NGG 16 - 129 Restoration debate.

VBAndy · Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:26 pm

Why couldn't the loco be restored to its original specs with only the essential mods being done? Then simply bolt a plaque on the side of the cab basically stating "This locomotive never ran here, but was restored to its original state blah blah blah."

Given half the people that read it would shrug their shoulders and forget it in half a minute, would it really matter? Ultimately its the gunzels and members that would know better and actually give a poop.

Personally I think NGG 16 class are good looking loco. If it ain't broke, don't fix it I say.

Edit: Typo

ThatGuyOverThere · Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 8:23 pm

I'm really quite stunned at the level of emotion that this issue has gathered. Does it REALLY matter in the end? I don't think the general paying public are going to be offended or *gasp* misled into the awful truth that an NGG is NOT a VR loco... OMGWTFBBQ!!1!1! Get over it.

Can there not be a compromise? The NAs have captured almost every significant era the railway ran in, they are THE signature loco. If a passenger misses out on a ride behind one, they are bound to see AT LEAST two any given day if the timetable is right. The G is not native to Puff, but it is significant to the VR 2'6", Puff being one of those and therefore applicable.

If restoring and operating the NGG was the only way Puff could gain the funds to restore 3A to its original form and keep themselves financially in the green, is it worth the effort? Hell yes! I'd be all for it. They have outgrown themselves and unfortunately there are not enough NAs or Gs to cover the gap. Does anybody have any other suggestions?

And regarding paint schemes - how about a compromise? Paint one half South African livery, the other VR black. Problem solved.

Supt. of Printing · Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 9:36 pm

The reason it matters, whether you agree with it or not, is that the PBR have a heritage policy which guides all decisions. This policy does not allow for individual arbitrary preferences to be followed.

Sure, there is always going to be compromise brought about by certain safety reasons or other reasons of practicality, and these should be kept to a minimum, but nobody can just dismiss the long established heritage policy just because it doesn't suit their own personal preferences.

Deep Throat · Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 11:57 pm

The fact that there is a debate over the South African Garratt shows that the policy is unworkable, inflexible and damages PBPS purely to satisfy the personal needs of a small number of volunteers.

NSWGR 3827 · Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:49 pm

warzy7 · Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:05 pm

I have always thought that the SAR locos looked quite nice even the NG15's....

I mean its never going to be a G43 so why try to make it look like it....

But i guess thats only my opion....

I think also that the idea of having two operating narrow gauge garratt's of different types & countries would be great advertising for the railway just in itself.... we gunzels know its not a VR loco so why try to hide it ??

Most people who will travel behind it wont care if its victorian or south african anyway.... all that they will care about is that it blows smoke & makes the right noises....

but as it stands the loco will need considerable work as mentioned & new coal & water bunkers anyway so thats the thought behind it all, lets make it look similar

PBR Volunteer Worker
PBPS Member
Past Steamrail Victoria Member

Any comments or views expressed are that of my own ...

Supt. of Printing · Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:15 pm

From memory, the PBR heritage policy started to be developed in the 70s by the elected Executive Committee who then set up a sub-committee ~ then known as the "Image Committee" ~ of members / volunteers with the appropriate skills, knowledge and interest to do the necessary research and policy writing.

The sub-committee was later revamped and renamed the Heritage Committee, then further renamed the Heritage Advisory Committee and it subsequently became a sub-committee of the Board. The HAC do not make policy, but rather do the research and make the recommendations to the Board. All this must be consistent with the overall policy as adopted years before by the elected Executive.

It would then be impractical and inconsistent to take all decisions to a membership vote that may go against established Heritage Policy. If you do this, you may as well throw out the Heritage Policy altogether and just have ad hoc decisions and end up with a dog's breakfast of a railway.

NSWGR 3827 · Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:42 pm

Deep Throat · Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:26 pm

Supt. of Printing · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:09 am

Sounds like you've got your mind made up, anyway ~ you just don't like the policy. So you're trying to pick holes in it anywhere you can to undermine it.

Anyway, we are getting a bit off topic.

dthead · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:20 am

This discussion is Ok provided that we all understand no matter what we say here, it is Puffing Bill's own business in what they decide for the Garrett, and the heritage aspect.

I know there are many PBR member here, and I will assume they will work within their Railway to make the real discussion. Out here on Railpage Australia™ it is an interesting topic for us non PBR members, but at the end of the day that is all that it is.

Back to the Garrett, restore it as it was, and don't discuise it. Heritage policy guidleines work very well in keeping the railway to a theme. The Garrett will not detract from the heritage of PBR, which is so ingrained anyhow it would take alot to remove it. In fact you would have to close PBR down, rip the tracks up to stop PBR being PBR. That is impossible !

The idea what would have happeend if the OLD VR did buy such a Garrett is the way to go, same as with the Diesals.

Regards,
David Head

A no 1 · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:32 am

I think if you took a business view of the purchase of a NGG 16 Garrett it was a very sound one
I think one of the reason it was purchased is to take the burden of the Na locos and G42
From a heritage point of view you don't want to run the iconic locos in to the ground!
The NGG 16 is more expendable and keeps the show running when the iconic locos are in for repairs thus spreading the load

Riccardo · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:51 pm

That sounds a good compromise - keep the South African loco in full outline (with new gauge) but paint it and letter it the way VR would have done if they'd bought it. It can always be painted back.

If you need to get in touch, drop a comment at the Transport Textbook or on my blog.

Deep Throat · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:53 pm

Ballast_Plough · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:28 pm

Deep Throat - I may not agree completely with some of the Heritage Manual and the guidelines. But having said that and for what it's worth, I have respect for those on the team - trust me, their knowledge isn't limited to back copies of Newsrail. Some of the people with the current most detailed knowledge of Narrow Gauge and it's history are either on - or have sat on- that committee.

My updated pics here - and the Forsayth Goods here!

"What know they of signalling, who only signalboxes know"!

Brendan McKenna
Member / Volunteer PBR, YVTR, past member of PRR, VGR!!!