Re: 442 Class

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

Rjaygee <dartmouthmotel@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:pqII6.18924$482.91304@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> Listen Steve, the point is that they are not going to be given any more
> locos. 42203 and 42220 was supposed to be given to 3801 (I think) and that
> did not happen and now it appears they have been sold to one of the
private
> railroads.  I still do not see the point you were making.
> Cheers
> Rod Gayford
>
My only point was that if a Railway Museum have a choice, of a number of
examples of the same class, that may be available to be preserved,
irrespective of whether they are able to get them donated or have to buy
them, I would hope that the example chosen  had some significant historical
aspect to it, which enhances its historical appeal and worth in
preservation.

For your average "Joe Public" looking at locomotives on display at a museum,
one locomotive looks the same as another, so it is helpful to have an
interesting "background" history to an exhibit that will be of some interest
to your average citizen. For a tourist railway, as opposed to a museum,
having an interesting history to a locomotive is not important, as long as
the locomotive is in half decent shape, runs okay, is reasonably reliable
and not falling apart. Hence the reason for asking about 44211 in the
context of its preservation at the R.T.M., with that organisation being
principally a museum.

Of course, the opportunity to obtain a more "notable" member of a class of
locomotives that are otherwise "all the same" is limited to their
availability at the time. [The more significant machines may have been
already scrapped, rebuilt, sold elsewhere or if still available, may have
been crash damaged or in such a poor physical state, that their preservation
is unviable]

It seems that the significantly superior condition of 44211, mechanically
and structurally, was the overriding factor in its selection. That's fine
and all that I wanted to clarify.

On the matter of redundant locomotives no longer being donated to deserving
preservation groups and being sold at extortionate rates to commercial
businesses, this now seems to be sadly the norm in the new privatised,
corporatised and maximum profit world we are in nowadays.

Like with 42203 and 42220 being denied to N.S.W. preservationists, Tasmanian
preservation groups, who had high hopes of obtaining examples of the
withdrawn (by Tasrail) ex - E.B.R. "10" class, have recently been shafted
yet again, when they were put up for sale at a price well outside the
capabilities of volunteer preservation groups or individuals. Under normal
circumstances, no one would have been interested in paying more than scrap
value for such small old and life expired units, allowing local
preservationists a fair chance of securing these locos at a price not much
more than scrap value. Unfortunately the rich, ignorant, arrogant vulture
who is currently in charge of screwing up the rebuilding of the Abt Railway,
scored two of them, including one of the most historical units, to trade
them in a shady deal with one of the more notorious "poacher" railways on
the mainland, to obtain the return of another loco (that shouldn't have gone
to the mainland in the first place).

So Tasmanian preservation groups who could have made good use of the "10"'s
lose yet more of our unique railway heritage to rich mainland scavengers who
could have just as easily got a similar type of loco from their own state or
an adjacent state, of a more standard design more appropriate to what they
already operate.

The way things are going, the future prospects of preserving anything
currently in service, for volunteer preservation groups, is looking
increasingly grim.>>>>>> Now that is a whinge!!!!

Regards,
Steve Z.