Re: 3526 anyone?

["chris@enet21.com.au" <chris@enet21.com.au>]

I know this will start a long debate again, By why doesn't the RTM grab Pendennis
Castle, its ideal for main line running and much cheaper to restore an maintain than the
57 or probably the 35. I bet sponsors would like it too.

After a week of letter writing to virtually every politican and major union in the
country I reckon  Rio will give it away to any non-profit or public standard gauge
museum in Australia.

Letters of reply are starting to flow in, and they are not favourable to Rio Tinto.

Chris

Matthew Geier wrote:

> In article <C8Rl4.51$i33.547964@news0.optus.net.au>,
> David Bromage <dbromage@fang.omni.com.au> wrote:
> >Rod Gayford (rjaygee@smartchat.net.au) won a Nobel Prize for literature by writing:
> >> The 57's at one stage were trialled on the Sydney to Albury passenger trains
> >> and were easily able to maintain the tabled speed.
> >
> >They were easily capable of maintaining the overall schedule of a 38, with
> >some sectional differences. What they lost on the flat they made up for in
> >the hills. The 57 reportedly took the Riverina Express "frighteningly
> >fast" up Bethungra.
>
>  What the RTM is worried about isn't its speed, as much is how much wear
> of the running gear will occur.
>  The 57's only did one or 2 runs on the express trains, they didn't do it
> long enough to show up any maintence implications of running at those
> speeds. There is no long term data.
>
>  What scares the RTM board, is that after spending millions to get it
> running, including getting corperate sponsers, they will find that sustained
> high speed running is causing undue wear and tear on the motion and that they
> will have to mothball it to prevent further damange, long before they have even
> started to get any payback for the money spent. Sponsers could even start
> demanding their money back as they didn't get what they paied for!.
>
>  Really the only option would be to restore it with modern lubricated roller
> bearings through out, and get computer similations done to balance the motion
> accurately. Then you get into a whole new argument over changing the locomotive
> from what it was in railway service. (ie the still ongoing argument over
> modifications to the VR R class steamers!)
>
>  The 57s were only ever a goods engine except for their brief blaze of glory
> on the crack express trains. Since there is only operational maintence data
> for their goods hauling roles, its only for those slow speeds there is any
> guarentee of operational reliablity.