Re: New locos for the RTM

[Bob <gioia@fastlink.com.au>]

Tim Arnot wrote:

> 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.......

I find it interesting that Steamrail (a progressive organization) is able to operate
successfully with an operating sub branch at Ballarat (and other as well?) with no
apparent problems yet the RTM has a problem with its sub branch doing the same. Yes
there are many little issues that would need to be resolved in structuring such an
operation however these would only ever be achieved with a positive attitude from
the management of the RTM. You have carefully evaded the funding issue  and
neglected to comment on the non attempt to gain Federation funding for such a
project in the same way the State Mine Railway Museum recently did ($1.5 million)
and I understand that the original proposal to restore 5711 did include some answers
to this. You are spot on about dedicated groups! Now you may begin to understand why
David Hill decided in 1985 that it was impossible to restore 3801 and allow the RTM
to maintain it as they had a poor record in this area. Yes 5711 will have a slightly
lower speed that a 59 class but this would only amount to a few minutes in each
section however this would make no difference at all to any Blue Mountains
operations as the grades would be well suited to such a machine and in fact it would
probably climb the mountains as fast as any other steam engine. Enthusiasts have in
recent years become the forgotten people with the RTM and the members wishes have
never been surveyed although it is interesting to note that a recent takeover group
that was partly successful was formerly part of the 5711 push. Does this not mean
that there is an interest in 5711 by the membership? Your answers about the
operations of the RTM and this business like attitude is displayed by the RTM would
be appropriate for a non member organization like 3801 Ltd however totally
inappropriate for a volunteer based and democratic organization like the RTM. Do the
members interest in running steam now matter if the profitable diesel operations are
to dominate from here on? If these attitudes are not changed there will no doubt be
further takeover attempts in future to try to make changes. You say that "If they
wanted a 57 (the members) there would be one", have they ever been asked? No doubt
you will give me a hundred more reasons why this can't happen. How about a few
positive answers like how it could be done!
Cheers
Bob