Re: DSRM is ....

["Trevor Edmonds" <trevor_edmonds@dingoblue.net.au>]

Les Brown wrote...

> Stop your griping about how poor DSRM is and how the council want
> $150,000 to fix up some level crossing and how you guys have to fix up
> some bridge, and how you have to pay all these legal costs, because
> you are NOT serious, are you?

This was not a gripe. It was a statement of fact. Its you who is a little
confused here. The $150,000 I quoted was to upgrade an intersection in
Dorrigo. The bridge is entirely separate, and is to be paid for by
government money. If we were not serios, we would have given up years ago.

Our Board examined to viability of hiring locos a couple of years ago. They
fully costed the proposal, and came to the conclusion that it was not a
viable option for us. This is not something that was just rejected out of
hand.

> And for crying out loud, who said anything about hiring a loco just
> for ONE month?

You said...

<<Even if DSRM themselves paid to send it to Melbourne, it would make up the
costs in less than a month and anything after that is cream.>>

> And just how many 44's are there around Australia, just waiting to be
> hired out? Far from there being "numerous 44s stored around NSW" I'd
> be surprised to find any, just waiting to be hired out in any sort of
> working order.

If you are correct, it would be worth getting non-operational locos repaired
to cash in. As for the 44 class scattered around (some of these are in
traffic, most are not): 4401, 4403, 4406, 4420, 4424, 4442, 4445, 4458,
4461, 4463, 4464, 4465, 4472, 4473, 4486, 4488, 4490, 4497, 4498.

> Your arguments are totally irrational, Trevor.

My position is based on the investigation our Board carried out. If it was
as easy as you suggest, we would have jumped at it.

> Your are trying to prop
> up a facade of poverty and dire need when all I can see is insularity,
> secretiveness and a lack of concern for this country's rail heritage.

If I was being secretive I would not reply to you (although it is geting a
bit repetitive so perhaps we should just agree to disagree). If we had a
lack of concern for rail heritage, we would not be workin to save what we
can.

> You should be deeply ashamed of your organisation.

I think this discussion has gone far enough. I have attempted to answer the
points you have made (not solicit), if that does not satisfy you, you are
just going to have to live with that. DSRM is answerable to its membership,
not to you. The members are the ones who supply the money and labour. If you
want to be involved, then join. If you are not a member you do not get a say
in how we spend our time and money.

Trevor