Manx Northern Railway Cleminson Coaches

When the purchase of the first of the engines was discussed, the question of a base price naturally came up. Calbourne was suggested as the nearest available comparative figure, but there were also the Barry wrecks which were usually much bigger engines. In some cases the price per ton figures were lower, but the results that we could obtain fluctuated so wildly that they were disregarded.

Scrap metal prices in the IOM have traditionally been significantly lower than on the mainland. First of all if you go back to BR days, BR could shop around and if merchant A offered a better price than merchant B, but was fifty miles away, the engines could be moved there quite cheaply on their own wheels, and many scrap yards in those days were rail connected. That does not apply with the IOM. In 1974 a lot of stock was broken up in Ballasalla station yard, and it looked like what it was, a scrap yard for weeks if not months.

Price is dependent on what the goods will fetch. There was very little competition in the Island at that time over scrap metal so it was a buyer’s market and that applied to copper as well as to iron and steel. When I was attempting to work out the probable worth of the chassis of Tynwald earlier this year, I phoned around UK scrap yards and on the Island and the on Island prices were still below the UK price.

In 1975, the IOM government came up with one of its more bizarre ideas, that the rarity and therefore the appeal of the railway would be enhanced if the all locos other than a core operating fleet and the three engines at the Port Erin Museum were broken up for scrap. This would have seen the demise of 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 14 and no doubt the chassis of 2 and 7.

My father and I were invited to lunch with the IMR Board at Port Erin to celebrate the opening of the Railway Museum and Cdr D B Vaughan, who was one of the directors and was the most pro-railway member on the board, explained that the government was pressing the company to do this. What did we think?

It was a horrible bombshell as we faced the possible imminent destruction of six locomotives. In 1974 I had urged the IOMSRSA to preserve freight stock that was sent for scrap at Ballasalla, and we had preserved our Cleminson the following year. I had suggested the IOMSRSA with their much greater membership might be able to preserve at least one coach and perhaps two or three. They did nothing.

My father put forward a superb argument as to why the locomotives should not be broken up, and to reinforce that, I said that as treasurer I knew our Society did NOT have sufficient resources to buy an engine. I had spent three years at university and then three years training as an accountant on a pittance salary, so I did not have much money, but I asked Cdr Vaughan if the Board had checked up the scrap value. He said the company had been offered £400 per locomotive.

I suppose it is possible he had made the figure up, but I found Cdr Vaughan to be an honourable and capable man. I think he was probably telling me the truth. I decided on the spur of the moment that I could just about afford a couple of engines, and my father said he would buy a pair.

To me, £800 was an awful lot of money in 1974 and it would have reduced my bank account to under £100. I remember the figures very well because I knew roughly what I had in the bank. If I could have afforded three engines I would have offered to buy three engines, but I needed to make an offer there and then, not in X months time, and in fairness to the stockholders I had to match the scrap price if the company decided to sell. By contrast the price paid by Millen Metals for 30 route miles of track, three large iron viaducts, thirty carriages etc was £100,000 so I was offering not far off 1% of what had been paid as the scrap value of two complete railway lines.

I offered £800 for the two engines, knowing that if the company wanted more, it could only be after my next salary cheque. There was no way I could afford more than two engines. The IMRCo Board agreed to consider the situation and if they decided they had to sell, Cdr Vaughan said my father and I would be allowed to buy ahead of the scrap man. Thankfully the board took my fathers advice that the plan was lunatic.

There is no photographic evidence of the meal, as I seldom photograph plates of food, but on page 87 of my book “A Century of Manx Transport in Colour”, there is a photo of some of those who attended the meal taken during a tour of the museum.

When we were discussing purchase four years later, we had the pro rata Calbourne calculation, which would be £337 on a tonnage basis, but that excluded inflation. We had a much more recent and more local IMRCo statement of a £400 on Island scrap value from 1975. We had the index-linked figures I had referred to and the department felt they were entirely reasonable.

Well into the 1980s I photographed old buses that had been sold off to farmers from the 1950s to the 1970s as henhouses. They had steel chassis etc, but the scrap value was derisory on the island. That has now changed and the introduction of Ro-Ro at the end of the 1970s probably played a part. On all the data that was available to us and to IOM Railways, the price was regarded as a fair estimate of the on-island value, and perhaps a slight over estimate.

As to solebars being more important than makers plates, they are but as I have already explained it makes more sense to buy all the material that is needed for the chassis in one go and that should be done after a thorough survey. I know a good deal about the coach but I want a professional opinion. Until we were certain that the lunatic fringe who prefer things to rot on the island would not prevail and the coach would rot in Manx rain, there was no sense in asking an engineer experienced in coach restoration for his advice. It is just ten days since it reached Southwold.

We shall work on the coach in conjunction with our colleagues in the Southwold Railway Trust. A 13-page consultation paper was prepared and has gone to SRT. It took several days to draft it.

Some of the critics may expect me to restore the coach in an hour, but I do not expect SRT to digest the report in an hour. I said in another post that when one of my co-directors on the IOMR&TPS board put forward different ideas to a paper I had prepared, I was delighted as I though his idea was better than mine. I look forward to receiving the SRT observations on our consultation paper and to an engineering conference when we can prepare a detailed report.

We have had 14 years getting nowhere with the DTL/DCCL over the coach. We have not yet had 14 days under a new and more promising environment. If I could sign a contract ordering the materials we need for the chassis this evening, I would do so, but I need to know precisely what we need.

 

When damaging and unjust allegations are made about the society I need to consider whether to give them priority or to answer other questions. It almost seems pointless to correct gross errors as new ones are thrown at us instantly. For example you open with
“Whether the assets are owned by Hendry or a company he might hold a substantial interest in or control and be a director of is purely semantics. I am sure he is aware of that.”

In a company with a share capital one individual can own 99 shares and has 99 votes and another individual can own 1 share and have one vote. The IOMR&TPS is a Guarantee Company. There is NO share capital. I do not own one share in the company. Every member has ONE vote. If a company in which I held a majority shareholding owned the rolling stock, it is a legal technicality as to whether I own it or my company owns it. That is not the case so the comment is unfair and incorrect.

For three years we faced a situation where the Director of the DCCL said our equipment is nine liabilities and threatened outdoor dumping. That so many members have stayed on in such depressing circumstances is a tribute to their loyalty and belief that we would come through. To say to the public, “Join us, our stock may be dumped on the lineside for vandals to trash and the DCCL may charge several times the real cost of removing asbestos from two engines bankrupting us” is not much sense.

Would anyone see that as a good prospectus? I could paint a false picture, but when we have had enquiries I have answered truthfully that we face major problems, but that the board would do all they could to deal with them. Ten days ago we got the two vehicles to safety. Preparing a consultation paper for our colleagues on Southwold Railway Trust seemed more urgent that developing a new high profile. Getting a detailed engineering report seems to me to be the next phase. When we have that, we can say we are doing A, B, C and D.

As I have said the democratic structure of the company means it would be easy for asset strippers to move in and gain control. As an accountant, I know the sort of devices that can be used to milk a company of assets and dump the remains. That would not be fair to our long-standing members who raised the money so we could achieve so much. When the board received information of a potential threat we had to act. The structure is in place but some of the paperwork is not.

You say, “about Lion “She was sold to Mersey Docks and Harbour Board in 1859 for £400 and they used her as a stationary pumping engine at Prince's Dock”. If we are looking at the cost of locos and time value of money I wonder how that would fit in to Mr Hendry’s equation. Probably at the expensive end if you also consider what the TR paid for its Corris engines. Maybe we should also through in the FR’s Lynda which I think cost £1,500 in the early 1960s”

What about Tornado? Shall we throw in the cost of building her? I do not think an event of 1859 is any more helpful than Tornado. I think the TR paid £25 each for its two Corris engines, but can anyone other than a handful or people who want to nitpick find any value from this?

I just want to get on with restoring a coach. We have been messed about by the DTL/DCCL for 14 years and every proposal we advanced got nowhere, and what may I ask did our so vociferous critics do then. Did they ever say to the DTL/DCCL “You have a sensible proposal go with it?” No they did not. DID they protest about dumping for it to rot? If so their protest escaped my attention.

I do not ask you to give us 14 years as we wasted with the DTL/DCCL. Give us a year and ask what has happened. Is that too much to ask? Yes I suppose it is.

 

Hi
Originally Posted by guard_jamie
How do I become an associate member of your society.

Ever since I went on line the society has used my email address but if we are developing a web presence then I think we need a society email address etc. I have been trying to open a new e-mail address, but I have not quite got there yet. It is probably very easy to do, but not if you are in the quill pen era. I managed to send a message to myself, but do not get any inbound messages to the new society email address so there is not much point in giving you the details. When I have sorted that out, hopefully we will be part way towards having a web presence.

as it is now 1.00am I am going to give up for the moment.
Robert

 

There is a possibility that I may have managed to send you a PM. If so you can contact me. If I haven't, then if you PM me, there is a better chance that I can work out how to reply. I have to admit to being new to forums, so it is luck rather than anything else as to what happens.

RObert

 

Hello Robert,

I did indeed receive your private message. I would advise, however, that you create a working Society Email as soon as possible and publicise it, as I think that the neutral enthusiast element on here is finding your recalcitrance in coming forward with such information suspicious.

 

Robert,
I see that you have avoided answering my question - you accused me of making false allegations - I asked you to be specific and instead all we get is another smokescreen of, largely irrelevant, "twaddle".
In my last paragraph I used the word "structure" not "solebars"- not the same.
Re- joining the IOMR&TPS you are obviously struggling with the complexities of a P.M. so why not post the details here? Or is it really a "closed shop" - prove me wrong by posting the details here.Ray.

 

I provided the background to the pricing discussions that had gone on and how the figures were arrived at. In the opinion of the Department the price was fair. I have no reason to suppose that the IOM Government auditors regarded it as unfair. I have not audited an IOM government agency, but I have headed audit teams on a variety of clients. We would, as a routine, examine some transactions every year as sales at artificially low or high prices can be used to conceal irregularities. As an auditor, I was taught to pay particular attention to unusual entries, and sale of a locomotive would, in my professional opinion, fall in that category, as it is not a regular transaction. Had I been a government auditor, I would have wanted details on how the price was arrived at.

I have no reason to believe that the IOM Government auditors approached their task with any less professionalism that I did when I was working in that field. Had they or I been negligent, it could have resulted in an appearance before the disciplinary committee of our professional bodies. For obvious reasons I cannot say if they investigated any of the loco sales, but I would be surprised if at least one had not been vetted.

When we were under duress from the DCCL I had to consider if I could as a director of the IMR&TPS legitimately recommend the disposal of three locomotives on which £40,000 had been expended for £1. There is something very ‘fishy’ over that. There is a precedent. In the 1940s the assets of many British owned railways in S America were confiscated by corrupt dictatorships. The companies had the choice of a totally unfair agreement and some money, or no agreement and no money. The boards were justified in agreeing to outrageous terms because they were under duress. I reported to my colleagues on the IMR&TPS Board that as the IOM Government was placing us under similar duress that an agreement for which we would have been personally liable in normal circumstances was a perfectly valid transaction. Members had to be informed of the circumstances, that the sale was under duress.

When the IMR&TPS sold its three engines for £1, it was not a willing sale but under duress. No such condition applied when IOM Railways sold the engines to the Society. Had the transaction not been at a reasonable value, the government auditors should have drawn the matter to the attention of the relevant Board of Tynwald. If the Manx Electric Railway Board, as it technically was, had declined to take action, the auditors would have had every right to lay the matter before Tynwald as the Board was then complicit in a disregard of a duty of fiduciary care. Had they not takes such steps, the auditors would have been guilty of professional misconduct.

However little you may like it, this is the legal framework that surrounded those sales. If you wish to allege an unfair price, you must first accuse Bill Jackson of incompetence or worse. Because Bill has been unjustly vilified for decades I am sure that will present no problems to you. You then must accuse the MER Board of complicity as the agreement was signed at Board level. Two Board members had run their own businesses so would be used to dealing with auditors at director or proprietorial level.

One board member was a member of the Manx Bar. On the mainland, solicitors are subject to a twice yearly audit (I carried out many such audits). I do not know if the same high standards apply to members of the Manx bar but I would be surprised if they do not. I would assume that at least three members of the Board were familiar with an audit. They would have had to be negligent and indifferent to the risk of the auditors challenging their deeds, not once but on three separate occasions.

Lady Bracknell said. “To lose one parent, Mr Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune. To lose both looks like carelessness.” For the MER Board to lose not two but three engines at below their proper value looks like gross carelessness on three occasions by the Chief Executive, the Board, and by the Board’s auditors.

Could they all have been unaware of this. No! The MER Board was aware of the bad relations that existed between the IOMSRSA and the MER Board at that time. Bill Jackson spoke to us on that very topic and was concerned that if the least opportunity was given to the IOMSRSA to challenge the transaction they would do so. J J Christian, the chairman of the board independently said they same to me in Ramsey, and also in Bill Jackson’s presence. It was our unanimous opinion that if we did anything that was improper, the IOMSRSA would use it to try to undermine the Board. The sustained and personal nature of the attacks on Bill Jackson meant we were all acutely aware of this. One way that the board could have been seriously embarrassed was if the IOMSRSA could have demonstrated that the board had been negligent.

Because this is long and detailed, I did not go into all this additional detail in my “twaddle” answer as I felt what I had said was more than enough for any reasonable person. It was the unanimous opinion of Bill Jackson, the MER Board and the Society Committee, which was about 14 people that we could not afford to run any risk. The price had to be in line with what was reasonable. The people concerned included at least four businessmen used to audit procedures, a clegyman, a CEO, a member of the Manx Bar, a very senior engineer used to commissioning power stations and myself as a chartered accountant. I have no doubt that you will claim we were all wrong, or fools or knaves. You can do so, but I do not have to agree. The odds of us all making the same error three times and the auditors overlooking it are incalculable.

The biggest structural problems with the coach relate to the chassis components, and in particular one solebar. You can make a wild allegation in a single sentence and you need no evidence to support it. No matter how much evidence I offer, you dismiss it as twaddle. I discussed the solebar in depth in my reply as that was the biggest structural issue, so I felt was the most useful to go into. There are other problems. A common area of weakness in timber coaches is where the roofsticks join the sides. In the old days the IMR solved this by splicing, and many of the roofsticks are spliced, but the last time this would have been done was before 1939. Many of these splices are rotten. Some splices have been made up with filler, which has no serious strength. Some roofsticks will have to be replaced. Some can perhaps be spliced, but a splice, if it is to be sound calls for skilled joinery, so a replacement may be more cost effective. It would be nice if I could say that 25% of the roof sticks are sound, 40% require replacement, and the balance require replacement or splicing. I cannot just yet.

With modern Health & Safety requirements, access to the coach has been difficult for us for years and a survey that was carried our about seven years ago by Colin Goldsmith and myself seems to have vanished after Colin's sad death. That is why we need a thorough survey now. It would make sense to seek the expert advice of someone well versed in wooden bodies coaching stock repairs and we are taking steps along that line. As I was working on this answer I received the name of someone who would meet that description as a result of this thread. I shall pass that on to my colleagues on the INR&TPS and at SRT. Whom we appoint is not for me to say alone. It will be a joint decision.

Unlike your entirely negative comments, which have contributed nothing at all to conserving the coach, I received a PM from a gentleman with an offer of help over sourcing teak. This was what I hoped would be the result of the forum and I spent time replying to that, as I felt it was more useful than trying to answer those whose minds are locked in sterile animosities of the past. I have no particular desire to rake all this up, but if you make allegations I will respond with the facts and if that is embarrassing, it not my fault or wish.

Frankly, I resent having to dig back into the inflation indices of 1968-1978 as it takes me away from trying to deal with the coach, but I imagine that must please you.


As to posting the details, I am happy to admit that I do struggle with computer and internet technology. One member of the society strongly advised me NOT to post my personal email address on a forum such as this and when I asked why not, he said there a was a hard core of malicious and unpleasant people out there. If I posted an email address it needed to be a dedicated one, and if it was flooded with malicious emails, it could be closed down. I thought that was a bit extreme, but from the attitude of two or three people on the forum, I see how right he was. There are also many nice people who seemingly wish us well.

As soon as I can sort out a website and an email address I shall do so, and then details of Associate Status will be available on line. We will be happy to accept people as Associates. I am not sure if it is in order to post details of fund raising plans on the forum so I need to contact the administrator, to see if that is in order. No doubt saying something without all the details is more twaddle.

Robert Hendry

 

Robert,
As,unfortunately,you have chosen not to give a clear and concise answer to my simple question I can only guess,from your long-winded reply,that my allegation was that you/IOMR&TPS obtained the locos at some sort of bargain price. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you care to re-read my post you will see that I was disputing what I understood to be your complaint that you had been overcharged by the IOM gov. The figures I gave were to support my belief that you were,in fact,charged a FAIR price.
As for taking you "away from trying to deal with the coach" - it doesn't please me in the least but why the sudden rush? You haven't been in any rush to restore the coach over the past 34 years whilst it was stored,free,at the Manx Taxpayers' expense.
Still no membership application details I see. Ray

 

As to the price paid for 5/8/9, I was pointing out that we did not underpay the government. If anything, given Manx scrap prices, we might have overpaid, but as I had suggested increasing the price, I have not complained about the price we paid for the engines. Bill Jackson felt it was fair, the MER Board did so, the government auditors did not object, the Society felt it was fair. I am glad you finally accept that we did not get the engines at below their true worth. At least we seem to have dealt with that nonsense now.

Over the coach, I suppose we have to start all over again to get the facts right although they have already appeared on the forum. The coach was acquired in 1975, so that is 37 years. In 1975-76 it was restored for external display in the PORT ERIN MUSEUM, where it was on display FREE at the benefit of the Island until 1998. As a result of the botched re-build of the museum, a vehicle to a design that is SO RARE than the NRM does not have one on display, was dumped in a shed. If you have something rare you shout about it not hide it away, so it was a dumb decision.

Was it my decision? No. Was it the Society decision? No. It was the DTL. On every possible occasion since then and up to April 2012, we advocated displaying it in the MUSEUM once more. If you are complaining about 14 years of storage not 34, please point the finger where in belongs – the DTL/DCCL. If we had a deciding voice in running the museum this nonsense would never have happened. We would have been sensible and had it on show to the benefit of the Taxpayer.

So once again you get your facts WRONG. 22 Years FREE Display at the Manx Taxpayers benefit, thanks to our society and 14 years storage at the Manx Taxpayers cost thanks to the stupidity of the DTL/DCCL. How about slapping the DTL/DCCL wrist? Put the blame where it should go.

“You haven't been in any rush to restore the coach over the past 34 years” –

We bought the coach in 1975 and by 1976 external restoration had been completed to a level comparable to F75. The interior had not been restored. I have already explained in the forum that a lot of stock was under threat in the 1970s-1980s. I begged the IOMSRSA to preserve freight stock in 1974 and coaching stock in 1975. They did nothing so we did what we could, which was a crane and a coach. In 1975-76 most of our income went on restoring the coach for static display and for the next few years it was a frantic race to preserve items that were under threat, and as fast as money came we were spending it.

As I said before, we could have let MER 23 go or MER 26 or the Queens Pier Tram, or ALL three of them and that money would have gone part way towards restoring the coach, We could have left Fenella’s boiler alone, and then you would not have seen SUTHERLAND run or FENELLA run. By doing that we could have restored the coach. I believe that the survival of MER 23, MER 26, the QPT and the appearance of Sutherland and Fenella have been good for the Island.

So make your mind up. All of them or the coach? I believe it WAS the right decision. By the late 1990s we had covered the costs on the new boiler but there was only a 3 year agreement on No 1, and we had no idea what would happen thereafter. We got a five year agreement on No 8 but David Howard recognised that was not sufficient for longterm planning. We both hoped we could get a 10 year plan in place which would give us the security that we could plan other projects and because I trusted David we agreed to look at the Cleminson as next in line.

Colin Goldsmith and I spent several hours in the pit under the coach testing the frame and we obtained a quote from one of the few places on the Island that could do the work. With the murderous infighting that has traditionally gone on in the DTL. David phoned me up one day to say he had had enough, and had just resigned. I begged him to stay on, but he said it was too late. There were more pleasant ways to spend his time.

Mike Ball who took over did not know much about railways but was wise enough to know that and invited his senior officers in for discussions. His first priority was No 8 and an agreement was signed on 1 April 2009 for 10 years. Sadly Mike was kicked aside and the agreement was torn up.

From 1975 to 1995 We were committed to the limit on projects that we assessed as more urgent, and when you look at them I think they were. A Tynwald Select Committee offered to mediate between the Society and the DTL over the boiler. We accepted. The DTL said no. Can you seriously embark on a major project when your prospective ‘partner’ will not even heed the wishes of a Select Committee of Tynwald? That takes us from 1995 to 1998. From 1998 to 2008 we never had more than a five year security, but we commenced a serious examination of the Cleminson coach. The DTL stabbed David in the back. Mike Ball did his best but was kicked aside and then it got a lot worse.

In 2009 the new Director of Transport called the coach one of nine liabilities, so things were even more fraught culminating with his dumping threats. The coach reached a safe haven of 15 October 2012 at Southwold. I have wanted to restore it ever since we bought it, but for half that period other projects were more urgent and then we had the DTL/DCCL Albatross hung round our necks.

Despite having to answer your entirely negative posts, we have made useful contacts over sources of teak, over moquette when we get to restore the interior, and over enamel plates. We have made more progress in the past eleven days than we have over the past twelve years. Am I satisfied? No I am not, but I have to be realistic. We need a detailed survey. That takes time, as we need to get the right people to advise us. We are already looking.

As to a website and how people can become Associates, I have already explained that I am working on that. Rightly or wrongly, I devoted most of my time today to working on possible sources of timber, moquette etc. I have been pleasantly surprised by the number of helpful PMs we have had, and they take priority over those whose only intention is to try to denigrate the project. A friend who has been kind enough to guide me through what is to me the jungle of the internet is away on holiday. When he returns I am sure he will sort out what I am doing wrong.

Robert

 

I am not intending to become a member of Mr. Hendry's organisation but am utterly mystified as to why requests for details as to how to join are met with screeds of "stuff" and absolutely nothing as to a contact address, subscription rates etc. Not very difficult to deal with in one paragraph I would have though.

PH

 

Here we go again.....
Robert, As a long time member of the legal profession the concept of brevity is obviously one that is alien to you but I am sure that Nat Pres members, not least the moderators, would appreciate a brief concise posting. Most of us have busy lives and having to trawl through something akin to War&Peace to find the point of the post - if indeed there is one is frustrating and can lead to "misunderstandings".
Again you manipulate the truth by saying "I am glad you finally accept that we did not get the engines at below their true worth" - I said that right at the start when you complained you had paid over the odds for them - GO BACK AND READ IT!
Surely this re-inforces my point about long rambling posts.
I have never disputed that the best place for the Cleminson was,and should still be,in Port Erin Museum but even then it was still free storage - who do you think subsidizes the museum ?
This thread has become ridiculous and I have got better things to do (like running a railway) but I believe that it has opened people's eyes to the true nature of your little society - and probably cured a few member's insomnia! 'Nuff said.Ray.

 

OK Lets Start Again, A great many people who are far more experienced in the Internet than I am say categorically that it is unwise to post your main email address on the net for the whole world to see as there are vast numbers of hackers, would-be e-criminals, and plain malicious people out there. A key factors of forums is that even with a private message your email address is NOT compromised, and someone can block malicious individuals or withdraw from the forum and protect themselves.

In addition to being able to protect your email address, another common feature of the forums is you can also use an alias. I have gone on the forum under my own name and have not become ‘Bugs Bunny 27’ or some fanciful title to hide my personal identity. I do not agree with one of our main critics, Mr Thomson, but I respect him enormously for putting forward his views under his own name. Our views may differ, but I would happily meet Allan any time.

I accept the right of others NOT to use their names, for that is essential if people are to feel free to write to forums, but people are asking me to go far beyond what they are doing. Forum members who can keep their email address confidential and their name, postal address and e-mail address hidden are demanding that I publish ALL of those details.

If you have a public role, and as the chairman of a society I do, you have to accept a degree of exposure that someone else can avoid, but it is how far you go. The more you promote e-mail contact details, the more you are open to attack, and that is under normal circumstances when you are not at risk from a lunatic fringe who would have preferred to see the coach rot in Manx rain to be restored to run on an adjacent isle.

I willingly admit not to being 100% confident in how I handle the Internet and I feel embarrassed that I have not been able to set up a simple second email address that can be a throwaway if attacked. If you say I am not very good with the Internet, I willingly plead guilty. I know that. On the other hand if you confront me with a sixty year old Bassett Lowke mechanism, I can confidently strip it down and rebuild it, and many of the engines on my late father's model railway are older than that, and I have been maintaining them in heavy front line service for almost fifty years.

If there is something you are not an expert in, it is a good idea to seek advice. That was. "You do not publish your main email address". I am quite happy to give a postal address, but in this day and age, it is a lot more convenient for everyone if there is an email contact point. You could email me and if I was at the computer, the details could be with you in five minutes.

If you care to send an A5 SAE to R P Hendry, Chairman IOMR&TPS, 2 Moultrie Road, RUGBY, Warks, CV21 3BD, I will be happy to send you a short prospectus on the Society and An Application form to join as an ASSOCIATE of the IOMR&TPS Ltd. The current rate to become an Associate is £9.95. You can fill in the application form and send it to the Membership officer and it will be laid before the board.

On the other hand if you care to wait until I can get a "throwaway" email address working and a website, you can have a lot more detail for the click of a button and download a PDF Application form. I did try to see if I could attach a downloadable PDF to this message. I can add a photo but seemingly not a PDF. All I have been doing is to ask for a little time while I try to cope with something that I admit to not being very good at. I think that would be easier and cheaper for everyone, so that is what I was asking for. You are most welcome to use the postal method but it will cost you two stamps, one for the letter and one for the SAE.

I was trying to save you that and make more information available. I will still do that but a friend who has a far better understanding of the Net than I do is away on holiday. When he returns, he will probably shake his head in despair at the mess I have made of setting up another email account, click the mouse twice and it will work. I wanted to make it as easy as possible for everyone in the Internet age.

As people use Internet names to protect their real names and Internet addresses on Forums, I assumed this would all be obvious to everyone. It seemed patronising to say what was basic common sense, as if I assumed other people lacked the intelligence to realise that.

I apologise if this has caused intense annoyance to some individuals.

Robert Hendry

 

I apologise. In my ignorance I had assumed that if someone made something available to a public museum for FREE, they were acting in the public good. If I saw a notice to that effect in a museum I thought “that’s nice of them” and felt grateful that they shared it with me for free. I realise that I should have thought “Bad person using me in this way”.

When I see a notice in a museum, “On Load from X”, I shall attempt to feel contempt for such people in the future. If they loan something precious to a museum FOR FREE they are not public benefactors but a public nuisance. Clearly I was wrong to beg the DTL/DCCL to return the coach to display in the Port Erin Museum repeatedly. By removing the coach from the Island I have atoned in some small way for exploiting the Island for 22 years of public display in a museum at no charge to the taxpayer.
Robert Hendry

 

Robert,
Your apology is accepted but again you misunderstand my point. Whilst the coach was in the museum it was to everyone's benefit and I fully realize that the decision to remove it was not yours. As it happens I believe the museum is the worse for this decision but the museum as a whole is undeniably still subsidized by the tax payer whether the Cleminson is there or not. You have not said why the DCCL refused to allow the coach back in but I would be genuinely interested to know their reason(s) but briefly - please.
I think we have both made our points and will have to agree to differ on some of them as I don't think the general membership is particularly interested.
BTW if you wish to P.M. me I am happy to supply you with my surname, address and e-mail. I don't feel it necessary to post those details here but I'm not the one representing a society which is asking for help. Ray.

 

What a long winded way of saying "2 Moultrie Road Rugby Warks CV 21 3BD"!

One is almost tempted to apply for membership given that applications will be "laid before the board". Is there some form of secret initiation ceremony involved? However I am not tempted.

PH

 

Ray,

I can be very brief. I do not have a clue why the DTL/DCCL consistently rejected every suggestion we made that would have been to the benefit of the Island. When removed in 1998 it was assuredly in display condition. At no time did we suggest any rental for it as our wish was to see it on show. When I examined the coach in August 2012, the paintwork was dirty and it had suffered four broken/cracked windows whilst in the safekeeping of the DCCL. These matters could have been dealt with had there been a will to do so.

Robert

 

Your comments are noted. As you are not tempted, it is unnecessary to answer what is and always was an academic question. I trust that is brief enough.

 

From Robert Hendry

Fund raising for restoring the Cleminson coach is going to be important. We have set aside £25,000 from our cash reserves to be going on with, and as soon as we have a detailed engineering report, we can put together a properly costed restoration plan. With a proper plan rather than a “Lets Replace that bit of wood there” approach we can make a sound case for Lottery Heritage Funding.

In the past I have never done anything like this, as we were in the same position that a railway friend of my father’s was from Newport (Mon). He explained wryly that the Welsh said they were xxxx English and the English said they were xxxx Welsh, so everyone hated them! I know just what he felt like !!!

We are a company registered under the Companies Acts of England & Wales, but we were not eligible for UK lottery funding as our coach was in the IOM! The IOM attitude was that our coach was in the IOM, but we were a UK company, so were not eligible for Manx lottery money!

Now we are a UK registered company. Our Coach is in Southwold which is very firmly in England, so we are no longer international pariahs! As I say I have never tried to apply for Lottery funding although I have studied the official website.

We can state that the NRM does NOT have a Cleminson coach on display and discuss its technical and historic importance etc and why it is especially meritorious, not least because very few Welsh built railway carriages have survived into preservation.

Official websites are useful, but there will be guys out there who have successfully or unsuccessfully sought Lottery funding, and if someone knows something that you don’t know it makes sense to seek their advice. If anyone would like to give us a few practical tips, I would be grateful.

Robert H.

 

On the basis that you'll probably be wanting under £100K and will therefore be going to "Your Heritage", my advice would be to either wait till February before doing anything, or get stuck in quickly. I quote from an HLF official:

"Please be aware that HLF will be moving to new application programmes from 2013 and the final submission deadline for the Your Heritage programme using the current forms is January 7 2013. After this date you will need to use the new application materials which will be available from February 2013".

It is of course and chicken and egg option - if you apply now you know that you'll be able to go for up to 100K but you will be very rushed to get a decent application in; on the other hand, after the deadline who knows what the amounts on offer and conditions may be. At the moment everything is heavily biased in favour of educational objectives, but that may all change so you may have to gamble one way or the other. It is lottery money after all!

 

That's fantastic. Thank you so much. I guess the big problem is that we need a fully researched structural report and a properly costed repair plan and these things take time. It is very useful to know the deadline, but I think if we rush it, we may mess it up, so I am inclined to say we have to do it right and if we can beat 7 January 2013 that is great, but I don't think it helps to submit an inadequately prepared proposal.

If anyone wants to say yes, no or do it differently, then I will be glad of any thoughts.

Robert H