Team,Do you mean 1 rail next to another or 2 separate rail lines crossing the road. If you mean the former then it could be the use of concrete sleepers which would not have the facility to clip another rail close to the running rail, the same would go for steel if they were ever used at level crossings. Wooden sleepers no problem but finding suitable species old growth timber could be a problem.
After seeing the condition of some of our level crossings I have a question.
Years ago you would see level crossings with the double track to hold the bitumen in place. These days it simply keeps getting corrugated and wrecked. The one I have in mind is Penguin which is a real mess.
Is there a reason they stopped using that double track method?
Either way, the condition is terrible.I think I have seen used on the Melbourne tram system angle iron bolted or maybe welded to the side of the running rail to give flange clearance. It would do the same job for holding bitumen in place.
I suppose you're right about the concrete sleepers BP4417 but you'd think they would order specialized ones.
Anyway I thought I would ask the question to see if there was any logic.
Its rumoured that the points at Cold Water Creek Junction are to be removed so as to remove the speed restriction while passing through the Junction. I guess Tasrail see no viable future for the North East Line. I suggest this will soon see its complete removal and conversion to a bike track.
More to do with looking after the unions (Labor), looking after business (Liberal) and helping old school chums or mates from the club.
So forgive me, if I consider a Green promise to support something a joke. Now OPPOSING something is something they are world experts in!
People with this knowledge are not going to be here forever that is why proposals like the Greens is important.
I've been saying this for a number of years now. The problem with political promises is that they sound good, (they need to to buy votes) but are rarely followed through on once those making the promises are elected, regardless of political persuasion.
A heritage railway is a living museum and needs to be treated as such.
Your second point - unfortunately with the increasingly strident demands of rail safety accreditation - that is no longer possible. To maintain pure heritage / museum principles nowadays, the collection will be forced to remain static.
Understood, but I was thinking more along the lines of funding being made available not only to maintain a collection, but to ensure skills are passed down to interested volunteers (or paid staff). Museums in general don't appear to suffer from this particular problem.
Again, we have the issue of the Rail Regulators having no interest in recognising "passed down skills". The Regulators are now insisting on persons working on heritage rail rolling stock now have to possess professional mechanical, electrical or engineering qualifications that can really only be obtained via the professional workplace. Operational skills, which also were able to be "passed down" and acquired through operational experience, must now be "taught" via authorised Registered Training Organisations.
What is needed, rather than some "rail training centre", is a source of funding to cover the costs of T&HR railways engaging an appropriate RTO geared to their needs. That could be simply achieved, rather than having to re-invent the wheel and set up some Mickey Mouse "rail training center" - that would have to become an RTO anyway to be worthwhile. The other option is to provide an appropriate RTO, whether a state owned one like TAFE of a private one like "Go-Train" with funding to provide ongoing training support to the eligible T&HRs at minimal or no cost.
Training is passing on skills isn't it? Anywho, what you said is approximately what I was getting at anyway!
The point I was trying to make, is that the old way of doing things, i.e. a volunteer off the street rocking up at their local T&HR and learning the essential restoration and operational skills by following the example of senior volunteers (with railway or engineering backgrounds), doesnt cut the mustard with the Regulators anymore (regardless of mine, my equivalents in kindred organisations or ATHRA's arguments to the contrary) despite having worked perfectly okay for years. My impression of the proposed "rail training centre" was of some sort of establishment, over and above the existing T&HR's where experienced restorers passed on their skills - in duplicating what already occurs in the T&HR's anyway and not helping or achieving anything unless, as I mentioned, it became a formalised RTO - of which their are already quite a few in existence as it is.
Thanks to the Govt bureaucracy, now persons in charge of restorations need to have advanced mechanical or engineering certifications to demonstrate their "competence" at doing restorations in a safe manner (thus excluding many experienced and capable volunteers from leading or managing restoration projects, regardless of their successful past endeavours - because they don't have a "piece of paper"). Even then, despite that, the Regulators are still not likely to approve a restored item of rolling stock out on the line until an independent railway engineer signs off on it (likely at great cost to the T&HR involved).
Operationally, unless your railway is 2 foot or less, the Regulators continue to insist (despite ATHRA's continuing lobbying efforts), on the need to employ professional RTO's to sign off on everything from preparing a locomotive to laying a sleeper. Again, that comes at a substantial cost to T&HR's that aren't flush with funds to start with.
So getting back to my original reaction to the article that started this discussion, I am of the opinion, that any proposal to develop a "rail training centre", whilst it does have some merit - is not likely to assist the T&HR's in the short term in that by concentrating on a new "bricks & mortar" establishment, is putting the cart before the horse. If the proposal instead, considered the provision of a training fund for T&HR's to access RTOs, or subsidised an RTO to provide T&HR's with the necessary training, THAT proposal would be far more workable and attract my full support.
That is not my understanding of the Act or Regulations, I believe it says people have to be Competent and Competency can be gained by several means including RPL.
Its up to the Organisation to assess competencies.
Where there is no R.T.O. which covers a particular training aspect the Organisation can develop training packages following the guidelines set out by the Australian Quality Training Framework with assessment to be done by a level 4 assessor.
What RTO is going to develop packages for valve setting, tyre turning or driving the heads of screwed stays. Scraping of white metal bearings is no longer taught by trade training centres (RTO's) they won't because there is no money in it to develop and deliver the courses. Then there is the term "Whats Reasonably Practical.
The world has gone mad...
Hence my amusement at all the grand promises made by political parties in election mode, because regardless of all the political candidates great intentions, if a politician's grand plan doesn't suit the senior public service - it doesn't happen.