Re: New locos for the RTM

[gioia9499@my-dejanews.com]

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.

> 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?

> 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.

> 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.

> >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? 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? 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. As for the Unanderra /Moss Vale line how
many trips a year do the RTM operate over this line with steam? To slow? How
different is the speed of a 57 to a 59?

> 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.

 Yes it is true however do you feel that a 35/36 would be as big a drawcard
as a 57? 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?

> 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
mainline engine in NSW! Is this what is being suggested?
> Think about it.
>
> If the 57 could be got going free of cost then there would be one less
> hassle - but only one.
 The State Mine Rly Museum just got $1.5 Milion and we will never know if an
application to restore 5711 would have recieved similar funding as they didn't
submit one.
> Don't mis interpret this - I woud LOVE to point a microphone or two at a
> 57 but the practicalities are insurmountable.

 The issue here no a negative attitude by some RTM officials who have decided
that they don't want this engine to run again. Untill these attitudes change
it is a waste of our time debating this issue as it will not happen.

Cheers
Bob

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own