[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: New locos for the RTM



gioia9499@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> 
> In article <3639A21C.2513BFAF@fastlink.com.au>,
>   timarnot@fastlink.com.au wrote:
> > Sorry, Bob but I have to put my bit in here.......
> 
> > It is a matter of a lot of things, including but not limited to the
> > responsibilities of being an accredited operator. These responsibilities
> > are onerous indeed, and encompass issues of a legal nature, of a moral
> > nature and not least of a financial nature. Even if these matters are
> > addressed satisfactorily, there are still numerous logistical and
> > practical issues to be overcome.
>   Before anyone asks I'll point out that I'm not an RTM member these days and
> have no connection with the Valley Heights branch. Yes the points you have
> raised are indeed correct however there are ways around these problems.

And I am the immediate past President and a past Secretary.
 
> > For the Valley Heights division of the NSW Rail Transport Museum to
> > become an operating entity then the significant issues as above need to
> > be addressed.
> 
>  Why couldn't the Valley Heights branch have their own seperate accreditation
> document, separate insurance and own mechanical inspector? Wouldn't this
> overcome the libility issue and hold these people accountable for their own
> responsibilities?

There is no reason - on a theoretical plane - that this couldn't happen,
BUT that would mean significant cost increases, including a new
corporate structure for the Valley Heights organisation.

This is completely at variance with the VH constituent document, whereby
they are committed to remaining a division/subgroup/branch of the NSW
RTM.
> 
> > And finally there is the ultimate question - who is going to accept the
> > ultimate responsibility for train operations? Who is going to answer to
> > DoT and the public in the event, however unlikely, of a major
> > incident/accident?

>   The person they nominate as their mechanical inspector. There is no god like
> status to this position. Several of the accredited examiners of NSW Heritage
> trains have never worked for the SRA but are suitably qualified to carry out
> inspections on behalf of their respective organisations.
> 
If you accept that Valley Heights is to be accredited in its own right,
then there is no problem with the above - this is how it woeks.

> > It is my opinion that a division of an organisation CANNOT accept that
> > responsibility and therefore in the final analysis, the responsibility
> > would rest with the NSW RTM as a whole, despite the fact that it has
> > little or no real control over the activities of the said division.
> 
>  They wouldn't need to under the above system.

Provided that the VH group was a separate legal entity - a whole new
ball game and a completely different kettle of fish.
> 
> > >Sure is
> > > was to have been a static museum but why not let them run?
> >
> > See above - woul dyou sign a blank cheque?
> 
>   No, they can sign their own.
> 
> > >Also
> > > why are they so much against the restoration of 5711? Could this have
> > > something to do with the fact that it would be too big to be based at
> > > Thirlmere as an operable loco and may have to live in Sydney?
> >
> > It can't run on the Picton to Thirlmere line, it has a basic flaw in the
> > design of the firebox, it can't run Wollongong - Summit Tank - Moss Vale
> > (due to safety/crew considerations in the single line tunnels), it most
> > likely can't run through ANY single line tunnels safely, it is too slow
> > to keep out of the way of the freights these days let alone the electric
> > trains (all of which have priority) and if that is not enough, where are
> > you going to get the carraiges for it to haul?
> 
>   Why couldn't it be based elsewhere? 
Where? We looked at this in my time on the Board and there were very few
sites, none of them available and none of them practical.

We even looke dat Carriageworks - but that seems to be more favoured by
the powers that be as a junk yard.

> A flaw in the design of the firebox?
> The class ran for 33 years why do we now discover a flaw? As the inner
> firebox would probably have to be replaced why couldn't any such flaws be
> designed out with modern technology? 

You got the money? 

>Its a bit like saying that BR 71000 was
> a poor design and should never have been restored to run again! Haven't they
> proven that theory as being wrong. 

Yes they have, but with a group dedicated SOLELY to the restoration of
71000 they were able to achieve possibly the most challenging
restoration ever.

Incidentally, my highest tseam speed is with 71000 at 82 mph down Stoke
Bank. One more notch on the regulator must have been tempting!!

>As for the Unanderra /Moss Vale line how
> many trips a year do the RTM operate over this line with steam?

It is still a major attraction as a line - I would expect that any
operator of 5711 would want to make full use of it's haulage power.

> To slow? How
> different is the speed of a 57 to a 59?

I will post further on this in a day or two.  

> > What value is the DUB set at 400+ seats then, 50 per car for 22 tons or
> > so? Better to keep the 35 and 36 class going, I would have thought.
> 
>  Yes it is true however do you feel that a 35/36 would be as big a drawcard
> as a 57? 

For whom? There are very few enthusiats on trains these days, except the
one or two extravaganzas a year. Most passengers are the general public.

The current drawcrd for the RTM is diesels with airconditioned cars!

> The RTM steam operations didn't make money for years and it is only
> the diesel operation that seems to make money these days so why not spend the
> members money on what they want?
> 
What do the members want? If they wanted a 57 then there would be one. 

> > Further, why spend $x,xxx,xxx or the 57 when the diesel hauled Southern
> > Aurora cars are doing very nicely indeed (up to now, anyway!) The
> > diesels can keep up with anything currently running an dthe ambience of
> > the train is unique.
> >
>  Yes why restore any steam engine? Maybe just let 3801 run alone as the only

This was one proposal post the May 1990 accident.

We need more engines but they need to be capable of running at track
speed these days. Again, more to come on this.


-- 
Timothy Arnot

e-mail to timarnot@fastlink.com.au