| Author |
Message |
Jas_3001
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Last Visited: Mar 24, 2008
Location: In the Workshop working on Secret Project X.
contact
|
post
|
|
|
 |
NSWRTM123
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Nov 09, 2007
Last Visited: Nov 23, 2008
Location: The present day
contact
|
post
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:16 pm
|
3830 won't attend?  I was looking forward to seeing here again.
Don't Make 'em like they used to
3801 limited and NSWRTM Forever
Alcos Rule!!!!!
|
|
|
nic
Chief Train Controller
Joined: May 19, 2004
Last Visited: Nov 22, 2008
Location: Brisbane, QLD
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:05 am
|
|
what happened to painting the 36 black?
Nic Collins (SAR fanatic and PRR supporter)
Gotta luv the sound of a Turbo'd 16 cylinder !!
|
|
|
Bwana
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jul 21, 2003
Last Visited: Nov 21, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 am
|
Greg has mentioned that 3830 has "boiler and insurance" issues, but the OP cites regulatory issues between the PHM and the ITSRR (I note they also don't mention that the ARTC TOC waiver doesn't allow 3642 to double head with a variety of steam classes, including the 38 class, which would also prevent the proposed double head on 2/3/08 ). I grant a "boiler and insurance" issue may also be (probably would be, if integrity of the boiler is in doubt) a regulatory issue, but it seems like a strange way for the RTM to phrase it if they are talking about the same issue.
[pure speculation]I assume the "minimal diesel assistance" will include on the Sydney-Thirlmere and return trips - although 3642 CAN double head with 2705, I doubt 2705 could do the pulling job intended of 3830.[/pure speculation]
Edit - fixing codes
|
|
|
nosecone
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Aug 08, 2004
Last Visited: Nov 23, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:53 am
|
| Bwana wrote: | Greg has mentioned that 3830 has "boiler and insurance" issues, but the OP cites regulatory issues between the PHM and the ITSRR (I note they also don't mention that the ARTC TOC waiver doesn't allow 3642 to double head with a variety of steam classes, including the 38 class, which would also prevent the proposed double head on 2/3/08 ). I grant a "boiler and insurance" issue may also be (probably would be, if integrity of the boiler is in doubt) a regulatory issue, but it seems like a strange way for the RTM to phrase it if they are talking about the same issue.
[pure speculation]I assume the "minimal diesel assistance" will include on the Sydney-Thirlmere and return trips - although 3642 CAN double head with 2705, I doubt 2705 could do the pulling job intended of 3830.[/pure speculation]
Edit - fixing codes |
What was the middle bit?
|
|
|
Wrigleys
Junior Train Controller
Joined: Mar 29, 2003
Last Visited: Nov 23, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:47 am
|
| nic wrote: | | what happened to painting the 36 black? |
The above notice, did you read it?
Wrigleys
|
|
|
Bwana
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jul 21, 2003
Last Visited: Nov 21, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:41 pm
|
| nosecone wrote: | | Bwana wrote: | Greg has mentioned that 3830 has "boiler and insurance" issues, but the OP cites regulatory issues between the PHM and the ITSRR (I note they also don't mention that the ARTC TOC waiver doesn't allow 3642 to double head with a variety of steam classes, including the 38 class, which would also prevent the proposed double head on 2/3/08 ). I grant a "boiler and insurance" issue may also be (probably would be, if integrity of the boiler is in doubt) a regulatory issue, but it seems like a strange way for the RTM to phrase it if they are talking about the same issue.
[pure speculation]I assume the "minimal diesel assistance" will include on the Sydney-Thirlmere and return trips - although 3642 CAN double head with 2705, I doubt 2705 could do the pulling job intended of 3830.[/pure speculation]
Edit - fixing codes |
What was the middle bit? |
Not sure which bit you mean - the bit about not being able to double head with 3830? The TOC waiver for 3642 specifies that it may not run with other 35, 36, 38, 53 or 59 class locos.
|
|
|
8050
Assistant Commissioner
Joined: Feb 19, 2008
Last Visited: Nov 23, 2008
Location: proudly a dribbly foamer ****
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:44 pm
|
| Bwana wrote: | | The TOC waiver for 3642[/url] specifies that it may not run with other 35, 36, 38, 53 or 59 class locos. |
Is this a temporary ruling while the loco is run in or permanent?
Correct authority was obtained for all photographs in rail corridor and depots. note that some are taken from the cab.
|
|
|
FieldShunt74
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Last Visited: Nov 23, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 1:43 pm
|
| 8050 wrote: | | Bwana wrote: | | The TOC waiver for 3642[/url] specifies that it may not run with other 35, 36, 38, 53 or 59 class locos. |
Is this a temporary ruling while the loco is run in or permanent? |
Permanent, until the ARTC TOC manual is reissued or until another TOC waiver supersedes it. That could be this afternoon or never or anytime in between.
There's no clause in the RailCorp TOC or it's waivers restricting the running of 3642 with the locos mentioned above. Who knows what ARTC are up to with this? Weird mob at the best of times.
|
|
|
8050
Assistant Commissioner
Joined: Feb 19, 2008
Last Visited: Nov 23, 2008
Location: proudly a dribbly foamer ****
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:05 pm
|
| FieldShunt74 wrote: | | 8050 wrote: | | Bwana wrote: | | The TOC waiver for 3642[/url] specifies that it may not run with other 35, 36, 38, 53 or 59 class locos. |
Is this a temporary ruling while the loco is run in or permanent? |
Permanent, until the ARTC TOC manual is reissued or until another TOC waiver supersedes it. That could be this afternoon or never or anytime in between.
There's no clause in the RailCorp TOC or it's waivers restricting the running of 3642 with the locos mentioned above. Who knows what ARTC are up to with this? Weird mob at the best of times. |
Yeah its very strange isnt it! why the hell cant it? Did she have cracked frames?
Correct authority was obtained for all photographs in rail corridor and depots. note that some are taken from the cab.
|
|
|
FieldShunt74
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Last Visited: Nov 23, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:20 pm
|
| 8050 wrote: | | FieldShunt74 wrote: | | There's no clause in the RailCorp TOC or it's waivers restricting the running of 3642 with the locos mentioned above. Who knows what ARTC are up to with this? Weird mob at the best of times. |
Yeah its very strange isnt it! why the hell cant it? Did she have cracked frames? |
Not that I've heard but I'm not in the loop (line). I have no idea of their reasoning but the classes mentioned, 35, 36, 38, 53 & 59 are all larger locos so perhaps it relates to combined weight on infrastructure or something? What else is there, some kind of drawgear issue maybe? Air quality in tunnels? No idea. I'm as keen to find out the answer as you are.
|
|
|
MBAX
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jun 22, 2006
Last Visited: Nov 23, 2008
Location: Depot No 19 Clyde
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 4:26 pm
|
| FieldShunt74 wrote: | | 8050 wrote: | | FieldShunt74 wrote: | | There's no clause in the RailCorp TOC or it's waivers restricting the running of 3642 with the locos mentioned above. Who knows what ARTC are up to with this? Weird mob at the best of times. |
Yeah its very strange isnt it! why the hell cant it? Did she have cracked frames? |
Not that I've heard but I'm not in the loop (line). I have no idea of their reasoning but the classes mentioned, 35, 36, 38, 53 & 59 are all larger locos so perhaps it relates to combined weight on infrastructure or something? What else is there, some kind of drawgear issue maybe? Air quality in tunnels? No idea. I'm as keen to find out the answer as you are. |
Drawgear shouldn't be an issue if it leads.
|
|
|
hurstville1
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Mar 13, 2007
Last Visited: Nov 23, 2008
Location: Where Belfordrocks isn't(aka:not Hurstville)
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:03 pm
|
|
So is only 3642 going to run the mysteries or the other locos as well?
|
|
|
Bwana
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jul 21, 2003
Last Visited: Nov 21, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:18 pm
|
|
Well 3526 can't because of the same condition that excludes 3830. As I said above I don't imagine 2705 being much chop to replace 3830, so my money's on some diesel assistance. IIRC the STN mentions a diesel being attached for the empty return to Thirmere, maybe that diesel will stay on for the day.
|
|
|
MBAX
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jun 22, 2006
Last Visited: Nov 23, 2008
Location: Depot No 19 Clyde
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:24 pm
|
Obviously "distributed power".....? A TM72 recreation?
April 5th
Steam through the Highlands - take the easy rail way to the annual Scottish festival at BUNDANOON, or visit the fine industrial and civic heritage of GOULBURN.
Settle back as 3526 and 3642 tackle the long climb into the Highlands to Mittagong, before sprinting through the verdant fields to Moss Vale, Bundanoon and Goulburn. A classic steam journey reuniting two of our great locos for the first time in decades and featuring spirited running and sustained hill climbing, evoking the era of the Southern Express trains.
|
|
|
|
|
