Re: 442 Class

["Rjaygee" <dartmouthmotel@bigpond.com>]

Talk about whingers. State Rail gives the RTM a working 442 that looks
superb now, at minimal cost to the RTM,  and some one complains its not the
right one. Wel just renumber it to 44201. One bloody 442 Class diesel is
much the same as another.  Its a pretty ugly class of loco. Does 44201 still
exist. In any event its not really being kept for any historical reason
rather that the RTM has something reliable to pull around its stainless
steel coaches. Also the policy hyas changed since corporatisation in that
State Rail now wants to sell its surplus diesel ala 42203 and 42220.
Cheers
Rod Gayford

"Steve Zvillis" <szvillis@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
9cmo60$237h$1@otis.netspace.net.au">news:9cmo60$237h$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
> As far as I am aware, the R.T.M's 44211 is the only member of the class
> preserved at the moment.
>
> My question to R.T.M. members is, WHY 44211??? I cant see any historical
> significance or worth in preserving this particular locomotive, other than
> possibly that it might have been in a slightly superior mechanical
> condition? But with a fair number of them still in storage and possibly
due
> for scrapping and available for parts, this seems to be a short sighted
> advantage that will disappear in time, leaving a non-descript locomotive
> preserved at the expense of more significant class members, such as;
>
> 44201 - First of the class and official "handover" loco to Commissioner
> McCusker (21/10/70) or,
> 44206 - First of the "new build" (i.e. not using recycled 40 class parts?
I
> think?) or any of the class members that marked changes in equiptment
(i.e.
> 44204, 44221, 44235) although, unfortunatly, some of the generationally /
> technologically significant machines, such as, 44203, 44205, 44220, 44221
> etc. have been sold off to Silverton, the late A.N. or the late M.K.Co.
and
> the final Mk 2 batch, 44235 to the last of the class, 44240, were scrapped
> (for parts for the '80' class?)
>
> I would have thought that for the Rail Transport MUSEUM, for the sake of
> history, 44201 would have been the best preservation candidate, even if
its
> mechanical condition was poorer. Maybe 44211 should have been stripped for
> parts to bring 44201 up to scratch? A nice display could have been formed
> around 44201, when present at the R.T.M., with photos and media of it's
> handover to McCusker. 44211, whilst nicely turned out by the R.T.M. is
> historically nothing, especially as it wasnt the last surviving class
member
> the R.T.M. had no choice in saving.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve Zvillis
>
>
>
>