The National Trust appears to maintain considerable influence around Melbourne. I wonder exactly what it is that makes the National Trust so influential? It would appear that there is little representation on the National Trust of established tram museum groups or the tram enthusiast movement generally?

Paul in Melbourne

--- In TramsDownUnder@..., "Kym Smith" <gunzel42@...> wrote:
>
> There is not a current and sustainable market for refurbished heritage trams
> anywhere. Just look at how many refurbished or replica trolleys have been
> produced by the two biggest names in the business – Gomaco and Brookville –
> in the last few years. While the free trade agreement has somewhat levelled
> the playing field, the Buy American culture still prevails, much the same as
> we think our new trams should be built here rather than being fully
> imported.
>
> There is scope for one-off refurbishments, or for small batches of trams for
> specific lines, but nothing that would soak up 200 trams (of which probably
> only a quarter are complete trams currently) at $2M a pop.
>
> Maybe 10 years ago or so there may have been a market, but not these days.
> Heritage isn't `in' like it was a number of years ago. Just look at the
> opening of the extension to Hindmarsh on the weekend – no H Type in sight,
> only the modern fleet as that is what the line is about, providing a modern
> service with modern vehicles.
>
> Unfortunately the National Mis-Trust and its crackpot ideas have done more
> harm to the preservation of Melbourne's trams than it has done good. After
> nearly 20 years of meddling with W Series trams, they do not have a single
> run on the board in terms of success. Their grand tram loop idea is no
> better – it is far too long a trip for the average tourist and is aimed more
> at satisfying fetishes of gunzels than providing a valuable addition to the
> Melbourne tourist attraction market.
>
> Kym
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: TramsDownUnder@... [mailto:TramsDownUnder@...]
> On Behalf Of Matt
> Sent: Wednesday, 10 March 2010 8:36 AM
> To: TramsDownUnder@...
> Subject: [TramsDownUnder] Re: Further thoughts on restoration and
> reconstruction
>
> Gents,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts. My question was prompted by the article which
> suggested that W cars could be 'restored' with new equipment, wheelchair
> accessibility and so on. Such work could hardly be considered 'restoration'
> as it isn't returning a tram to a given, earlier state. My idea was that
> restoration and reconstruction both returned trams to the condition of a
> particular time period, they just differed in the amount of work done and
> amount of new material used.
>
> Kym, your point about modern materials is one that I should have considered
> earlier. It isn't possible to get paint made to the same specs as that used
> a century ago, nor would it make sense to do so. Operational requirements
> call for different materials today, and I can't imagine that any group
> operating trams now would be able to (or want to) replicate everything
> exactly as it was, especially when these things aren't able to be seen by
> those who operate and ride the cars. Some compromise is called for and is
> fair enough.
>
> I asked the questions because I don't have modern experience of tramway
> preservation and operation, and I'm interested in learning how it's done.
> Personally, I'd like to be well informed so I don't talk rubbish; I don't
> have the experience but I'd like to learn from those who do. I was also
> curious as to whether the questions were just about 'words', and whether it
> had an impact on tramway preservation today. It's easy for those not in the
> know to talk about things but I'm fascinated to know how it's actually done.
> So I thank you for your input.
>
> Long and the short of it - what is proposed by Mr McHarg isn't
> 'restoration', nor is it practical or viable.
>
> Cheers,
> Matt
>