Re: DSRM is an absolute joke

["Steve Zvillis" <szvillis@netspace.net.au>]

James Brook <ajmbrook@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
3AC076B3.E066DAFE@ozemail.com.au">news:3AC076B3.E066DAFE@ozemail.com.au...
> Steve Zvillis wrote:
> >
> > Well that goes for a lot of other rail preservation groups around the
> > country. Take Bellarine Peninsula Rlwy. [No criticism intended - just an
> > example / observation] Despite the lack of proper facilities to house
their
> > existing carriages, left out in the open, which has since resulted in an
ex
> > T.G.R. 'BBL' car deteriorating to the point it has been scrapped as
beyond
> > salvation and a ex T.M.L.R. 'B+' car well on it's way to a similiar
fate,
> > B.P.R. [and Z.Z.R.] continued to obtain and transport locomotives /
> > carriages from other states at great cost [that could have been spent on
> > protecting their existing stock].
> >
>
> The BPR and ZZR are by no means shining examples of railway
> preservation, but they have achieved a fair percentage of their goals,
> which is far more than what Dorrigo has done. Without knowing what they
> have collected over the last few years, it is hard to say whether it is
> necessary or not. However, it should be noted that at least the BPR and
> ZZR have returned to service some locomotives and rolling stock and are
> maintaining them in running condition. Dorrigo really isn't doing
> anything except collecting. Anyway, the combined number of items
> deteriorating at the BPR and the ZZR is still significantly less than
> what is deteriorating at the DSRM.

I cannot agree with that at all. Every effort is being undertaken to prevent
the deterioration of all preserved stock at Dorrigo. The only exceptions to
that are items acquired for breaking up for spare parts, which dont count.

> > At least Dorrigo stick to stock relevant to N.S.W. and don't rip off
stock
> > from other states, denying preservation groups in the states concerned,
who
> > may not be as rich, the opportunity to acquire stock relevant to their
own
> > local areas, then callously let it rot in the open until it has to be
> > scrapped.
> >
>
> If the Derwent Valley Railway wants something from the BPR, have you
> ever tried negotiating with them? If the BPR have no plans for it and/or
> aren't in a position to look after it, then I think it would be a good
> idea to sell it to a group that can do something with it. If they are
> looking after it reasonably, then there really isn't much to complain
> about.

For a start, even if we could get an agreement to reacquire some of the
malappropiated Tasmanian stock, the expense in getting it shipped back home
would be well beyond our meagre finances.
Prior enquiry's made (despite this) to another mainland preservation group
[not B.P.R.], about obtaining a historically important Tasmanian locomotive
that was -  1] Of no historical relevance to them; 2] Not even of the same
guage as their railway; 3] Not operational and deteriorating substantially -
resulted in a polite but abrupt reply that told us (in not so many words) to
go and get stuffed, figuratively.

> >
> > Well thats alright for the Rothbury Riot Railway! Before you state the
> > obvious, I know they have built carriage sheds [quite impressive] but
they
> > haven't been coping with settling devestating legal action or been
> > undertaking massive earthworks.
> >
>
> The problems experienced by the DSRM is precisely why they should have
> put a stop to the collecting and tried to do what they could to protect
> what they already had.
>
> >
> > Considering the above mentioned legal catastrophe they endured, it
wouldn't
> > have mattered if they had two items or two hundred items of stock, they
> > still couldn't have improved on where they are now. Actually to be where
> > they are now, despite all that has happened is one of the miracles of
> > Australian preservation!
>
> But if they didn't have the amount of stock they've got now, they would
> be in a much better position to be able to properly recover from their
> problems. A smaller collection means less maintenece costs and it also
> means they don't need as much earthworks or such a huge shed to get it
> undercover. I would not call the DSRM a miracle. I think it is an
> example of a group that doesn't set limits and goes overboard to the
> point where they will never have the resources to *properly* look after
> their collection. The DSRM is a good example of what other groups should
> not do.
>
>
> > Rubbish. Running a few trolley trips or train shuttles with foriegn
> > irrelevant rolling stock, falling to bits, with shambolic public /
display
> > facilities, is not getting anywhere in my opinion!
> >
>
> And neither is a huge rusting collection that isn't open for public
> display. At least the trolley trips or tourist trains are bringing in
> some form of income, even if it is low. Would the Derwent Valley Railway
> have got anywhere if they put all their resources into collecting and
> storing instead of returning a smaller collection of locomotives and
> rolling stock to service?

Because we have not been in the position to obtain a "huge rusting
collection" , the smaller collection we have returned to service is so busy
being used to earn money (as we dont have Dorrigo's fortune of a large and
generous membership) our stock is rapidly deteriorating, as we cant relieve
our vehicles from service to give the restoration they need (although we are
trying).
That is where Dorrigo has an advantage over us. While our vehicles are being
flogged to death to earn a crust, Dorrigo have the ability to develop a good
collection and take care of it. [I realise I have Buckley's chance of
convincing you of that last point, but nevertheless...] So in other words,
if we had done a "Dorrigo" so to speak, we would now have sufficient stock
to put in and out of service, adequetely maintained etc. rather than running
everything we have constantly, without relief.
>
> >
> > Expending finance and volunteer labour running "you beaut" joy rides
while
> > those resources are diverted from building proper facilities and
protecting
> > / restoring your stock is viable? Get real. Anyway you have been told of
the
> > reasons why Dorrigo can not yet access their line.
> >
>
> Dorrigo won't get any money from the government, so how are they going
> to build a shed without some form of income?

Probably the same way they paid off the land.

> Likewise, no private
> company is going to sink money into a rusting pile of junk[Your opinion]
and donations
> alone won't get anywhere before their collection rots away to
nothing.[Your opinion]
> Without some form of income, they won't have a hope of getting anywhere.

They have an income - just not a public on at present

> Even with a joy ride, the size of their collection means that their
> chances of survival are highly doubtful.
>
> Look at the CHTR. They have a very small but dedicated group of
> volunteers who started with a small trolley service back in the 80's.
> The simple fact that they never collected like Dorrigo meant they could
> put their resources into protecting most of their rolling stock. Now
> they have a number of operating exhibits including 91RM, 63RM, DRC40,
> 26MT, Y159 and a reasonable percentage of their goods rolling stock.
> They started with a simple trolley ride, put realistic limits on their
> collection and now look at what they are doing.

How would they have gone if they had copped a massive, unjustified lawsuit?
Not very far in my opinion!

Regards,
S.Z.
>
> --
> - James Brook -
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> e-mail:
> mailto:ajmbrook@ozemail.com.au
> Victorian Railfan Web Site:
> http://www.railpage.org.au/vr/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------