Rgds
Chris
Bob wrote:
Ok, a reality check here. First you are quoting the AMWU as the source of your
information. As a former member and delegate of the AMWU I know that their propaganda is
not always correct. In the case of AMWU Vs Rio Tinto, I suspect that the AMWU would just
be using this to take another swipe at Rio Tinto. To address your other points-
1. How would it still be running? The PRHS has only a hand full of members and none of
them have the ability to restore or even maintain or operate any steam loco. Remember that
Pendennis stopped running in 1994 for this reason.
2. Perhaps the board members of Rio Tinto went to visit Didcott to make sure they liked
what they saw. Why would they give the loco away to someone they knew nothing about. The
initial approach to Rio Tinto is said to have been made by staff from the UK "Railway
Magazine". Who care if the board members of Rio Tinto went to any other railway museum. I
doubt any of them are railway enthusiasts so they wouldn't have gone on a world wide
holiday to look for the 'best' railway museum that may or may not want their locomotive.
3. Is it any of our business to know just who else they offered THEIR locomotive to? Don't
you think they as the owners have some right to decide what they would like to do with it?
I offered the Bluebell purely as an example of a successful tourist railway . I was
attempting to point out that the GWS is a specialist GWR museum unlike any other group in
the UK that is operating and restoring ex GWR locomotives like Pendennis Castle.
4. The response from the PRHS is hardly surprising. I have no doubt they are reluctant to
see it go however the locomotive is not and has never been theirs nor are any of the other
locomotives in their care. The strange irony to all of this is that in 1977 many British
rail enthusiasts felt disgusted that Hamersly Iron had been allowed to buy a locomotive
that was preserved and take it out of the country.
Cheers
Bob"chris@enet21.com.au" wrote:
> 1.It would be still be in WA running if Rio had not have painted itself into a legal
> corner. Go to the Australian legal index and read the Federal Court judgement.
> 2. How many rail perservation groups get site visits by the board members of Rio Tinto
> Plc? Did the board members visit other museums?
> 3. Putting Australia aside, was any group (anywhere in the world) offered the loco on
> the same conditions?
> Where did you get the Bluebell Railway from? I can think of other rail groups who have
> GWR locos in their ownership. Anyway, what is your reasoning why the Bluebell Rwy
> not being allowed to have GWR locos? shouldn't they decide for themselves?
> 4. The response I got from the PRHS was that they were reluctant to see the loco go.
>
> Chris
>
> Bob wrote:
>
> > Chris,
> > what proof do you have to back up the claims you are making here?
> >
> > "chris@enet21.com.au" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It doesn't help when Didcot rail centre have high level access to the board of
> > > Rio Tinto Plc (UK).
> > > Face it, the decision to send it to the UK was made by the UK board. If it
> > > wasn't for the above reasons the loco would be still in WA.
> >
> > Yes, sitting in W.A. doing nothing where no one would see it. What is the good of
> > that?
> >
> > > It seems other major rail groups in the UK would have gladly offered a home if
> > > it wasn't for the shady deal done by Rio and Didcot. That's if they had a fair
> > > chance of making a offer.
> >
> > First you didn't want the loco to leave Australia, now you suggest it could have
> > gone to a different UK group but which one? The GWS is the only specialist GWR
> > group, why offer it to say the Bluebell Railway that is a mainly Southern Railway
> > group?
> >
> > > Added to the fact that little or no consultation was done with the Pilbara
> > > Railway Historical Society which seemed to be grossly unfair, basically "stuff
> > > you although you have looked after it since 1977" (no matter their current
> > > membership size)
> >
> > What proof do you have of this claim? Are you a member of the PRHS or had any
> > contact with the officials of the PRHS? In all of this I have yet to see anything
> > said by anyone from the PRHS about the matter.
> >
> > You will probably read in 6 months time that Rio Tinto plc UK have paid for the
> > transport costs and overhaul of this loco.
> >
> > The GWS society has raised the money for the transport. The following is a quote
> > from their web site:
> > The Great Western Society's ambitious project to bring Great Western Railway steam
> > engine No.4079 Pendennis Castle home from Australia to Didcot Railway Centre
> > received a major boost last week with the announcement of a grant of £37,300 from
> > the
> > Heritage Lottery Fund towards the cost of transportation. This brings the amount
> > raised
> > in three months to £70,000.
> >
> > >
> > > No matter your feelings with regards to this loco, the treatment of the PRHS by
> > > Rio Tinto Plc is disgusting.
> >
> > How can you claim it is disgusting when you have no idea what the PRHS actually
> > wanted? Can you supply any proof of your claims on this subject please.
> > Cheers
> > Bob