Re: 442 Class

["Stuart Thyer" <s.thyer@anatomy.unimelb.edu.au>]

----------
In article <fsPH6.16024$482.82393@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, "Rjaygee"
<dartmouthmotel@bigpond.com> wrote:


>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
<SNIP>

But isn't that the point Steve, there is nothing significant about 44211 and
so it is a typical example of this class. Why be like the ARHS in Vic, which
used to take delight in preserving all the one offs of classes rather than
ones that were more representative of the class as a whole; like X36 (the
only steam X not fitted with a booster) N472? (the last N built, pity its
mechanically stuffed).

The main thing is, they've got one, its preserved and it can earn money.


Stuart Thyer
Photographer
University of Melbourne