Re: New locos for the RTM

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

I agree with Tim... in part.

Getting 5711 running again is a pointless exercise in wasting money.
For the purpose of lifting steam's sagging profile, getting 3001, either of
the 32-class, one of the 36s or even 3820 running would be more profitable.

Before those who say "we've already got two 38s running" pipe up, the Vics
have three or four R-class and no-one seems to complain...

Yes, I can see the managerial problems of Valley Heights running trains
however the Vics also have a good leasing system set up whereby locos are
leased from SteamRail if I'm correct.
I for one would love to see a Blue Mountains steam train running each
weekend, at least during the cooler six months of the year.
It would certainly create as much if not more atmosphere than the Cockatoo
Run.

You have to ask the question "WAS THE RTM SET UP TO RUN TRAINS?" When it's
name has the word "museum" in it, you have to wonder.
-----------------
Cheers,
Darren Yates
Firebox recordings [http://www.firebox.bluemountains.net.au]

Tim Arnot wrote in message <3639A21C.2513BFAF@fastlink.com.au>...
>Sorry, Bob but I have to put my bit in here.......
>
>gioia9499@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <71b25j$n9f$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>>   catchpoints@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> > In article <719kkg$ls7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> >   gioia9499@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> > > In article <71975u$45m$6@news.mel.aone.net.au>,
>> > >   dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage) wrote:
>> > > > Gill (torpan@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
>> > > > > Great news ...but where will they be stored.
>> > > >
>> > > > Junee? :)
>> > > >
>> > > > Seriously, how about at least one to Valley Heights?
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >  They couldn't possibly do that. They would first have to rip the
engine out
>> > > or make it inoperable in some way so as to stop the Valley Heights
group of
>> > > the RTM (yes the same RTM) from having something that was operable.
It's a
>> > > bit like the things that were taken off 5461 before it went up there.
Cheers
>> > > Bob
>> >
>> > Yes, certain re-usable spare parts were removed from the static exhibit
loco
>> > 5461 before it's journey west. After all, if people remember back to
when
>> > Valley Heights was wished on the RTM, it was to be a *NON-OPERATING*
group
>> > i.e. an annex to the Museum, not another mainline steam operator. Why
send
>> > items such as air compressors etc. away from where they are most likely
to be
>> > needed ? Cheers,
>>
>>  Is it the RTMs policy to deny the Valley Heights group the right to
operate
>> trains or is this just the opinion of the Thirlmere working members?
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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?
>
>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.
>
>
>>Sure is
>> was to have been a static museum but why not let them run?
>
>See above - woul dyou sign a blank cheque?
>
>>The RTM has had the
>> attitude for many years that they are "it" and no one else exists. With
such
>> an attitude it is no wonder that they are getting nowhere these days.
>
>Nowhere at all, except that they are running trains, covering their
>costs and continuing to develop the Thirlmere site. Better than most!
>(And I am not knocking any other groups by saying that either - it is a
>matter of looking at the accounts).
>>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?
>
>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 woul dhave thought.
>
>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.
>
>Think about it.
>
>If the 57 could be got going free of cost then there would be one less
>hassle - but only one.
>
>Don't mis interpret this - I woud LOVE to point a microphone or two at a
>57 but the practicalities are insurmountable.
>
>The next thing is to don the fire proof overalls.......
>
>Ciao
>Tim
>
>Timothy Arnot
>
>e-mail to timarnot@fastlink.com.au
>