Civil Engineering October 2021 | Vol 29 No 9

Civil Engineering October 2021 51 tighter corners and satisfying the farmers’ needs. But none of these factors had been acknowledged by those who weighed in on the matter. In frustration Dutton wrote in a private letter to General Manager Hoy: When I mentioned to you in several recent occasions how difficult things are here when you are away, I had of course in mind, among other things, the way in which the Roadrail was being handled. … A glance through the various files will convince you that instead of assistance only diffi- culties have been placed in the way of any possible success with the roadrail. The fact remains that SAR&H never seriously considered roadrail after the Singlewood experiment. Moreover, despite the earlier successes of roadrail in some overseas countries (described in Part 1), it also disappeared from the international scene at around the same time – the Roadrails Company had to be liquidated in 1929. Does this prove that the roadrail concept indeed had inherent, fatal weaknesses as some claimed? There were important similarities between roadrail and narrow-gauge railway lines. From the farmers’ perspective, there were no differences. They had to load their produce with their own labour onto the wagons – the rest of the transport chain was not their problem. From the SAR&H perspective, except for running the trains itself, there was also no difference between roadrail transport and narrow- gauge railways – the transshipping at the closest railway station using railways staff required exactly the same effort. It all came down to the tractor versus the locomotive. So why did the roadrail tractor disappear from the scene? Firstly, the historical record suggests that the railway establishment was very sceptical and actively resisted the roadrail concept (also disparagingly called the “toy railway” by some). Dutton’s search for solving a larger transport problem stood in stark contrast to his colleagues who refused to look beyond a narrow power/speed comparison of a specific tractor against a specific locomotive. Secondly, and more importantly, was the rapid rate at which road transport vehicles developed during and after World War I. When Dutton started to develop his roadrail idea, road motor transport and its associated infrastructure of proper roads and bridges, fuel supply, repair shops and dealer support did not offer a viable option yet, whereas roadrail did. Ten years later, at the time of the Singlewood ex- periment, road motor transport saw great technological advances to become a viable alternative to roadrail, as evidenced by the rapid development of SAR&H’s own Road Motor Transport Division thereafter. Privately-owned tractors and lorries travelling on public roads offered a more convenient and flexible method for transporting lower and more diverse freight volumes, as well as powering other activities on the farm. In the longer run, for probably the same reasons, road motor transport eventually forced the closure of most short railway feeder lines all over the world. The SAR&H roadrail experiment provides a fascinating glimpse into the South African railway engineering world almost a century ago. After years of working to put roadrail in practice, Frank Dutton reflected after the end of the Singlewood experiment: I have always regarded the roadrail as my little contribution to help one of the most pressing needs of South Africa, and I still have a feeling that I was somewhere near the mark, but circumstances have been too strong against me, but I do not for one moment regret the time, work and money that I have sacrificed in my endeavours. SOURCES SAR&H Magazine September 1922 Settlers to Tuinplaats June 1923 Roadrail Tractors – A Practical Test August 1923 Personalia October 1924 Inauguration of Dutton Road-Rail Service February 1925 Personalia April 1925 Personalia July 1930 Eastern Transvaal System November 1930 Eastern Transvaal System October 1945 TJ Espitalier and WAJ Day. The Locomotive in South Africa Part 7 Transnet Heritage Library Dutton, F. Memorandum to the General Manager, 17 February 1926. Dutton, F. Private handwritten letter to William Hoy, 19 June 1925. Minister of Railways. Memorandum to the Assistant General Manager, 4 September 1925. Moir, S. The Songolole – The Dutton Road Rail System. Undated, unpublished article. Moyers, WA and White, JD. Report to the SAR General Manager, 8 February 1926. Railways and Harbours Board. Proposed Experi­ mental Stronach-Dutton Roadrail, 1923. Railways and Harbours Board. Minute 24/6/4 from the Secretary to the General Manager, 6 May 1926. Railways and Harbours Board. Proposed Line from Naboomspruit to Zebediela, 1925. SAR&H General Manager. Undated memorandum on the final allocation of expenditure on the Naboomspruit – Singlewood roadrail. SAR&H Weekly Notice No 1494/2647, 26 September 1924. SAR&H General Manager’s Annual Report for 1925. SAR&H General Manager. Minute P4/35/8 to the SAR&H Railway Board, 29 April 1926. Special Correspondent. The Tshongololo of Springbok Flats. Newspaper clipping in the Dutton Album. The Star. Dutton Railway Opened Today at Naboomspruit, 19 September 1924. The Star. The Naboomspruit Experiment, 16 September 1924. The Star. Zebediela Railway, 22 July 1925. Other Cash, RG (2015) The Stronach-Dutton Roadrail System of Traction. Special Issue no 234 of The Narrow Gauge, Narrow Gauge Railway Society (UK). Neil Mardell (1985) SAR NG 6 Class “The Lawleys”, SA Railway Modelling Scene, May/June 1985. https://www.drisa.co.za . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_ African_Dutton_road-rail_tractors , visited July 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_ Class_NG6_4-4-0 , visited July 2021. For a complete list of references and foot- notes, please contact the author. Prepared by Johannes Haarhoff Retired, FSAICE johannes@haarhoff.org.za