poor state of static locos at RTM

["Darren Yates" <dyates@pnc.com.au>]

Sorry for including all of Bob's rave in but there are some good points
here.
The RTM is busy looking to gain the public interest in steam - that's great.
Yet when it comes to steam restoration, it's the members who are forking out
the money to restore these locos.
Surely then, shouldn't the interests of the members be considered?
History shows that leaders who offer their bread-wanting people cake don't
last forever...

On another matter, I recently took my wife to the RTM to have a look around
and I was surprised and disheartened by the poor state many of the locos are
in.
And it's not so much about spending money of coats of paint.
Both 32-classes are in poor condition with parts obviously missing and the
number of locos with missing coupling rods is bordering on the rediculous.
And these are locos under the main roof, not left up the back in "death-row"
alley.

Surely, parts removed to keep servicable locos operating could at least be
swapped over to maintain complete "shells".
You can spend $90,000 on a great-looking toilet block but it's the locos
people come to see - and if they look like crap, why would people want to
come back?

Bob wrote in message <363D9315.E4D86FB6@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
>

--
-----------------
Cheers,
Darren Yates
Firebox recordings [http://www.firebox.bluemountains.net.au]