They were reject sleepers with no engineering certification, those responsible for the installation had little understanding at the time of Accreditation procedure.I thought that a number of heritage operators were using reject concrete sleepers without problems. Was this an actual problem up at GMR or just something made up by a trouble maker. It is not as though 3000 tonne freights are going to operate on their track.
They were reject sleepers with no engineering certification, those responsible for the installation had little understanding at the time of Accreditation procedure.What do they actually do to certify new wooden sleepers? Check they are made out of suitable timber and are the right dimensions and a quick visual. I would imagine even a reject concrete sleeper is at least strong as new wooden one. If any body (who knows what they talking about) can explain to me how a concrete sleeper can be so defective it is unusable,especially under the light conditions they will experience at GMR, I am all ears.
What do they actually do to certify new wooden sleepers? Check they are made out of suitable timber and are the right dimensions and a quick visual. I would imagine even a reject concrete sleeper is at least strong as new wooden one. If any body (who knows what they talking about) can explain to me how a concrete sleeper can be so defective it is unusable,especially under the light conditions they will experience at GMR, I am all ears.The only thing that I, as a layperson, could think of is fractures - ie the possibility that the sleeper will fail. One sleeper alone wouldn't make much of a problem, but if you had a situation of extreme heat or extreme cold that caused the track to exert forces onto the sleeper beyond what it is capable of (but within that which it could be expected to tolerate), you could end up with large track buckles? I imagine the legislation is uniform across all railways, so that regardless of how much traffic is expected, one must adhere to the same conditions. Especially when talking about passenger trains, legislation is rather inflexible for obvious reasons. Maybe it sounds over the top, but I'm sure the views would be reversed if it was too lax and an accident happened on a tourist railway in remote, inaccessible territory that required emergency services access. It might sound remote, but better we prevent such a thing happening altogether.
What do they actually do to certify new wooden sleepers? Check they are made out of suitable timber and are the right dimensions and a quick visual. I would imagine even a reject concrete sleeper is at least strong as new wooden one. If any body (who knows what they talking about) can explain to me how a concrete sleeper can be so defective it is unusable,especially under the light conditions they will experience at GMR, I am all ears.I imagine that concrete cancer would be just one thing they'd have to tick off. When you've got something that's designed to stay in the ground for the next 100 years you'd want to make sure it was cast properly.
That's why the 19 class would be better off being given to Oberon and the GMR group closed down. Given the state of the NSW heritage scene and Gladys' recent botched enquiry which is trying to get rid of 3801Ltd and the RTM, closure is the most likely outcome. I don't think trains will run at GMR for a long time as they have only just got infrastructure accreditation. The ghosts of the past will linger for a long time there. The regulators will be all over them big time.Tell us you are not being serious. No mention of the mob up the hill. I would have thought the regulators had something better to do than make life hard for a group trying to achieve something for their community rather than the what the arm chair experts do here. SFA.
Subscribers: Raichase, worldtraveller, wurx
We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.