| home |
|
| news |
|
| discussions |
|
| content |
|
| site |
|
|
| technical support | Need Help? Lodge a support ticket!
Note: This is for technical support only. General questions about railways should be posted to the Forums.donation 
Please Donate!photo comp Have YOU voted yet on Photo of the Month?
Click Here!
Voting Closes 31/10search |
| |
| Author |
Message |
Spinner5711
Locomotive Driver
Joined: Dec 26, 2006
Last Visited: Sep 27, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:18 am
|
It seems that we have eight of these bogies awaiting 'recycling' or 'adaptive re-use'. I'm sure that the present owners wouldn't mind releasing them for this. 
|
|
 |
12CSVT
Chief Train Controller
Joined: Nov 26, 2006
Last Visited: Oct 8, 2008
Location: In a dark tunnel
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 7:59 am
|
| Quote: |
Chufffa wrote:
Hi
4901 should be saved as its class leader and has candy green paint, sad to see it in the condition its in.
Chears Neil
LOOK AT IT ITS FOOKED
Man im so sick of this lets preserve the class leader mentality
|
Well one can equally get sick of this "we must preserve the best condition /operable loco regardless of its historical worth" mentality as applied in a museum setting as well. It all comes down to why a loco is being preserved.
For an operating tourist railway, yes, I agree absolutely, class leader / class trailer / batch marker, etc. is all pointless if said loco is a dero. If the principle aim is to get a good operating machine, the priority would always be that in the best available condition.
In a museum setting though, this is different. Where the loco is likely to permanently be a static display or part of a historical narrative, what is the point of a loco in good order but no historical worth? In a static display setting, one could easily and happily dispense with any mechanical capability whatsoever as being unnecessary. Instead the class leader or last of the class or significant change or event marker within a class, should be the priority, as it supports a narrative in a historical setting. Thus the "thing" with class leaders, as they more often than not flag a major new engineering development and mark a point in the story of rail in the jurisdiction they are in. This can also be supported by any other class member if they are the sole survivor but NOT if they are just "another" anonymous member of a widely represented class.
Hence, for a tourist railway, 4901 is worthless whilst 4916 is invaluable. In a museum context, 4901 has worth, whilst 4916 is totally pointless.
Cheers,
SZ
|
|
|
Tsubame800
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Apr 13, 2005
Last Visited: Oct 12, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:31 am
|
|
i guess my query is. What about in the case of classes where the numerical order of the units is incorrect? in the case of the 90 class. where 9001 is actually 9003 and vice versa.. what would be the case here? and would this mean that you would also preserve the first of the "local" built 90 class?
In Life there are problems and Migraine's a problem is solvable.. a Migraine is a Woman.
|
|
|
ShowMeTheMoney
Assistant Commissioner
Joined: Jul 31, 2006
Last Visited: Oct 9, 2008
Location: dot AU
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:29 pm
|
| Chufffa wrote: | | Hi 4901 should be saved as its class leader |
| 12CSVT wrote: | | the "thing" with class leaders, as they more often than not flag a major new engineering development |
Considering the above statements, and if these below, were the first 3 X200s built, which one is the "Class Leader"?
|
|
|
12CSVT
Chief Train Controller
Joined: Nov 26, 2006
Last Visited: Oct 8, 2008
Location: In a dark tunnel
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 6:52 pm
|
| Quote: |
i guess my query is. What about in the case of classes where the numerical order of the units is incorrect? in the case of the 90 class. where 9001 is actually 9003 and vice versa.. what would be the case here? and would this mean that you would also preserve the first of the "local" built 90 class?
|
Well that is not uncommon. Often the first built gets held back by the builder for modifications or testing and therefore is sometimes third, fourth or even fifth into service. So one can validly justify either the first built or first into service as the flag bearer of the design. I suppose that is where subsequent modifications or condition may then be factored in.
I agree the classleader may not necessarily be the prototype, but whether first in service or first built (or last built) there is at least a historical worthiness that can be demonstrated.
Cheers,
SZ
|
|
|
andyroo3801
Beginner
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Last Visited: Jul 30, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:20 pm
|
that is so said them trains should of been looked after more they look like there for a while 
|
|
|
4001firstdiesel
Station Master
Joined: May 11, 2008
Last Visited: Oct 6, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:59 pm
|
|
Regarding the future of the 49s stored at Casino, apparently they were sold off at auction in july (according to the arhs). Hopefully, one made it into preservation
|
|
|
Chufffa
Station Staff
Joined: Jun 03, 2008
Last Visited: Oct 12, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:40 pm
|
|
wish granted sold for scrap
|
|
|
Kav442s5
Train Controller
Joined: Jan 01, 2006
Last Visited: Oct 10, 2008
Location: Near the 160km peg on the Short North
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 11:47 pm
|
|
Has anyone got an update on what happened with the 49 class that were auctioned at Casino recently?
It's creepy crawly season, so stop those creepys from crawling, particularly if its a TERMITE!
|
|
|
4426_No_2_end
Deputy Commissioner
Joined: Dec 18, 2007
Last Visited: Oct 12, 2008
Location: UPSTAIRS FROM THE BLOKE BELOW
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 11:58 pm
|
| 12CSVT wrote: | | Quote: |
i guess my query is. What about in the case of classes where the numerical order of the units is incorrect? in the case of the 90 class. where 9001 is actually 9003 and vice versa.. what would be the case here? and would this mean that you would also preserve the first of the "local" built 90 class?
|
Well that is not uncommon. Often the first built gets held back by the builder for modifications or testing and therefore is sometimes third, fourth or even fifth into service. So one can validly justify either the first built or first into service as the flag bearer of the design. I suppose that is where subsequent modifications or condition may then be factored in.
I agree the classleader may not necessarily be the prototype, but whether first in service or first built (or last built) there is at least a historical worthiness that can be demonstrated.
Cheers,
SZ |
If I remember correctly 9003 was the original 9001 however when it was held back for evaluation the then FreightRail asked that the original 9003 be renumbered 9001 for publicity purposes.
Confused? Dont worry at the time a few of us gunzels lineside couldnt figure out why 9003 wasnt landed until the 2nd or 3rd shipment came in. 
Sir 4426_No_2_end Knight of the Evil Empire of Lithgovia.
I LIVE WITH FEAR - SOMETIMES SHE LETS ME GO GUNZELLING.
ALL I WANT FOR XMAS IS A FEMALE MODERATOR ON Railpage Australia™...PLEASE.
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT + 10 Hours
|
You cannot post new threads in this forum
You cannot reply to threads in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.6 © 2001 phpBB Group
Theme images and concept © 2004 by Michael Greenhill and Railpage, All Rights Reserved.
Version 2.0.6 of PHP-Nuke Port by Tom Nitzschner © 2002 www.toms-home.com
|
|
