S550 Station Master

Location: Perth WA
GM1 made a small but important move last Thursday 21/5/2015, being towed from Dry Creek to Islington.

Rail Heritage WA previously paid Downer at Dry Creek to re-wheel GM1 and carry out some other work. This enabled the loco to be certified for towing and accepted by ARTC, owners of the trans-Australian line, who already had GM1 recorded in their system.


Unfortunately, Brookfield Rail, who control the track west of Parkeston do not recognise GM1 in their current system and as part of the paperwork necessary to gain registration from scratch, we have to submit additional test results, including a twist test.

CF Rail Services provided a good price to carry out this work. On Thursday GM1 was moved to their facility at Islington and subsequently they advised that the test was completed and our veteran passed with flying colours.

Genesee & Wyoming who now operate the  Dry Creek facility previously used by Downer, generously agreed to tow GM1 to Islington without charge – many thanks.

RHWA has asked CF Rail to do some further tests as it is aimed to have GM1 approved for movement as widely as possible.

After more than 5 years at Dry Creek, the move went very easily and quickly.

Sponsored advertisement

  Pressman Spirit of the Vine

Location: Wherever the Tin Chook or Qantas takes me
Good to see steps taken to get the old girl to her new home.

Well down to all at RHWA
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Unfortunately, Brookfield Rail, who control the track west of Parkeston do not recognise GM1 in their current system and as part of the paperwork necessary to gain registration from scratch, we have to submit additional test results, including a twist test.

This is just plain bloody ridiculous and, sadly, typifies the bureaucracy surrounding the rail industry in this country. It is no wonder that road is so successful.

GMs of one sort or another have run all over mainland Australia for over 60 years and continue to do so.

If the likes of a Brookfield ever get hold of the ARTC Network interstate rail freight in Australia will be stuffed.

GM 'not in their system' - talk about the tail wagging the dog! What next a redesign of the shape of the wheel. Perhaps one should question the validity of their so called system.

The line west of Parkeston should never have been given to Brookfield - it should have been ARTC. But that, again, is Western Australia just being different from the rest of the country.
  x31 Chief Commissioner

Location: gallifrey
Brookfield strikes again.
  Trainplanner Chief Commissioner

Location: Along the Line
It staggers but does not surprise me to read this.  We have a National Rail Regulator now the role of which is to faciltate greater use of rail by breaking down the sorts of barriers that impede rail development.   Whilst this issue does not specfically sit with the regulator it still shows that individual Network Managers are happily retaining their little empires and not facilitating access in the way they should.   It shows a total loss of corporate memory and also a total lack of interest or co-ordination with others.

Some facts.  For a very extended period of time due (a) to a massive grain harvest in WA and (b) subsequently as a result of an Railways of Australia Committee agreement, double headed GM's hauled the daily Indian Pacific and Trans Australia services through to Perth for years.   They operated daily in each direction and the Engine Load Tables- General Appendix and Working Timetable had the various technical and operating conditions etc.

But if you lost your common memory why not ring your colleagues at ARTC and other networks and help facilitate this whole arrangement for a volunteer group.

GM class locomotives are cleared to run on all other mainline standard gauge networks across the country.   They operate in the Sydney Metro Network which any rail operator will tell you has the most stringent technical and operating requirements.   So if you have the history of previous operating experience in WA combined with current operating experience across the rest of the country why can't you make a "brave" decision and clear this locomotive for a "one-off" special movement under a waivure on the condition that the unit has been inspected and cleared to run.

Staggering!!!
  bingley hall Minister for Railways

Location: Last train to Skaville
Has WA even signed up for the National Regulator?
  Pressman Spirit of the Vine

Location: Wherever the Tin Chook or Qantas takes me
It staggers but does not surprise me to read this.  We have a National Rail Regulator now the role of which is to faciltate greater use of rail by breaking down the sorts of barriers that impede rail development.   Whilst this issue does not specfically sit with the regulator it still shows that individual Network Managers are happily retaining their little empires and not facilitating access in the way they should.   It shows a total loss of corporate memory and also a total lack of interest or co-ordination with others.

Some facts.  For a very extended period of time due (a) to a massive grain harvest in WA and (b) subsequently as a result of an Railways of Australia Committee agreement, double headed GM's hauled the daily Indian Pacific and Trans Australia services through to Perth for years.   They operated daily in each direction and the Engine Load Tables- General Appendix and Working Timetable had the various technical and operating conditions etc.

But if you lost your common memory why not ring your colleagues at ARTC and other networks and help facilitate this whole arrangement for a volunteer group.

GM class locomotives are cleared to run on all other mainline standard gauge networks across the country.   They operate in the Sydney Metro Network which any rail operator will tell you has the most stringent technical and operating requirements.   So if you have the history of previous operating experience in WA combined with current operating experience across the rest of the country why can't you make a "brave" decision and clear this locomotive for a "one-off" special movement under a waivure on the condition that the unit has been inspected and cleared to run.

Staggering!!!
Trainplanner
I fully agree that it would be quite simple for data and certification to be shared between regulators.

It is also important to realise there are two classes within the old CR GM class GM1 to GM11 have 4 tractions motor (A1A-A1A) whilst GM 12 to GM 47 are higher powered and have 6 traction motors (Co-Co)
There is only one operational GM1 class loco (GM10) which is in the eastern states somewhere.
The GM1 class would not have ventured to WA for many years, long before Brookfield can about.
  crisfitz Chief Commissioner

Location: Enroute somewhere
Has WA even signed up for the National Regulator?
bingley hall
Hi Bing,

Not as yet. The agreement has been deferred multiple times, with the date continuously being pushed further and further back. Last date I heard was 27 July 2015, however there is no mention of money for ONRSR in the recent state budget which is deeply concerning. Perhaps WA, like Queensland, is considering pulling out at the last minute and continuing to go it alone??
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
I fully agree that it would be quite simple for data and certification to be shared between regulators.

It is also important to realise there are two classes within the old CR GM class GM1 to GM11 have 4 tractions motor (A1A-A1A) whilst GM 12 to GM 47 are higher powered and have 6 traction motors (Co-Co)
There is only one operational GM1 class loco (GM10) which is in the eastern states somewhere.
The GM1 class would not have ventured to WA for many years, long before Brookfield can about.
Pressman
Brookfield and their ilk need to realise that there were railways before Brookfield. They won't of course. Heaven help the industry if they should ever get hold of ARTC.Sad
  apw5910 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Location: Location.
It staggers but does not surprise me to read this.  We have a National Rail Regulator now the role of which is to faciltate greater use of rail by breaking down the sorts of barriers that impede rail development.   Whilst this issue does not specfically sit with the regulator it still shows that individual Network Managers are happily retaining their little empires and not facilitating access in the way they should.   It shows a total loss of corporate memory and also a total lack of interest or co-ordination with others.
Trainplanner
Well, no different really to the railways originally being the creation of their Colonial masters, built to funnel traffic to the colony's capital city. The other colonies just didn't exist. Not much has changed, except we seem to need even more Regulators and operators now to run considerably fewer trains.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
The bureaucracy now is far, far, far worse than it was at the end of the government railways.
Sir Humphrey Appleby is alive and well.............
  bingley hall Minister for Railways

Location: Last train to Skaville
Hi Bing,

Not as yet. The agreement has been deferred multiple times, with the date continuously being pushed further and further back. Last date I heard was 27 July 2015, however there is no mention of money for ONRSR in the recent state budget which is deeply concerning. Perhaps WA, like Queensland, is considering pulling out at the last minute and continuing to go it alone??
crisfitz
Thanks - I thought that was the case, just too lazy to check up on it.
  ssaunders Train Controller

In WA the operator moving the vehicle must register each item with Brookfield.

So if PN were to move it then PN would need to register it for the Brookfield network, individual vehicles need to registered separately they cannot be registered as a class.


Going to back to Digest a few months back there was a letter to the editor, it included a comment on CFCLA moving a T class from NSW to WA by road, wonder why......


ss
  Pressman Spirit of the Vine

Location: Wherever the Tin Chook or Qantas takes me

Going to back to Digest a few months back there was a letter to the editor, it included a comment on CFCLA moving a T class from NSW to WA by road, wonder why......


ss
"ssaunders"


The T was going to the Pilbara as it had been leased for work train duties, so the trip would have required a road portion anyway.
  crisfitz Chief Commissioner

Location: Enroute somewhere
Thanks - I thought that was the case, just too lazy to check up on it.
bingley hall
An update. The handover has been deferred again, this time to late November 2015.

Competing government priorities apparently......
  Pressman Spirit of the Vine

Location: Wherever the Tin Chook or Qantas takes me
An update. The handover has been deferred again, this time to late November 2015.

Competing government priorities apparently......
crisfitz
le sigh
  NG Sulzers Deputy Commissioner

Location: Quorn
I might be wrong here, but I don't think it is ONRSR charter to monitor rail access. That is a charter perhaps of the ACCC. ONRSR charter is to audit compliance with Rail Law and Regulations.
  crisfitz Chief Commissioner

Location: Enroute somewhere
I might be wrong here, but I don't think it is ONRSR charter to monitor rail access. That is a charter perhaps of the ACCC. ONRSR charter is to audit compliance with Rail Law and Regulations.
NG Sulzers
That's correct NG. ONRSR 's job is to ensure compliance with the applicable state and federal regulations and laws. It's up to the track owner to decide who and what can be used on their respective networks.
  Radzaarty Junior Train Controller

As seen on facebook, GM 1 has had a paint job!

Here is a link to it on the RHWA page.

https://www.facebook.com/RailHeritageWA/photos/a.333543100069142.77389.326273587462760/853895951367185/?type=1

  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
As seen on facebook, GM 1 has had a paint job!

Here is a link to it on the RHWA page.

https://www.facebook.com/RailHeritageWA/photos/a.333543100069142.77389.326273587462760/853895951367185/?type=1

Radzaarty
Well done to all involved thus far. A kick in the behind for Brookfield for their attitude which is the very attitude the rail industry should be trying to live down.
A great start with the restoration of GM 1 but, sadly, the point of the arrow on the front is not deep enough. It should end roughly in line with the top of the nose handrails. The number board font/spacing is not correct either but these are of little concern when compared with returning the loco to some level of traffic. If Brookfield persist the loco should be leased to SteamRail or someone that can/will run it.
Should there also be a narrow blue line between the maroon and the silver, please?
  M636C Minister for Railways

Should there also be a narrow blue line between the maroon and the silver, please?
YM-Mundrabilla
There should.

I think the maroon colour is too dark (as it was the last time GM1 was repainted).

Certainly my own photos (Kodachromes) of freshly painted GM3 at Forrestfield in 1975 (off the Indian Pacific) show a much more red colour (and the thin blue line). By that time they were lettered Australian National Railways but it was coupled to GM19 lettered Commonwealth Railways in the same shade. Some GMs had self coloured fibreglass panels below the silver stripe which were a bit darker than the rest of the loco but not even those panels were that brown in shade.

That colour almost matches the brown on the old wooden cars rather than the German (and Japanese and Comeng) cars which the GM class did match.

M636C
  Radzaarty Junior Train Controller

Well done to all involved thus far. A kick in the behind for Brookfield for their attitude which is the very attitude the rail industry should be trying to live down.
A great start with the restoration of GM 1 but, sadly, the point of the arrow on the front is not deep enough. It should end roughly in line with the top of the nose handrails. The number board font/spacing is not correct either but these are of little concern when compared with returning the loco to some level of traffic. If Brookfield persist the loco should be leased to SteamRail or someone that can/will run it.
Should there also be a narrow blue line between the maroon and the silver, please?
YM-Mundrabilla
From what I have seen from the comments on the original post, this is a temporary job before the proper one is done.
  warienga Chief Train Controller

Location: Perth
As posted on the Rail Heritage WA Facebook page:

"Rail Heritage WA had approved CF Rail Services quote to perform a quick spray job down the lower drivers side of the loco where it had been graffiti'd. Instead, CF rail Services decided to do a quick, all over job to the entire locomotive at no extra cost to RHWA. We'd like to publicly acknowledge and sincerely thank Phil Wright and all the guys at CF Rail Services Islington for all this extra work and the care they are taking with the old girl. They have her safely secured indoors against further vandalism prior to her next move. Even though it's only a quick job, GM 1 looks a million times better than she did a week ago. Thanks CF RAIL SERVICES!!!!"


So yes, it's only a quick job and RHWA has every intention of having a comprehensive paint job, including repair of rusted areas and replacement of damaged bog, done at a later stage. This will include research into the correct shade of maroon (or one of them...) and recreating the correct shape of the front chevron as applicable to GM 1, which was always noticeably different to the other GM's.
  DrSmith Train Controller

I fully agree that it would be quite simple for data and certification to be shared between regulators.

It is also important to realise there are two classes within the old CR GM class GM1 to GM11 have 4 tractions motor (A1A-A1A) whilst GM 12 to GM 47 are higher powered and have 6 traction motors (Co-Co)
There is only one operational GM1 class loco (GM10) which is in the eastern states somewhere.
The GM1 class would not have ventured to WA for many years, long before Brookfield can about.
Pressman
It makes no difference if they are 4 x motor or 6 x motor, they all had the same bogies. BROOKFIELD required a twist test. This test was introduced in the new 1989 RoA Rolling-stock Mechanical Stds and Recommended Practices produced under my direction. All "systems" agreed to these stds. There was a grand-father clause in that all stock prior to 1989 that was successfully in operation would not have to be re-tested. NSW had already tested GMs. The bogie middle axles were not of concern as far as the twist test was concerned. Then there was the Intergovermental Agreement that all states would recognize stock approved to run from another state. BROOKFIELD and probably WESTNET thru all of past practice out of the window and their civil back-ground persons have been most difficult. Imagine the problems WATCO had when trying to hire 2 x EE types that had already run all-over their W.A. ng net-work. BF demanded all types of information and calculations.....stuff that was in Tassie archives! Luckily I had kept a dynamic brake curve! There was a little known AN project re GM-1 and a NSW 36Class (Project DRAGON) that died with AN that can be elaborated on in required!
  M636C Minister for Railways

It makes no difference if they are 4 x motor or 6 x motor, they all had the same bogies.
DrSmith
To emphasise this, GM10, when I last checked it (2000) had Bradford Kendall bogie castings dated 1963 and the middle axles had drive gears fitted.  The original bogies were cast by LFM in Atchison Kansas, and GM3 had these bogies when purchased by Clyde for retention.

M636C

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.