Re: Pendennis Castle swap for tasman garret k1

[mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie Daly)]

In article <86fsdk$180$1@gossamer.itmel.bhp.com.au> "Chris Stratton" <stratton.chris.cp@nospam.bhp.com.au> writes:
>From: "Chris Stratton" <stratton.chris.cp@nospam.bhp.com.au>
>Subject: Re: Pendennis Castle swap for tasman garret k1
>Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:38:57 +1100

>"James Brook" <ajmbrook@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>388ADBC8.312D0543@ozemail.com.au">news:388ADBC8.312D0543@ozemail.com.au...
>> Bob wrote:
>>
>> > ...Hamersley Iron own the loco...
>>
>> In an earlier post to this thread Bernard Smith said:"TRM indicated that
>one factor
>> likely to force the issue was that Hamersleyhad successfully defended an
>access claim
>> to their track by Robe River on
>> the grounds that the track is part of the mining process.  If 4079 had
>been
>> restored and run on Hamersley's track, this could have jeopardised this
>> defence."
>>
>> If Hammersley Iron owns the loco then how would it jeopardise their
>defense of the
>> track access claim by Robe River? They would simply be allowing one of
>their locos to
>> run on their line.
>>
>If they used it to haul their own ore trains it would be OK. Anything else,
>like allowing the PRHS to run trains is allowing another group access to
>their tracks which CRRIA could then claim as a precedent.
>--
>Regards,
>Chris Stratton
>Wollongong, NSW, Australia
>Remove NOSPAM if replying.



HI also indicated in part of their defence to Robe that they would be moving 
from CTC to full in cab signalling for all their lines.
The cost of installing the safeworking equipment in a steam engine for the odd
trip simply would not be cost effective.

MD