Friends of the Rail Forum

Mark Robinson wrote:HERITAGE RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
OF SOUTHERN AFRICA
(a Section 21 company incorporated not for gain)
PO Box 3001
8000 Cape Town
REP. SOUTH AFRICA
Chairman:- Phone 021 5562626
Fax 021 5562626
Mobile 083 6714843
e-mail
crea@...
Secretary:- Phone 041 3675280
Fax 086 6858251
Mobile 082 9218512
e-mail
hrasa@...

HRASA NEWS RELEASE
26 May 2008
MILLSITE AND TRANSNET'S LETTER TO HRASA
10 days ago the following letter was received (per almost illegible
fax), with the formal hard copy received
nearly a week later.

Dear Mr Robinson
DISPOSAL OF TRANSNET HERITAGE STEAM RAIL ASSETS

We note with appreciation the Memorandum of Understanding between
HRASA and Transnet
Foundation on the preservation and disposal of the Transnet historic
steam rail assets. Transnet has
due regard for the historic significance of these assets and our
partnership is of value to the
custodianship of South Africa's steam rail history.

These assets, some of which are in a complete state of disrepair,
present a serious risk, health and
environmental issue, while presenting an image problem to Transnet.
This necessitates that we act as a
matter of urgency to effectively manage these assets.

To this effect an efficient disposal process has been put in place by
a Disposal Task Team comprising of
representatives from the respective Transnet Operating Divisions.

The historic steam rail assets at Millsite and Humewood have been
identified as a priority in this
disposal process and, with due cognisance of the MOU with HRASA, we
would like to ensure your
participation in the process. HRASA is requested to:

1. Obtain a list of the assets available at the abovementioned sites
from Mr Brian Murison from the
Transnet Foundation. The list distinguishes between A) such assets
that are of no heritage value
and B) such assets that have historic value

2. Select from list B those steam assets that HRASA wishes to take
ownership of and, noting that the
assets involved are for heritage preservation purposes only and may
not be disposed of (sold or
scrapped) in any way presently or at any future time, provide Transnet
Foundation with a written
expression of interest of the selected assets above.

3. Indicate, on the same written expression of interest, the reason
for the acquisition of the selected
assets by HRASA and how its members will be involved.

4. Provide such expression of interest to Transnet Foundation by no
later than midday, Friday, 30 May
2008.

5. Remove the above assets at no cost to Transnet, from the relevant
premises namely Millsite and
Humewood Station by midday, Friday, 27 June 2008.

6. Transnet will, subsequent to receipt of the HRASA expression of
interest, hand over ownership of
these assets to HRASA or its nominated beneficiaries. The intended
donation of these assets
selected by HRASA will be formalised through an Agreement between
HRASA and Transnet.

7. Assets identified as of historic significance but not selected by
HRASA will be included in a list of
assets to be disposed of by Transnet through its formal Tender
disposal process. Transnet will
specify, as part of its adjudication criteria that these assets are
for heritage preservation purposes
only.

8. In the event of HRASA not removing the selected assets by the above
date, Transnet will include all
such assets not removed in its Tender disposal process. Transnet will
specify, as part of its
adjudication criteria that these assets are for heritage preservation
purposes only.

9. HRASA will, in the near future, be advised on the disposal of the
remainder of its historic steam rail
assets. This process will again ensure that HRASA plays a significant role.
We reiterate our appreciation for your contribution to the
preservation of South Africa's steam rail
heritage. Transnet assures HRASA and the broader steam heritage
fraternity of its continued
commitment to the preservation of this part of our collective history.
Kind regards
Vuyo D Kahla – Group Executive: Office of the Group Chief Executive –
15 May 2008

As everyone is aware by now it turns out that the cutting-up of locos
(presumably those on list A per the
letter) had been put in hand at Millsite – even before we received the
above – a fact that only came to light
two weeks into the programme, and then thanks to HRASA Director Chris
Janisch, although it now turns out
that other enthusiasts were aware of this earlier.

HRASA, and in particular the writer, have been attacked from a number
of ill-informed people for not having
commented/reacted immediately. This may be true, but there are a
number of actions and initiatives that
have been happening over the past week that these attackers either
chose to ignore, or of which they are
ignorant – wilfully or otherwise. This is a time for cool heads and
not speculation or confrontational public
vitriol.

When faced with a situation such as that presented by the letter and
the parallel Transnet actions it is
essential to know the size of the problem and the real implications of
the facts:
I. we obviously need to see the lists referred to in paragraph 1;
II. we need to understand the potential implications of paragraph 9;
III. we need to establish what this letter and the scrap programme
means in terms of the long and slow
"transformation discussions" that have been taking place between HRASA
and Transnet
Foundation;
IV. we need to read, and reread paragraphs 7 and 8 VERY carefully;
V. we need to, once and for all, come to a conclusion as to just what
we, HRASA members and the
local Heritage Railway Industry, is capable of saving in terms of
available finances and resources,
over and above what the members are already caring for either by
ownership or via lend/lease
agreements.

Taking the above points, and expanding on them, and why we have spent
some time trying to get clarity
before going on record:

I. Mr. Murison is on leave and nowhere even close to his office and
thus unable to send us the lists as
referred to in paragraph 1. We have managed to make contact with him
and have been told that we
should approach the Acting CEO of Transnet Foundation, Susie Mabie,
for the lists. We did so, but
it took until yesterday for her to respond. Absence of these lists
obviously made an intelligent
discussion on them simply impossible. It also makes answering
paragraphs 1–3 of the Transnet
letter nigh impossible too.

II. The implications of paragraph 9, potentially the most important in
the letter, and vital in the
discussion we need to have before we attempt to answer the letter. If
this paragraph is taken to
mean that in, say a month's time, we are going to be presented with
the same proposition with
regard to Queenstown perhaps. Then in another month after that with
Jan Kempdorp, and so on,
then we need to have the wisdom of Job when deciding what we should –
collectively – take
responsibility for.

III. Late last week we had word from our Transnet Transformation
colleague, that as far as he is
concerned the Humewood Road/Millsite situation will not arise at other
centres where assets are
stored. He further explained that the Humewood Road/Millsite situation
has come about through the
direct intervention of the Transnet CEO and instructions issued from
that office to completely clear
these two sites immediately. We would note that, while Humewood Road
is very directly "in the
public eye" and clearing the site has been under discussion for some
time, the same could hardly be
said about Millsite. We should also note that, despite the assurances
given – and we have no doubt
that his views and intentions are completely aboveboard – he was left
powerless in the current
situation, in the face of instructions from the top. In addition, we
have to take into account that this
could happen again.

IV. The implications of paragraphs 7 and 8 need to be very carefully
weighed – go back and reread
them. We see this as Transnet effectively saying that, should HRASA
not take and remove the
items at no cost (other than the huge one of transport!), the items
will be sold into the same "market"
– and any buyer will then be faced with the same huge transport costs
and, we would guess, almost
certainly the same impossible timelines. Only a fool is going to buy
what HRASA can obtain for
nothing and which HRASA would then make available to interested
parties on a long-term loan,
lease or care agreement. Then, what happens to anything either not
taken on by HRASA or sold at
some later date? The letter clearly says that these items are not for
final disposal. Equally, what will
happen to items taken by HRASA and put in the care of its members
should such an item become,
for any reason, "unwanted"? The terms of the handing over of ownership
will clearly state that
disposal is not permitted.

V. We have been hugely encouraged by the input and clear thinking
coming from Steam In Action, in
the form of Shaun Ackerman and Dave Richardson, with regard to what it
is that we can, under
South African circumstances and available resources, actually and
realistically save. 25 more
locos? That's Shaun's assessment. 30 locos? That was Geoff Pethick's
call nearly three years ago!
So, should Transnet be doing what it is doing – absolutely not!
Should ANY heritage assets be disposed of – not without proper consultation.
Should we have had chance to give our input – absolutely! Indeed, such
input is written into the very
HRASA/Transnet Foundation MoU that is much quoted in the letter above!
Are our protests and anger going to change the situation – we very much doubt it
Should we protest – absolutely – and HRASA has done so already, to
both Transnet Foundation and the SA
Heritage Resource Agency, who have in turn written to Transnet in
outrage and protest.

In addition, what are the implications for future heritage assets –
what happens in due course to today's
modern assets when, in the fullness of time, they become heritage items?

Like it or not, we have been placed in a very difficult and serious
situation, one that requires clear and un-
emotional heads. We are faced with a corporation with no apparent
interest in its own heritage, other than to
palm off their legal and moral responsibilities onto HRASA, and we now
need to decide whether we can and
should take up that responsibility or try to fight to get Transnet to
fulfil its obligations.

There is also need to consider very carefully the extent to which we
become confrontational with Transnet. It
is fine for people who have no interest in, understanding of or in are
in any way affected by the delicate and
often fractious relationship that exists between those who need
Transnet and its good officers and that
company. The HRASA Operating Sub-committee should be able to attest to
that! It is an old truism that one
should always try to pick only the fights that you have some realistic
chance of winning.

Operating Access Agreements for the likes of Reefsteamers, Friends of
the Rail, Atlantic Rail, USR, Rovos
Rail, etc are totally reliant on maintaining good relationships with
Transnet. We are very pleased to know
that these operators understand that a full-on confrontation with
Transnet may well backfire on them, even if
that confrontation is once removed through HRASA.

We thank Shaun Ackerman (indeed the whole of Reefsteamers!), Bruce
Brinkman, Jamie Hart, Wolf
Mensing, Ian Pretorius, Dave Richardson/Steam In Action, Malcolm
Ridgard, Nerina Skuy, Daan van
Rensburg, Geoff Pethick, Les Smith and others for their input, support
and clear thinking in tense times for
us all.

We need to ignore the loud calls from a few people on the Internet
that we should be trying to save
everything – to do so is far outside the collective resources of
HRASA, its members and even the entire
world body of enthusiasts.

To this end, I appeal to all genuine enthusiasts as rail preservationists to:
Stop and think about the implications of trying to save all the still
200+ locos on the Transnet assets
register. Perhaps it is relevant that I have found, in the past weeks
medium- to long-term stage
facilities for all 200 should we want or be able to save them

Think realistically of how we should use the limited resources
available – should we put all our
efforts into saving and moving a large collection of rusting engines
from one dump to another dump,
finishing up able to pat ourselves on the collective back that we have
saved these locos so that
most of them can rust away in a different location

Think of what we do with this saved collection, when we will have
expended all our current
resources on moving them, leaving little or nothing to put towards
even cosmetic restoration

Keep in mind that we are not in the UK. We have, at best, 350/400 real
rail enthusiasts in SA, with
only a small percentage able and/or prepared to get their hands dirty.
We have almost no funds
available, with Sandstone Heritage Trust being the only really
financially strong member of the
proper preservation scene. The "club" operators constantly amaze me
with what they manage to
achieve and the money they manage to generate, but this does not put
them in the position to
splash out on hugely expensive total loco rebuilds, let alone the
moving of hulks

Also, keep in mind that, unlike the UK (often quotes in odious,
pointless and inaccurate
comparisons), we get no assistance from Government and in particular
no access to State Lottery
money. Sadly, we cannot but accept that, in the SA situation, for us
to even think of asking for funds
so urgently needed for educational, health and safety projects would
be unthinkable to even the
most strident preservationist

Work together to save a small, sustainable, but representative
collection of locomotives, keeping in
mind that we have not even touched on the subject of carriages, wagons
and so forth, in some ways
an even bigger problem since they do not attract the same interest as
the "glamour" (ask anyone
trying to preserve them why this is in inverted commas!) of steam

Keep in mind in thinking coolly and logically about the situation
today, that we need to allow for the
preservation of what is today's current stock as this ages and becomes
every bit as much a part of
our rail heritage as a 130-year old steam loco.
I
Mark Robinson

Mark Robinson wrote:Good day all

Dr Middleton presumably penned this before seeing our news release, but
we thank him and all other listees who have made positive contributions to the
ragging debate.

We have finally received the so-called A and B lists (they are not formatted
like that at all, nor are they in a form that we can simply post them on SAR
List), however we will post this later today along with some comment from the
HRASA Chair regarding the situation.

HRASA / Mark Robinson

Mark Robinson wrote:Dear Trevor et al

I had been surprised that you had allowed some of the very personal comments to
pass un-challenged (but, Richard Niven you have given me a serious headache - my
wife read that I was not short a few million thanks to the scrapping and wants
to know where the hell I've hidden it all), but this is now explained.

There was a reason why HRASA did not make a public statement earlier than it did
- we simply did not have enough of the hard facts, had not received the list of
items to be scrapped, nor had we managed to collect input from members until
that time, and therefore were not sufficiently informed to make statements.

I do understand that SAR List is made up of enthusiasts and some of them are not
members of HRASA-linked organisations (while those that are should direct their
inquiries or get their news via that source), but SAR List has no formal
standing, nor does it have any relationship with HRASA other than that some of
us in HRASA are on SAR List in our personal capacity - and to then be attacked
in that forum and accused of all sorts of wrong-doing hardly makes us feel like
staying as part of this chat room.

Having said that, and with at least some of those who made personal attacks on
myself having offered apologies and/or explanations for their vitriol, I for one
am not going to do what others have done before and had myself de-listed in a
huff but I do ask that listees remember that the provision of information from
and about the works of a registered company like HRASA is a privilege and not a
right. Like any company we are under no constraints to explain, publicise or
take into our confidences anyone other than our members and when we do explain,
publicise or take others (like SAR List) into our confidences this should be
seen in this light. Our work often suffers from information privilege restrains
from the other bodies we deal with, and we will not break those restraints no
matter how much we get vilified on the list or anywhere else.

I hope we can now move on and, as several listees have already said, work
together for the greater good.

Mark Robinson
HRASA (but in a personal capacity!)

While writing, please remember that AfricaRail is on at Sandton next week and I
/ we would love to see as many enthusiasts there as can make it. SARHC,
publishers of SA Rail magazine have (as media partner to the event) a stand
which HRASA shares. This year we have invited Steam In Action to join us to
present a united face for the heritage rail industry in the larger rail arena.

Also note that the latest SA Rail is out and available - along with additional
copies of the SA Rail calendar - from the stand.

Errol Ashwell wrote:An Open Letter to Mark Robinson and HRASA

Dear Mark

I have, for many years, tried to play my part in the fight to develop a
successful heritage and rail tourism industry in South Africa - and will
continue to do so. HRASA appears to be a pivotal element in determining
whether or not we succeed in this endeavour. Please accept this letter as a
genuine attempt to help the industry and to help improve HRASA's image and
effectiveness. It is not meant to be confrontational, but constructive.

I am a businessman, running the Africa business for one of the world's
largest IT companies. In a past life, I ran a corporate and business
communications company for a number of years. I believe that over the years
I have learned something about corporate communications. Please, this is
not a 'lecture', but I do suggest that it may be helpful for HRASA to ponder
the following observations.

1. Public Relations

The statement that ". remember that the provision of information from and
about the works of a registered company like HRASA is a privilege and not a
right. Like any company we are under no constraints to explain, publicise
or take into our confidences anyone other than our members ." unfortunately
does not reflect the reality of the corporate world. Whilst it is
technically true that a company is not obliged to communicate with people
other than its members/shareholders, real life dictates open communication
with many other people. There is also a very real expectation from those
very members/shareholders that a company communicates very well with its
publics. Such publics include:

- The members/shareholders themselves.
- Potential investors.
- Employees.
- Customers.
- Relevant government departments.
- Relevant authorities and agencies.
- Business partners.
- The press.
- Special interest groups.
- The public at large.

In fact, for most companies, a failure to maintain effective bi-directional
communication with its publics would be a disaster - and would be seen by
its members/shareholders as a failure of management to meet its obligations.
Hence the huge emphasis on Public Relations in most (successful) companies.
The unfortunate reality is that in any given crisis situation, "No Comment"
or dead silence will always be interpreted by most publics as "Guilty as
Charged".

HRASA is often accused of being a poor communicator. This does impact
negatively on its standing and effectiveness.

2. The Formal Standing of the sar-L List

Your statement that ". SAR List has no formal standing, nor does it have any
relationship with HRASA other than that some of us in HRASA are on SAR List
in our personal capacity ." although technically correct, is possibly not
the wisest standpoint for HRASA to adopt. Whilst this list may consist of a
number of 'armchair enthusiasts', it also represents a forum for a great
many of the active - or would-be active - heritage preservationists
interested in preserving South Africa's heritage and developing a thriving
rail tourism industry.

As this list is used by those and many others as both a mouthpiece and
source of information, I respectfully suggest that HRASA's members would
benefit far more if HRASA scrapped the "information from . HRASA is a
privilege and not a right" attitude. As recently demonstrated by the
Millsite debacle, a timeous statement from HRASA (even of the simple "We are
aware of the problem and are working on it" type) would have defused an
awful lot of tension and vitriol on this list.

3. Transnet's Expectations of HRASA

Unfortunately, whilst HRASA may wish to believe that it is obliged only to
communicate with its members, Transnet (a primary 'business partner' I
guess) and the Transnet Foundation (a member) have a very different
viewpoint:

During the recent Millsite crisis, I sent an email to Transnet and the
Transnet Foundation expressing concern and seeking clarification. As might
be expected, my email was bounced from Ms Ramos, to the Group Chief
Executive, and then to Ms Suzie Mabie - Acting Head of Transnet Foundation.

Ms Mabie's response was friendly and enlightening. I quote from her
response: ". we are committed, through an MOU, to engage with HRASA on
matters related to steam preservation. Through the MOU Transnet undertakes
to respect HRASA as the representative voice of the industry. Thus, in this
context, we are obliged to communicate on related matters through HRASA. ."

In other words, Transnet and the Transnet Foundation believe that, in terms
of the MOU with HRASA, HRASA is the only official communication vehicle with
the heritage public, and that HRASA is obliged to represent the entire
heritage industry- not just its members!

I am not sure whether or not the HRASA board has thought about this through,
but like it or not, HRASA's primary 'business partner' Transnet, expects
HRASA to be the communication conduit between it and the heritage community
at large. This therefore places an additional (even if unwanted)
responsibility on HRASA to pass information on to the interested publics and
to act as the representative for those publics to Transnet. This is an
awesome responsibility that seriously challenges the "we are under no
constraints to explain, publicise or take into our confidences anyone other
than our members" position.

Therefore, in conclusion, I urge HRASA to expand its communications horizon,
and to accept the heritage enthusiast/activist community as a relevant
public with which it needs to effectively and timeously communicate. I
respectfully suggest that improved communications with both its members and
other interested parties would ultimately benefit both the HRASA members and
the heritage/steam/rail tourism industry at large.

Kind Regards

Mark Robinson wrote:Good day listees

While up in Johannesburg for three days this past week to set up and man the SA
Rail / HRASA stand at AfricaRail at which, this year we invited SIA to join us
on (and where we were a little disappointed at the thin turn-out of enthusiasts
although it was nice to see the likes of Chris Janisch, Stewart Currie, Jean
Dulez, Greg King, Michael Whitehouse and others) the HRASA Sub-committee (Nerina
Skuy and the writer but without third member Bruce Brinkman) that deals with the
heritage side of things managed to get a short meeting early on Thursday morning
with the relevant Transnet people.

The up-shot of this 45 minute meeting was that HRASA has negotiated a short
extension of the 27 June date for final clearance of the two depots and those
actually physically tackling the project now have another 5 weeks, until close
of business on 31 July. The "bad" news - well, for those doing the moving! - is
that we have moved 4 more locos from the scrap to the save list.

The SIA crew will be out at Millsite this week-end to produce a definitive list
of what is in reality still on site and what is going to be moved. As is already
known the bulk of the collection will initially be moved - by rail and steam
hauled - to Reefsteamers huge depot at Germiston while a few items will go
directly to Sandstone (5 or 6 locos yet to be identified), Friends of the Rail
(3 or 4 locos yet to be identified and to be hauled by FotR to their new
Hercules depot) and Steamnet2000 (1 loco to be removed by them).

HRASA fully endorses the funds appeal and asks that those who have offered to
send money to us rather send to the SIA fund. As others have said, the
"ton-of-coal" concept is great but please don't let that be the only target - in
other words, ANY amount will be welcome. And HRASA will be making a donation
within the next few days as will the writer in his personal capacity.

I trust that the above helps keep you all encouraged and positive.

HRASA / Mark Robinson

On the sar-L on 13th June Mark Robinson wrote:Dear all

We are being bombarded with queries and comments from all over, many of which
are simply ill-informed or which ask questions to which we do not have answers,
though not for want of trying.

So, to keep everyone up to date, and to save us from multiple answers to
individuals;

Transnet have decreed that, in terms of both their own internal Good Governance
policies and the legal implications of their donation of nearly 50 heritage
items to HRASA there needs to be a formal Donation Agreement signed between the
two parties before any items are removed from their property. Unfortunately this
was only decided late last week and we, HRASA were then required to produce
finalised and consolidated lists of the assets to be accepted (by 09.06.2008)
and a formal ELI letter by Wednesday 11.06.2008. We met those deadlines and
fulfilled every requirement of the process required by Transnet (our formal ELI
letter being quoted by one of our Transnet contacts as "absolutely perfect").

Where we sit as I write this is that we are now waiting for a draft of the
proposed Donation Agreement that we are assured we will have by close of
business today. By Tuesday morning we will have any comments back with Transnet
- although, since they tell us that they have used the bulk of our ELI letter as
the basis for the formal agreement - we don't foresee problems from our side.
The document will then, hopefully within the day on Tuesday, get formal and
final approval from the Transnet Legal Department after which the writer will
need to fly to Johannesburg for a formal signing since they want the sitting
HRASA Chair to be HRASA signatory..

As soon as that has happened the SIA chaps who are chomping at the bit to get
going can have the necessary paperwork for Transnet site staff to release the
newly HRASA-owned assets for removal.

We are VERY aware that the delay - which has come entirely from Transnet's side,
not HRASA or SIA - is frustrating, but we all know what it is like to deal with
most large corporations in general and Transnet in particular.

So, please stop knocking HRASA - we are doing everything we can to push the
process along, mindful however of not getting too much up anyone's nose which
could backfire on us when it comes to seeking further favours or extensions.
Remember, it is easy to take digs at HRASA; do the same to Transnet might not
get such a measured response.

While writing, we would like to thank those few from HRASA and SIA who have sent
messages of encouragement and thanks (Shaun Ackerman your email today was a
welcome and encouraging message!), rather than of complaint or criticism with
remarkably little being said about our getting a 5 week extension to the
original deadline or the addition of several NG items to the lists. We do note,
however that the previous "attack mode" from some on SAR List has changed to
support and donations, and we thank the listees for that.

On a different matters while we have pen - or keyboard - in hand;
The Western Cape Government has put out a notice for the appointment of a
Transactional Advisor / Project manager to look at and report on a sustainable
future for the George - Knysna and George - Mossel Bay heritage This does not
necessarily mean the re-opening to Knysna but does mean that a professional
company is to be employed to look at all the aspects, problems and potential
inherent in the operations

In a similar but wider reaching - and possibly very relevant to some heritage
operations - Transnet have unexpectedly put out a notice for Expressions of
Interest in under-used or non-operational branch lines. This could be the start
of a process whereby the company will look to up-lift lines "where there has
been no interest shown"!

Lastly, our sympathies to SIA's Dave Richardson who lost his mother this week.

HRASA / Mark Robinson

Wilf Mole and Mike Myers wrote:Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 9:28 PM
Subject: RE: HUMEWOOD ROAD

Dear Mark,

Re: Humewood Road

When we were told that Sandstone was going to be permitted to clear the
remnants of the Narrow Gauge at Humewood Road we immediately put a plan in
place.

If you study the e-mails you will see that we were going to start Monday this
week. However, in anticipation of there being some delays in getting authority,
Mike asked us to be ready Tuesday morning next week. In order for that to
happen the trucks and cranes etc. have to leave the Eastern Free State early
Monday morning, which is a Public Holiday. A total of 5 vehicles are in this
particular convoy, together with a crane. Despite talking to Tim Fox and to
Brian during the week Mike and I have concluded that there are too many people
involved, we are not convinced that HRASA is committed to our involvement in
Narrow Gauge affairs (refer my e-mail to you), and finally we still have no idea
of what it is we are supposed to pick up.

The cost of mounting an operation like this 800 kms from the sea must be
obvious to anyone with a business background. We estimate that to do the job
involves 17 round trips, i.e. a total of 13,600 kms. This is of course apart
from the cost of labour, accommodation etc. while they are in PE, which we
estimate will be for 4-weeks. This is a charitable gesture to HRASA to assist
them. As you know we have drawn to your attention dozens of proposals which
have been consistently binned. Our first application to rescue the locomotives
in PE was made more than 5-years ago.

Under the circumstances we have been forced to make a business decision and
that is that HRASA is not serious about assigning this project to us, and the
lack of courtesy in not picking up the phone to at least tell us what is
happening is frankly unforgivable. We will continue to support SIA and we will
continue to assist Reefsteamers at Millsite if they are ever allowed to rescue
the locomotives. We suggest that Bruce Brinkman and Nerina Skuy who are in PE
make arrangements to preserve the Narrow Gauge assets. I tried repeatedly to
ring Bruce but he refuses to return my calls.

Finally, in order to remind HRASA of our track record we attach our latest
inventory of railway assets. We never set out to build a collection of this
magnitude - it came about entirely because the South African preservation
community failed to come to the rescue of Port Shepstone, Humewood Road and
other locations. HRASA has frustrated our every movement and it is time to call
a halt to the farcical situation which now prevails.

Ironically it cost us less to buy an NG15 from Switzerland than it will be to
invest in this ill defined venture. Perhaps you should reflect on this when you
take our contribution to South Africa's Narrow Gauge heritage for granted.

Regards,

Wilfred E. Mole / Mike Myers

Mark Robinson wrote:Dear Wilf

We have no intention or interest in getting into a another mud-slinging match -
suffice to say that several people from both HRASA and TFHP have worked
tirelessly to get Sandstone the maximum out of the Humewood Road situation, not
just in the past couple of weeks but over some six months or more.

That Sandstone chose to put a plan in place without consulting HRASA or
Transnet, and apparently without due consideration of what the rest of the world
knew in terms of progress and requirements that both HRASA and Transnet need to
fulfil has to be placed back at Sandstone's door.

With regard to your assertion regarding my not being courteous enough to phone
you, that is laughable since I have been speaking either in person or by phone
to either Dave Richardson or Mike Myers at least once nearly every day for the
past three weeks.

Trying to make this HRASA or TFHP's problem or fault simply doesn't wash.

Regards
Mark

Marcus Ingram wrote:Mark

Should you of posted this in open to the group and included Wilfs letter?

Not only that you have included everyone's e mail address when using BCC
not CC. Which would of meant that their addresses would of been keep
private. It seems you might not only need to apologise to Wilf and all whose
addresses are in the public domain.

As you have put both letters in the public domain a comment from afar would
be. That you do not seem to of addressed any of the things that Sandstone
have pointed out to you in their letter. Neither have you addressed any way
forward. Which would add to their arguments again!

Lastly I will quote your own words

"We have no intention or interest in getting into a another mud-slinging
match"

Martin Coombs wrote:Not only made addresses public, but sent the correspondence direct to Transnet as well!

Talk about washing dirty linen in public!!

I stayed out of this argument previously, but I think I have seen enough to know where my sympathies now lie. I sincerely hope this hasn't ruined the chances of rescuing everything from Millsite and Humewood Road, but once everything has been settled maybe the
members of HRASA should consider appointing a new committee.

Glen Landsberg wrote:To Mark Robinson

This is an open email to you expressing my total dismay at your actions in
putting out this communication between yourself and Wilf Mole and airing it
in a public forum like this. I am also extremely concerned about the fact
that this email has also been sent out to everyone and his wife at Spoornet
and anyone else that seems to have an email address.

I believe that your actions have just put the entire HRASA organization into
disrepute and possibly put the current exercise to save the rail heritage of
SA at risk.I also think that as a result your credibility is also
questionable. These are very strong accusations that I am making but I was
horrified when I saw your email and as such feel that they are justified.

I believe that in the interests of saving something out of this debacle you
should resign - maybe Dave Richardson and the SIA organization can possibly
pick up the pieces and try and put the show back on the road.

From a very upset....

Glen

Michael Howard wrote:Dear Wilf

Those of us who have been fortunate enough to visit Sandstone understand
that you have done more than any other individual to safeguard South
Africa's steam railway heritage.

Let us just hope that you are able to clear the stock from Humewood Road -
you don't just play politics and pontificate - you deliver. More power to
your elbow. Don't get sidetracked by those who talk so much and do so
little.

Regards

Les Pivnic wrote:To Mark Robinson

At a super critical time with the Millsite and Humewood relocations you
have chosen by your unbelievable action to drag HRASA into total
disrepute. I also stand by what Glen Landsberg and others have said to
you. I only hope that Wilf, Dave and Mike of the SIA can pick up the
pieces of this mess.


There is only one course for you to take - you need to resign with
immediate effect.