people to get on with. Granted, they were strict Methodist temperance believers, but they had friends in the local community and in the city. The firm responded to Hannaford and Dilworth’s criticism thus:

22 October 1874:

“To the Editor: Sir, -- In your columns of yesterday appeared an offensive letter signed by “T. B. Hannaford for Andrew Dilworth” having reference to a quantity of bark, piled in bags, lying near the Whau bridge, and covered with a tarpaulin. We may say that the bark is on private property; not on any public landing-place or near to one; also, that it is not a nuisance of any kind whatever, and that during the last ten years no complaint has ever been made. In fact the settlers at the Whau are only too glad to see the bark so landed for manufacturing purposes. We have no doubt Mr. McLeod can take care of himself without the kind interference of “T. B. Hannaford for Andrew Dilworth”; and would respectfully suggest to the writer the propriety of attending to his own business. Trusting you will kindly insert this, We are &c., B. GITTOS and SONS.”

This further attracted Andrew Dilworth’s ire. Dispensing with his intermediary, he wrote a letter himself to the Star, and laid down West Auckland’s claim to the Whau Bridge and happened to its surrounds over any by the folk at Avondale. (This wasn’t a groundless opinion on Dilworth’s part – from the 1850s to the early 20th century, Avondale-side local authorities left most of the decision making and financing of upkeep and replacement of the bridges to either provincial authorities or the later Waitemata County Council.)

24 October 1874:

“To the Editor: Sir, -- It is only at intervals that I visit Auckland, generally on market days, and have therefore few opportunities of writing to the newspapers were I so minded. I did empower Mr. T. B. Hannaford to write you with reference to what I again repeat to be an intolerable and highly dangerous nuisance at the Whau bridge. I have read Messrs Gittos and Sons letter which appeared in Thursday’s Star, and unhesitatingly denounce it as false. They well know when they wrote that letter that the bark complained of is not that which had been stacked there for some eighteen months past, but a lot that was brought down by the S.S. Scotchman some three weeks ago.

“I have this morning (Friday) been to the Waste Lands Office and inspected the map, and positively assert that they aver that the bark is stacked on private property. It is nothing of the sort; it is stacked on the Queen’s highway, fastened to the Whau bridge, and to the annoyance and positive danger to life and limb of Her Majesty’s subjects.

“Messrs Gittos say the Whau people do not complain about it, but are, on the contrary, pleased to see it there as it betokens vitality in the district. What have the Whau people to do with it? They have nothing in common with the settlers further North, the Whau township being considerably away from the bridge; indeed, many of the Whau residents, whose business journeys are confined between the City of Auckland and their homes, don’t see the bridge from one year’s end to another. It is the settlers from Albertland, Wangarei, Matakana, Mahurangi, Waitakerei, and places adjacent who are affected by the illegal and dangerous obstruction, and who are determined by every legal means to get it removed. To show you the importance, Mr. Editor, of keeping that bridge free in every way for traffic I may tell you that during this spring alone upwards of 900 head of cattle have passed over it. – I am, &c., A. DILWORTH.”

Well, he was right – in the early 1870s, traffic was predominantly from the west and north-west, rather than from Avondale and the rest of the isthmus over the bridge. (This, of course, was to change markedly from the mid 1880s, with the development of Waikumete Cemetery, the Kaipara Railway, Binsted’s abattoir at New Lynn, and increased job opportunities in agriculture and industry out west.)

The Gittos firm closed the correspondence with this letter.

26 October 1874:

“To the Editor: Sir, -- In reply to a letter in your issue of Saturday, signed “A. Dilworth,” we beg to say that although compelled to differ from some of the statements in it, yet we trust Mr. Dilworth will no longer feel sore on the subject when we tell him the bark in question will be removed in a day or two. It is not our practice to store bark at the Whau bridge at all, and this would not have been placed there either if it had not been for a dispute with the owner of the “Scotchman”, and pending legal proceedings. Trusting you will kindly insert this, our last letter on the subject, -- Yours, &c., B.GITTOS AND SONS.”

Glenbrook visit 2009: last post

Some of the cars on display this year:

A NZR road services bus. Replaced these days by InterCity coaches. Bus history is another interest of mine. Probably tacks on from my general interest in the horse-drawn mass transport (omnibuses) which buses replaced. Be warned -- if I get a chance to visit MOTAT again and I have a camera with me, you folk could be facing a blog post full of old buses ...

An "1898 Columbia Shaft Drive", according to the hand-lettered sign resting against the wheel. Other early bicycles here.

A "White Steam Carriage" or steamer -- a car powered by steam engine. Oddly enough, the firm who built this around the turn of the 20th century was originally a sewing machine manufacturer. More on the company, and the cars, here. The firm still exists, apparently -- making trucks and buses.

Below are photos from the 2007 visit to Glenbrook's open day:

Another NZ history blog for the list: Canterbury Heritage

Because I now visit Jayne's Our Great Southern Land blog daily, I came across a comment posted by the owner of another NZ history blog: Canterbury Heritage. I'll add it to the lengthening list to the left -- great finding something from that part of the country.

Glenbrook visit 2009: third post

Not about trains, this time, I promise ...!

At the paddock across the road from the trains, cars and models exhibitions, they staged ploughing competitions, horse-and-wagon rides ... and a military re-enactment. The uniforms used were those of the 65th regiment and the militia or colonial forces (later armed constabulary, and a foundation for today's NZ police force from the mid 1870s).

It's all in the gauge

Just to start: the word "gauge" is one of my spelling blind spots. For some reason, my brain keeps trying to spell it guage. I have no idea why. Maybe this post might cure that!

Jayne raised the question in a comment to my earllier Glenbrook posts as to whether Glenbrook Vintage Railway's gauge was 3' 6" or narrow gauge. Indeed it is, according to sources online. 3' 6" is the standard gauge for NZ rail, and has been ever since Julius Vogel and his 19th century Think Big policies. Why? According to this article from New Zealand Railway Magazine, it's all about cost, and making those pounds stirling he'd borrowed from London spin out just that wee bit more.

"Sir Julius Vogel, who was the father of our new railway policy, urged that we must have long lines of railway and at a relatively small expenditure of money. His policy was that we must have cheap railways, and, as population increased and money became more plentiful, we could increase the equipment of our lines. He Has often been blamed for his extravagance, but so far as his railway policy was concerned, he was careful and economical. As one who was not of his political party—Mr. Gisborne—said of him: “The grasp of his mind was comprehensive, and his foresight was great; and, wild as some of his conceptions seemed to many at first, not a few have proved themselves to contain much that is useful and statesman like.” Sir Julius Vogel did not think it necessary to follow the example of England, or of Australia, so far as railway gauges were concerned. (Even in England since 1870, some railway lines have had their gauges lessened, and in Queensland the 3ft. 6in. gauge has been adopted.)

Viewing what has happened during the past 58 years it will be granted that New Zealand was wise in adopting the moderate gauge it chose. We have improved, as our revenue has increased, the equipment of our railways, in carriages, engines, station buildings, workshops, and so forth. It is true that our recent line have been more elaborately and consequently, more expensively constructed. Had, however, the policy of 1870 not been followed, we would not to-day possess the mileage of lines we have."

The image above, from the NZETC link, is Sir Julius Vogel, K.C.M.G.

The gauge, plus our country's terrain, led to the development of the "Pacific class" of locomotive, as described here.

"The often steep grades and tight curves imposed by the formidable terrain required more power at all operating speeds than was usual. This led to the early development of the oversize firebox, wider than the 3'6" gauge, supported by a 2-wheel trailing truck thus creating the classic "Pacific" locomotive with a 4-6-2 wheel arrangement compared to the 4-6-0 "Ten-Wheeler". In turn, the available power led to a then-astonishing turn of sustained speed that prompted the adoption of the type all over the world."

Image from here.

Glenbrook visit 2009: second post

Okay, I'm back, after a brief rest to try to get some energy restored. Here are some of the rail-themed photos I took today (other, general ones to follow). Above, one of the old NZR advertisements on display at Glenbrook station.

According to the information tag attached to the building, this was an unmanned flag station building from Motumaoho, along the Hamilton to Morrinsville line, and is under restoration at Glenbrook. The original rail line was under construction in 1881, reaching Motumaoho by March that year (Waikato Times, 24 March 1881). Only thing I could find as to history of that part of the country online was this tale of a local farmer from the district and his artificial leg.

Above, a ceiling light of one of the carriages. Below, some of the locomotives at the workshops.

Ww480, originally built at Hillside workshops, 1910. Internal shot of the workshops here.

Wab 800. originally built 1927 by A & G Price Ltd, Thames (judging from the GVR rolling stock register).

GVR No. 4, TTT 7, built 1912 by the American Locomotive Company (ALCO), USA, for the Taupo Totara Timber Company.

J 1234, originally built 1939 by North British Locomotive Company.

Below, waiting to head back to Glenbrook station from the workshops. An experiment where I took a photo out the open window of the carriage. Don't worry, I'm not daft enough to do this while the train is in motion!

Glenbrook visit 2009: first post

A couple of very good friends of mine offered me a seat in their car for a trip to Glenbrook, down in Franklin district, to see the Glenbrook Volunteer Railway open day. This even happened once ever two or three years. Last one was in 2007, and I had a great time then.

This time, I've come home really drained (had way too much fun with old trains, vehicles, military re-enactments and withstanding a truly sizzling hot day down there), so this is just Glenbrook Posts part 1.

These shots were taken at the end of the outing, at Morley Road crossing. Nothing fancy, I just use an ordinary digital camera, no tripod an' stuff -- but I got what I wanted which was a shot or two of an old-style train along with an old-style flag station building.

A video of the locomotive, GVR No. 2 Ww644, is available on YouTube here. Its sound in real life is incredible, coming up the inclines.

North Island closed and semi-closed rail

In a previous post, I put up some links about vanished railway lines in the South Island. Now, it's the North Island's turn.

The North Auckland Line has had a stop-start patchy history of operation. I've travelled on a special Railway Enthusiasts excursion to Whangarei and back, but passenger trains usually don't go any further than Helensville these days. Certainly Opua, the terminus from 1925 until the end of freight runs in 1985, is today unreachable by rail from Auckland for the average member of the public. However, the Bay of Islands Vintage Railway Trust has revived the Kawakawa-Opua section of the line. (Their website has a history section, and a gallery section with some lovely train whistling and chuffing sounds, by the way.)

Kumeu-Riverhead section (closed 1881, replaced by the North Auckland line.) Some info here via the Helensville Pioneer Museum.

Waiuku Branch (passenger services withdrawn 1948, closed 1968, but now being restored between Waiuku and Glenbrook by the GVR.)

Rotorua branch. This in particular strikes me as a great, great shame that it's closed (since 2001). It is a derelict line in places now -- parts of the line up in the Mamaku Ranges just outside Rotorua have, I understand, been uplifted by vandals. I would dearly love to travel to Rotorua from either Auckland or Hamilton by rail. Maybe if I live long enough ...

Waitangi Day

Image from Wikipedia.

Just pipping the post a day early -- I spotted this NZ Herald article on the history of the day. Quite a good summary, I thought.

They're quite right about full-on and formalised celebrations being of fairly recent vintage -- 1934. At the 25-year mark (1865), the central North Island was still on a war-footing between Imperial and Colonial forces and the Maori iwi, so anything to do with the Treaty of Waitangi was probably a touchy subject. At some place up North called Waitangi (possibly the same place, but it's not certain), each year on New Years the local Total Abstinence Society held their completely non-alcoholic party.

By January 1880, nearly 40 years after the treaty, facsimile copies of the 1835 Declaration of Independence, Captain Hobson's draft, and the treaty as signed by iwi in both main islands, compiled by H. Hanson Turton, were published by the Government Printing Office. (West Coast Times, 23 January 1880)

In 1890, regattas, jubilee celebrations, and even Maori war dances were features of a long series of events to mark the 50th anniversary of the treaty -- just not exactly 6 February. It was more end of January, tying in with the Auckland Provincial holiday.

More on the day here at NZ History Online.

Jayne in the comments brought up a very good point about the document itself -- the Treaty has had a hard time of it over the years. From the Archives New Zealand website:

"In 1841, only a year after the Treaty of Waitangi was drawn up and signed, the documents were saved from a fire at the government offices in Official Bay, Auckland. Poor storage between 1877 and 1908 led to the Treaty being damaged by both water and rodents. However, facsimiles of the Treaty had been created in 1877, before any damage occurred and all signatures have survived. After a series of different conservation treatments, and different homes, the Treaty was finally brought to National Archives in 1989, where the documents are now on permanent display in the secure, stable environment of the Constitution Room, Archives New Zealand."

The above link shows images of the treaty documents as they are today.

Vanished NZ rail lines

There are lots of rail lines that used to go places in this country, but don't anymore. This subject came to mind from reading posts on Jayne's blog at Our Great Southern Land. Jayne put me onto Lost and Found, with details of some of the Aussie faded lines.

Here's some NZ ones.

The Fairlie Branch, 1864-1968. A small part of the line is preserved at Pleasant Point, and used by the local rail society there each summer. I've had the pleasure of riding on that stretch in a Ford railcar. The second link has photos of what remains of the line today.

The Nelson Railway. The removal in 1955 sparked a sit-in protest by local women, one of whom, Sonja Davies, rose to prominence as a trade union activist.

Central Otago. The line cut through for the rails is now a cycleway. Historic photos here. More modern images on this blog post.

Riders of Hobby Horses: the North Island Main Trunk Railway Line

Last year, the NZ Federation of Historical Societies' magazine NZ Legacy had a special railway theme issue. As it was also the centenary year for the completion of the NIMT, I cobbled together an essay based mainly on the excellent book by R. S. Fletcher, Single Track: The Construction of the Main Trunk Railway (1978). I've now loaded the resulting article on Scribd, here.

West-Of-Eden

Last year, the West Auckland Historical Society (of which, I'm honoured to say, I'm a member) published West-Of-Eden, their flagship journal of local history. This month, the second issue has been published. They're free to WAHS members, and $10 per issue to non-members. You'll see the contact details for the society at the NZ Federation of Historical Societies membership list page here.

Contents of Number 1 include:
The Road to Whatipu
The Auckland Regiment
Duck Brothers' Quarry
Remembering Passchendaele
Burton Brothers visit West Auckland
The Riverhead Paper Mill

Contents of Number 2 include:
The Tree Tomato Saga at Landsendt
Accident at Muriwai
Fleeting Peninsula (about Te Atatu)
The Accomodation Houses of Muriwai
Whatipu Tragedy (the demise of Rev. Hamilton, by "Grammaticus")