> This is purely railfan designations
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No they are not. How closely did you read the article?
Page 43, referring to the GM1's, and I quote:
"They (GM1's) were variously designated GM1, Phase 1, OR BY _AN_ IN
THEIR TIMETABLES, 'F' or first series.
Read on, page 46, again I quote
"GMs 12 through to 26, were designated by AN in their timetables as an
'S' series, GM12 class, or Phase II"
ditto GM27-29, one paragraph later.
Again on page 47
"(GM30-36) designated by AN in their timetables as an 'S' series, GM12
class, or Phase II"
further down the same page
"They (GM37-47) were classified by AN as an 'S' series, GM37 class or
Phase III"
A second source, Leon Oberg's "Locomotives of Australia", edition 2,
page 196
"Known generally as the GM1-class, these A1A-A1A's are more correctly
know to AN rail as the F-class"
further down the same page
"...became the GM12-class, or as far as AN are concerned, the S-class"
> If GOD or you want to catagorise GM's as first series, second series etc,
> that's fine, but don't present these personal tags as in any way being
> official.
Both the above sources, in all their quotations, make reference to the
fact that AN refer to the loco's as F or S class/series. So to suggest
this is a personal tag is not accurate at all.
> As far as Clyde was concerned they were ML (Mainline) or late A
> (Australia) F and S are figments of GOD imagination.
F and S are are not figments of anyone's imagination.
> In their article (and other sources), it is explained that GM1-11 were
> designated the GM1, Phase 1, F or First Series, as David pointed out
> above.>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> I have that issue and have read the article, so what if the author > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you sure you didn't just look at the pictures? You don't seem to
have 'read' the article at all, and if you did, you have not extracted
any information from it whatsoever.
> wants
> to call them phase 1's of F for first series? These are simply the > > authors
> designations, you say, "were designated" by whom?? the author's thats > > who!
They are not simply authors designations! All the quotes attribute the
designations of F and S series by AN!
> Please explain how GOD is correct in calling GM 1 class (official
> designation by CR) F class????
As pointed out in the quotations above. Two sources, their publication
seperated by well over a decade, both say the same thing, which is that
AN designated the GM1-11 loco's as F series, and GM12-47 as S series.
> I have NEVER heard them refered to as F
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now this is what particularly annoys me about your posts Mark. Again,
you assume that becuase YOU hadn't heard it, it must be wrong.
> class ever and I seriously doubt that any fellow student of Australian
> diesels have heard of this except in the AMRM article, so what are you
> talking about?
Oberg's second edition was released in 1983, so I certainly wouldn't be
the only one to have heard of these class designations.
>
> Mark.
>
> Some people make art to impress others.
> I make art to impress myself.
And it shows in most of your posts, and to be honest, I've been pretty
unimpressed. I don't claim to know everthing Mark, and if someone
presents information that I haven't seen/heard of before, then I take it
on-board, verify it, and add it to my knowledge. You appear to simply
assume that it must be wrong (without any factual evidence to suggest
otherwise), and proceed to attack the source. And in doing so, you're
doing yourself no favours, either in developing your knowledge, or your
character.
Regards,
Craig.
-- Craig Haber albatross@harnessnet.com.au Manufacturing Systems Engineer (almost) Web Page Designer, Harness Racing, Railways, and Essendon Football Club fanatic http://www.harnessnet.com.au/