Re: Dorrigo 19th Century Treasures

[James Brook <ajmbrook@ozemail.com.au>]

Ok, Dorrigo has had some pretty high legal expenses to pay and I have
never disputed this. However, this is all the more reason to consolidate
what you have, rather than collect more. You admit that you have very
few resources and there are restrictions placed on what you can do.
Collecting more and more items will only add to your problems as you
will need to spread your very small resources over an even larger
collection, and you will need a larger storage facility. 

My point with Puffing Billy is that they didn't collect an excessive
amount of exhibits, ie: they knew when to quit. Although I don't agree
with some of the things Puffing Billy has done, they are much more
successful than Dorrigo. Although it would be nice to save everything
ever built, it just doesn't make good business sense to do it,
especially with such a small amount of resources relative to the size of
your collection. Even if Dorrigo hadn't had these legal problems, I
still think the size of the collection is far too big for a volunteer
organisation to manage properly without significant input from the
government or other sources.

I am not saying that every group should be a Puffing Billy clone. Down
here in Victoria, if you look at the VGR, CHTR, SRHC and PB, these four
societies have very different aims. The VGR aims to be a steam hauled
broad gauge branchline. The CHTR aims to preserve broad gauge
railmotors. SRHC is preserving mainline equipment and the PB railway are
preserving narrow gauge equipment. However, all these groups do have one
important thing in common. They haven't collected a huge amount of
rolling stock. They have speciallised in their area, and as a result
these groups have a much more manageable collection.

I think it is better to have smaller railways that specialise in one or
two areas, rather than one large museum that tries to cover everything.
With smaller museums, the collections are much more manageable and the
resources of each group aren't spread so thin. If you then look at all
of the groups as a whole, they do manage to preserve a significant
amount.

If you look at static museums, I think Port Dock in South Australia is
one of the most successful in Australia. AFAIK their collection is
significantly smaller than Dorrigo's. They also got a $2 million dollar
grant to put their collection undercover in the late 80's. Apart from
the obvious goal of ending the legal problems, Dorrigo seem to have just
collected everything that they could with the dream to eventually create
a museum. So far, with the exception of the small operations in the mid
80's, Dorrigo hasn't operated a tourist railway and they have never even
remotely achieved the goal of opening a museum. For years Dorrigo has
made many claims about creating a museum, but we have never seen any
accomplishments other than moving rolling stock and your claims of
earthworks.

My point with all of this is that Dorrigo may have a better chance of
getting somewhere if they put all of their resources into providing
undercover storage instead of aquiring new exhibits. Although some
railfans might not like it, I think selling 6042 to the local shopping
mall would be a good idea. You could try negotiating a deal where
Dorrigo would keep the best parts from both locomotives and basically
give them an empty shell that could be cosmetically restored. Why would
you need to display two AD60's? One of each type of locomotive you have
should be enough for a static display. The only reason for more than one
locomotive of the same type would be if you intend to restore it to
operating condition. If the ARHS museum in Canberra are having trouble
finding the resources to restore their 60, I don't see how Dorrigo would
ever be able to do it. The $250000 from the sale would certainly help in
other areas.

Trevor Edmonds wrote:
> 
> I did say probably, not definitely. We certainly have no current intention
> of selling 6042. Its even getting closer to the top of the list for moving
> to Dorrigo.
> 
> We do try and cooperate with other groups. As an example, there have been
> nuerous instances where we have supplied parts for running locomotives.
> 
> But it is still our decision on wether we take up any offer. The reality is
> its DSRM property, so DSRM has the right to decide if it is kept or sold. In
> any case, the only group that have broadcast a desire to run a Garratt is
> ARHS Canberra, and the last time I checked they already had one.
> 
> It is. This just reflects a different focus. While Puffing Billy is
> obviously the premier tourist railway in Australia, that does not mean that
> every other preservation group should strive to be a PB clone.
> 
> You really need to have a look at Menzies Creek!!! There are diesels there,
> as well as non-railway items. They have items from interstate and overseas.
> 
> We are managing OK. If we had not had a decade of being tied in legal knots
> we would be doing even better. Our collection is a challenge, but its one we
> have happily taken on. With the legal problems, we had no choice. They were
> imposed upon us, and forced us to divert much of our resources to defending
> ourselves.
> 
> Then its strange that they have paid so little attention to the actual
> condition of the locomotives. None of these detractors has been on/in/under
> our locos, so their knowledge of their condition is mostly imagination.
> 
> Then perhaps you should find out the truth for yourself, rather than giving
> credibility to the armchair critics who probably have not visited Dorrigo
> either.
> 
> You believe that preserving these items is worthwhile. We are doing that,
> and are being criticised for it. If you want these thing preserved, then
> support those who are trying to do it!
> 
> As for the carriages, 90% of the passenger stock at Dorrigo has had a new
> ormanoid or tarp roof within the last 10 years. They have been painted. We
> are working to establish our static display area where we can put our
> rolling stock under cover.
> 
> You criticise us for spending money on new acquisitions. What about the half
> million we were forced to spend on legal costs? How much further ahead would
> we be without that? We have been continually tied up in red tape in our
> attempt by the local council. We are a volunteer group, which has most of
> its labour available on weekends. Our development application for the
> earthworks for the display site was approved with a string of conditions,
> including a ban on weekend work. We own the only bulldozer in the shire
> which is not allowed to operate on Saturday and Sunday! And still we have
> made good progress.
> 
> I don't know what more you could reasonably expect of us. In reality, we
> have no obligation to meet your expectations anyway. If you think you can do
> it better then go to it.
> 
> Trevor

-- 
- James Brook -

----------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail:     
mailto:ajmbrook@ozemail.com.au
Victorian Railfan Web Site:    
http://www.railpage.org.au/vr/
----------------------------------------------------------------