Re: ATTN DAVID B RE 32'S IN TIBET

[Eddie Oliver <eoliver@efs.mq.edu.au>]

The Morphetts wrote:
 
> If this photo proves to be correct, and we tend to disbelieve it at
> present, then you are quite right. The thing is, if a 32 has been
> converted to a tank loco, would it really be right to convert it back
> - after all the tank loco apparently exists and is now part of 32
> class history. Therefore should we not keep one as a record of the
> variations which occurred to the class?

No. It's too mundane. After all, 12 class were made into 13 class tanks,
and 19 class into 20's, so there's no need for yet another example of
that.

What we don't have, though, is an example of a tender loco being
converted into a garratt. With all this debate about Nepal, have we
forgotten about the need to retrieve the 58 class (was it 5815?) which
was sold to Christmas Island and converted into a garratt? 


> One final question for the group. Nepal is a fairly poor country as
> you know. Would it be right to 1. take a working loco from their stock
> if it can't be replaced? & 2. Would scrap value be the right price to
> pay, or should we pay a premium in recognition of the wealth imbalance
> of our respective countries?

I'm sure that acknowledgment on Mr Bromage's web page would be enough
reward for any country seeking to advance its international standing.

Eddie