Manx Northern Railway Cleminson Coaches

Hi,

Yes, I have always been happy to consider whether the fault lies with me. In common with every director of a company I retire by rotation regularly. If I felt a significant number of our members lacked confidence in the actions we had taken as a Board, I would immediately tender my resignation as the will of the membership is paramount. Decisions may be Board decisions, but as chairman, I accept full responsibility.

When we have faced particular difficulties I have additionally offered members a vote of confidence with the voting papers going to a third party. I have made it clear to our members that I was NOT going to be told how any individual member voted, so no one need be embarrassed from voting against me. A fair vote demands that.

The votes have ranged from 80 to 100% in support. Our members, some of whom have been with us ever since 1974, have given incredible loyalty to the society and I feel humble to have been given that support. For so long as they do so, I feel I have a duty to them to carry on, although I could find far more enjoyable things to do. Without their backing, I would have gone, and gladly.

Until the mid 1980s, we enjoyed excellent relationships with a string of senior officers, including Bill Lambden, Phillip Wombwell, Lord Ailsa, Harold Gilmore, Harry Stewart, Bill Jackson, Wilson Gibb, Donald Shaw, Ray Cannell, John Gordon etc. I believe that part of the problem is the bizarre structure that now exists on the Island.

Successful mainland heritage railways have a board of directors and a chief officer, so the CEO must put his ideas to a board, just as I have to with our board. This is a valuable filter, The IOM government restructuring in the 1980s replaced a successful system with a CEO who reports to a minister who will usually have less knowledge that his CEO. Internecine struggles are also endemic.

Since that time two CEOs, Robert Smith and David Howard have both resigned prematurely. David phoned me up a few minutes after tendering his resignation and said he could find more enjoyable ways of spending his time. He was not many years off retirement so had every reason to stay on merely for pension considerations, but opted to go. I tried to persuade him to stay on, but he said he was sick of being stabbed in the back. He was told to his face that anyone could do his job, as no skills were required! Robert and David left highly paid jobs with civil service pensions within less than a decade of one another! This suggests a system that is fundamentally flawed.

You say ‘excuses rather than action’. I have sought to explain why things have or have not happened. For 14 years, I tried to get action over the Cleminson coach. I got endless excuses. I would like to be cutting wood and metal now. We have the money to do so, but common sense tells me we need a full structural report, costing etc, if we are to do the job properly. How many preservation groups have rebuilt their carriage within a fortnight of rescuing it? That is the position we are in.

Thanks to the forum we have possible sources of timber, moquette, some useful advice on Heritage funding, enamel plates and are in contact with a heritage rail engineering establishment. Lottery applications and engineering contracts take time to process. Major restoration projects take two or three years at least. Now we are free of the DCCL, if we do not have substantial progress to report to our members by then, they will have every right to dismiss me.
Robert H

 

Martin,
I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head with your post. I've been involved with the Island and its Railways since 1967 and have lived here full time since 1988. Many of my friends work or have worked on the IMR and I know first hand the other side to Mr.H's alleged injustices. It is interesting to note that most of the Senior officers with whom Mr.H got on so well had actually left the railway before the IOMR&TPS (or IOMRS as was) was even set up.
Personally I have no issue with the removal of the coach and until this thread began I was neither in the pro or anti Hendry lobby but felt strongly that the true facts had to be pointed out - even if it risked "disagreement" Regards Ray. (Putting tin hat and thick skin back on!)

 

Is this quite true? Although No.7 and N.42 and other small assets are now based in England, several of the IOMR&TPS's assets are still on DCCL properties, including MER 23 and 26 which I understand are under a seperate agreement than other items of the collection.

 

I have to congratulate Ray and Martin on introducing the “Bodyline Bowling” tactics to the forum. Bodyline did immense harm to cricket with its win at all costs approach, and Ray and Martin make good exponents of it. Ray says he “felt strongly that the true facts had to be pointed out”.

I have been involved in railway preservation in the IOM since 1967 and I referred to the officers who were active from 1967 onwards, Messrs Lambden, Wombwell, Ailsa, Gilmore, Stewart, Jackson, Gibb, Shaw, Cannell and Gordon.

Ray says
"It is interesting to note that most of the Senior officers with whom Mr.H got on so well had actually left the railway before the IOMR&TPS (or IOMRS as was) was even set up."


Ray says “The true facts had to be pointed out.” Eight out of the ten were still active in 1974. Even by the quaint definitions of truth pursued by the bodyline bowlers, I think two out of ten is not “most”! Ray felt strongly that the true facts had to be pointed out so does he stretch two out of ten to mean most?

In three lines Martin does even better.
"Given the battles you have faced with various bodies over a period of time I do wonder whether a different group may have fared better . As you may have noted, your approach on here has wound people up - long winded responses , never quite getting to the point , always an excuse , not always an action."

Seven baseless allegations in three lines! To prove the truth can be difficult. To disprove a falsehood takes a lot more. Every one of those charges is false, but if I take the space to prove that, I will wind people up, be long winded and so on. Lets just deal with ONE.
"Given the battles you have faced with various bodies over a period of time"

From 1967 when I was first involved in preservation to 1987 we had excellent relations with all ten of the officers I listed above and we preserved ten three foot gauge vehicles. We saved Santon station buildings, Douglas signal box, and the old carriage shed, we had the Cleminson coach on display, 23, 26 and the Queens Pier tram on display etc. That is a record our members can be proud of.

Between 1988 and 1998 was not a happy period with the four vehicles removed from display, but it ended on a high note when the use of the Society boiler brought No 1 Sutherland back into use. From 1998 to 2009 we extended the loan of the boiler to Sutherland twice and then Fenella came back into use, and we had excellent relations with David Howard and his successor Mike Ball. Mike needed time to find his feet and had concluded a ten year agreement over Fenella, but when he was pushed aside, the third chief to go in just over a decade, the agreement was torn up.

So 1967-1987 and 1998-2009 saw good relations, none of the unpleasantness of recent years and the ability to work with a DOZEN capable senior officers. Out of 45 years that is 31 good years. The Smith era ended on a high note as returning an engine to service was an achievement that the Society and Robert Smith could take pride in. If Robert Smith had stayed on, maybe we would have had more achievements.

On the nastiest possible assessment, you can say 31 good years and excellent relations with a dozen senior officers, and 14 bad years and poor relations with two senior officers. As Robert Smith and I agreed the terms over the Sutherland agreement, we got a good result. I would prefer to say, 42 good years and 13 senior officers and 3 bad years and one senior officer.

That took 389 words to show that 14 words were untrue. The remaining 45 are just as baseless, but do readers of the forum really want that? If a lot of people say yes, tell us the truth, Robert, I am willing to do so. After all, the bodyline bowlers say that;

"It is interesting to note that most of the Senior officers with whom Mr.H got on so well had actually left the railway before the IOMR&TPS (or IOMRS as was) was even set up."

“Most”, as I have pointed out in that comment is two out of ten. I am willing to deal with every other misrepresentation in Ray and Martin’s statements, but I would much prefer to get on with rebuilding a coach.

Robert H

 

Robert, as you are struggling to get to grips with an email account, I have created one for you. Your new account is IOMRTPS@gmail.com (sorry they don't allow '&' in the name). I will PM you the password. You can log in by Googling 'gmail log-in.

 

Yes 23 and 26 remain on DCCL property under an agreement that gives DCCL free and unfettered use of them at their discretion at any time but prohibits dumping on the lineside for vandals and weather to destroy them as the current Director threatened early in 2011.

The agreement will run to 31 Dec 2022, the present director having to retire in August 2022 at the very latest. The vehicles are therefore saved from his dumping threat. I would like to see them run again as I have repeatedly said for twenty years. Sadly I cannot force the DCCL to do something that would be in the interests of the Island, of the Manx Taxpayer and of most enthusiasts.

If Tynwald will start a campaign "We want to see 23 run, and we won't wait" he can be assured of my wholehearted support. The problem is not, and never has been the IMR&TPS. We do not ask for a penny for the use of No 23. We want No 23 to run for the benefit of the Island, and I must have advanced such proposals ten or fifteen times maybe more. So how about it, Tynwald, Maybe the DCCL will see sense if you start a campaign!

Robert H

 

Many thanks, that is most kind of you. I would appreciate that.

Robert

 

So what you are saying is that if a proposal to restore 23 and 26 came about, the IOMT&RPS would not oppose it?

 

I have to agree with Martin to a large extent and like him I only know Mr Hendry through his postings or letters to local media. It is good to see that Mr Hendry has finally managed to post some shorter comments and occasionally with direct responses as I frequently find Mr Hendry’s posts akin to conspiracy theorists postings in that they throw lots of other things into the mix to deflect attention rather than answer the main point.

I also believe that despite its fancy name, I still struggle to see that Mr Hendry’s organisation is anything but a private vehicle for the ownership of ostensibly his assets rather than a preservation society as most of us would recognise and believe that this cannot have helped the IoMTRPS progress matters. I have to admit that I am a person who thinks that if it walks like a duck, sounds luck a duck and looks like a duck then it probably is a duck. For that reason I really do struggle to see the IoMTRPS as little more than a fancy name for a private collection as opposed to a preservation society acting in a more familiar manner. As others have said how many other such societies seem so reluctant to provide any details of how to join even when asked. Even now the best we have is if you write in you will be sent a prospectus and if you apply the board will consider your application. For an organisation that in the year ended 31st May 2011 had subscriptions of £320 and donations of £262 with plans to renovate assets you would you thought they would have welcomed new members with open arms.

The reason for given this is twofold. Firstly Mr Hendry’s unfamiliarity with technology and fear of receiving spam to his own e-mail. I have to say considering how quickly Mr Hendry appears to embrace forums or pick up posts about the IoMRTPS etc when he wants to put his point across this does not particularly ring true. Equally I am a complete technology fool but even I understand how easy and simple it is to set up afacebook or gmail account, which Sheff has demonstrated. If Mr Hendy does not then I am surprised none of those around him do not know either. I drafted this a couple of days ago and as Sheff has shown

The second reason given is fear of asset strippers which on the surface may sound plausible but in reality is almost a laughable suggestion. Firstly it is fairly easy to structure an organisation to ensure this cannot happen. As an accountant I am sure Mr Hendry knows this but let us look at the organisation. Firstly would an asset stripper really be tempted by an organisation that only had assets of £56,410 and cash of £23,363. These are the figures per the 2010 accounts which also state that the assets had been valued as at 31st May 2010. Even asset strippers were interested in such a relatively small value of assets the IoMTRPS is an organisation whose accounts state that no dividend or distributions of profits is allowable. If they were not put off by that point, as Mr Hendry has pointed out over and over again, the assets were in the IoM, many stored by the IoM govt in secure conditions due to Asbestos which would have to be professionally removed and paid for before they could be moved and were under restrictions about being moved from the IoM. Hardly a ripe or easy target

It also seems strange to me that an organisation that is desperate to keep hold of its few assets would seek to sell a name plate, which it did for £8,000, in case it had heavy costs to meet over the issues it had with regard to the engines in asbestos storage, rather than appeal to members or even railway supporters in general.

With regard to the IOMRTPS I also note that it has 4 directors, all of whom have been in place since it was established in 1994 and all of who are aged between 61 and 64. Again to me that does not give an indication that it is a preservation society as I would understand rather than a private company.

Turning to the coaches I hope they are restored but I have limited hope for an organisation whose net income in 2010 was £682 and in 2011 £102, ignoring the sale of the name plate. I appreciate grant funding may be obtained and there are some reserves but it does seem ambitious, especially if not particularly accessible to new members

These also are coaches that the IoMRTPS has done nothing with for 17 years and has rent free storage of. I note Hendy puts the blame at the IoM Govt for this believing that they should have been maintained in the museum. Not withstanding that it still does not alter the fact that the IoMRTPS had done nothing with regard to renovation and that if the IoMRTPS was not happy with regard to storage etc it was free to remove and store anywhere else in the IoM. I have to admit if I had control of an asset that I did not think was properly being cared for I would have moved to a better location but unfortunately Mr Hendry seems more intent at times with arguing the point rather than actually doing anything.

As I said I hope I am proved wrong and that the IoMTRPS is able to turn itself around, increase its membership, raise funds, become active and actually start achieving some of its aims which we all applaud. However unfortunately I feel that it is little more than Mr Hendry’s private collection hiding behind a fancy name and that he is more interested in personal battles and settling old scores than actually finding a harmonious way to move matters forward.

I apologise if this appears a bit harsh and inflammatory but I am a narrow gauge enthusiast who presently happens to love in the IoM. I should be a natural target for the IoMTRPS but all I read is petty squabbles. I do not really care what has happened in the past, who is to blame etc. I just would like to see matters moved forward.

 

The agreement with the DCCL is that they can operate either of these vehicles in service at their entire discretion. We do not seek a penny from them. The operation of either vehicle is entirely under the control and at the discretion of the DCCL. They would carry out the work at their expense and they would have full operational control and derive all revenues from the use of 23/26.

If they appear in service or not is therefore a matter for the DCCL. If the DCCL announced that 23 would run during the rail events next year, we would be delighted.

A garbled version has gone the rounds that we opposed the use of 23 in 1993/94. We encouraged it, but because the owner and operator could be jointly liable in the event of an accident we said that insurance was necessary. It was unclear whether the DTL insurance would cover the operation of a privately owned locomotive, so we asked for a statement from the government insurers to the effect that we were fully covered. That dragged on for week after week. Finally I advised the DTL that if a statement that we were covered was not received, we would have to withdraw consent due to the risk to the individual members of what was then an unincorporated society. In an accident they could have become personally liable though they were blameless. The society could not reasonably put its members at risk and if the DTL could not be bothered to let us have a letter from the insurers, what had happened? Thankfully a letter was received at the last minute.

That should not be a problem now as the Society has surrendered the right to mount an independent defence in the event of an accident involving the loco to the DCCL in return for an indemnity. This is a technical legal point but I mention it so that you will not be confused by a garbled account of events.


As the Department had threatened to dump them on the lineside at Dhoon at the mercy of vandals, we decided that the key issue was preventing anything like that. Clearly as the DCCL valued 23/26 so lightly that they were prepared to see them rot away, we were NOT prepared to surrender ownership to an organisation that had proposed to let them rot, but we offered unrestricted usage to the sole benefit of the DCCL in return for secure covered accommodation for the term of the agreement.

 

Lostlogin’s latest outpouring of hatred, in which he apologises if it appears a bit harsh and inflammatory, really does give the game away, doesn’t it! When I have had a few minutes to spare from trying to defend the society from attacks like this, I have been studying the Heritage Lottery funding process and seeking useful information from every helpful source I can find on restoring our coach.

Had it not been for the efforts of Lostlogin, Marshall5 and one or two other well wishers, I could have spent many more hours looking at fund raising and technical issues, but we had to go back to inflation indices in the 1970s to deal with some of their spleen.

Lostlogin has been studying the data on file at Company House to find out about our Annual Report for May 2011. He omits to mention that in the chairman’s report I said, “With hundreds of hours of the Board’s time devoted to defending the Society from destruction at the hands of our enemies, sales and every other activity not connected to survival were affected, and the results for the year to 31 May 2011 are the poorest we have ever achieved.”

Since 2009, survival has been the name of the game. We have taken a battering, with a £40,000 investment stolen from us for a pound, but compared to 1979 when we embarked on rebuilding Fenella and we had £2,235 in the bank, there is over £25,000 in the bank today AFTER meeting transport costs, or TEN TIMES AS MUCH.

We have an estimate of £50,000 for a full commercial rebuild of our coach and thanks to the offers of help we have had in sourcing materials, we may be able to bring that down, but we have always worked on a worst case scenario. In 1989, the DTL suggested boiler work on Fenella would cost £16,000. I thought it would be £30-35,000. It was £36,215 for a better job than we had originally planned. We could have saved £1,500 by opting for a slightly lower specification, which would have put the cost within our estimates. We went for the best for the Island!

With a full structural survey and costings, we can seek Heritage Lottery funding, which can be up to about 50% of the cost of a project. With Lottery funding it will be a lot easier, and we can devote some resources to the chassis of No 7. So far our jealous friends have put the project back by at least 48 hours as I must have had to waste that amount of time rebutting their nonsense. I wondered whether to do so again, but the facts are all there to demolish what they say.

There is a Cleminson coach in the Isle of Man that is rotting. Instead of wasting your time on pouring your hatred out on us, how about trying to save that? In fact, how about co-operating? Your coach does not have a chassis. I will gladly provide photos, drawings and any help I can for you to build a new chassis as I would love to see it run again.

You say I want to fight old battles and you want to move forward. Is this not the best way forward? You go speak to the DCCL and restore the Cleminson in the IOM. We will work on our Coach. We can come up with patterns for door handles, luggage racks, makers plates and I will willingly help you. Why Shouldn't I? Lets have a friendly competition to see whose coach is completed first! If you win, I’ll gladly stand you a drink. How about it?

Robert H

 

Robert,

Could I clarify a couple of things about the society:

1. How many members do it have at present?
2. Is this increasing/decreasing/staying the same (since, say, the 1990s)?
3. How many of these are actively involved in practical restoration/conservation work (anywhere)? (I am talking about wearing overalls and getting their hands dirty)

You also quoted from your annual report that "hundreds of hours of the Board’s time [were] devoted to defending the Society from destruction at the hands of our enemies". Could you give a short list of who you think your "enemies" are?

Richard

 

Thank you for your message. Can you clarify something for me. How does your asking 1, 2 or 3 contribute to restoring either of these two wonderful Cleminson coaches? How about asking me how many of our members are (a) married (b) have pet canaries (c) eat spinach.

Would it not be more useful to send a message to the gentlemen who have attacked us to say, 'Why don't we get our hands dirty on restoring the Cleminson coach on the Island as Robert suggests. In that way this barren and pointless debate will see two coaches restored, if of course Robert gets anywhere with 'his' coach.

I challenge our critics. If your motives are malice and jealousy, which is what is increasingly coming across from messages like this, I am sure you will continue to post this sort of thing. They contribute nothing to preserving either coach. If you motive is preservation you need to get busy right away to save the coach that is rotting on the DCCL.

We have £25,000 set aside already for our coach with more to follow. Now let me ask you some questions.

1) What have you done so far to save the coach in Douglas which is at risk.
2) How much money have you set aside to restore the coach that is actually at risk.
3) What skills will you be bringing to the restoration in practical terms.
4) Will it be tomorrow or the day after that you start work?

I have said I will gladly help restoration of that coach with various patterns, photos etc. I think our coach is likely to be restored first, but I will gladly be proved wrong. If YOU have the Douglas coach fully restored before we have our coach restored then I will include you in the invite to stand you a drink.

What I fear is that the DCCL Cleminson will rot away. This thread seems to suggest that a small but vocal minority are more interested in throwing stones at us than saving a coach on the Island that will otherwise rot. In Twenty years time will someone look back and say "THEY WERE TOO BUSY THROWING STONES AT PEOPLE WHO HAD SAVED A CLEMINSON COACH TO SAVE ANOTHER CLEMINSON COACH."

Prove me Wrong!

Robert

 

As I said to Richard,

How Do any of those questions contribute in ANY way to preserving either of these two Cleminson coaches. Please just answer my question in a few lines.

I think I am correct that National Preservation helped raise funds to restore Russell on the Welsh Highland Railway. I think that is fantastic, and I don't care how many people are members of N-P, how N-P is structured or whether numbers are going up or down, What matters is that you did something.

I understand that you are an Administrator on National Preservation, so are in a position to do things. I called this thread Cleminson coacheS - note the plural. I had three goals,

1) to tell people what we were doing as soon as I could, condition, funding etc
2) To seek the advice of preservationists who had been there done that
3) To try to kick start the restoration of the coach that is rotting away in Douglas.

You are in a far better position that I am to achieve 3. How about starting up a fund raising campaign to Restore Cleminson Coaches?

It would be nice IF you were generous enough to include our coach, but we do have £25,000 in the kitty already. I would suggest that the first £25,000 that YOU raise goes to the DCCL Cleminson, as that has no nest egg at all. At that stage, if you were to treat the two coaches pound-for-pound, I would be very happy, but as we have an £25,000 head start. maybe the need will still be greater there.

I would love to call our critics friends, and if we all set to work I think we can preserve BOTH coaches.

Are you going to answer my question or are you going to obfuscate?

Robert

 

Robert

This I think is why people keep asking those questions.

All of us on Nat Pres are here because we are passionate about railway preservation. There is a cross section of interests - people active in restoration, or operating, or visitors, or photographers, or people who do several - and people who are interested in carriages or steam engines or diesels or standard guage or narrow guage or broad guage and all points between. So we are a broad church, but a love of railways, and a desire to preserve our heritage, link us all.

So on the surface, the people on this forum are broadly sympathetic to the objective of preserving a rare IoM carriage, or even better preserving two such carriages. However, there are many hundreds of preservation groups around the country, and probably within those, several dozen of direct appeal to those who specifically are interested in rolling stock. So put yourself in the shoes of the casual NatPres member, who maybe has a few spare quid burning a hole in his/her pocket and wants to know what do do with it. Should that person send a donation to help the Bluebell get to East Grinstead? Or help the IoWSR build a carriage shed at HavenStreet? Or help repair the Gloucester-Warwickshire railway at Chicken Curve? Or chip in a few quid to the NRM to help steam Flying Scotsman? Or send it to your group to help whatever it is you do?

In those circumstances, it's a buyers' market - you have to convince us that your project is more worthy of support than any other project or group out there. It took about umpteen pages of waffle before you even gave an address and a membership fee to join your group, and even then it seems we can't just join, we have to have our application "laid before the board" for consideration. We all love heritage and the past, but it is no longer the nineteenth century!

So ask yourself - I have a spare tenner in my pocket: why should I give it to you rather than any of the other worthy groups out there? I had no knowledge of your group before this thread started, so you had a golden opportunity to explain who you were, what you were doing, and how we could help. But I feel you've blown it: the more you post on here, the less likely I am to send my tenner, because it gives all the appearance that it will be money wasted, and frankly there are plenty of other deserving recipients with a track record of getting things restored.

I'm sure I'll now be put in your list of "enemies" that you have to "defend your society from destroying". Truly I'm not. When this thread started, I was entirely neutral, and simply interested in finding out about a historic carriage about which I knew nothing, and maybe could have supported in some small financial way. Eight pages later, I know a lot more about about the murky world of IoM railway preservation politics, but am considerably less enamoured with actually bothering to do anything to help save any of it.

Tom

 

For a long period, EVERY suggestion I have made about making sensible use of 23, 26 and the Cleminson coach was ignored by the DTL/DCCL. In my opinion fourteen years of begging the people who can say yes for a sensible policy is long enough. Someone said we should have moved the coach elsewhere. I hoped against hope that commonsense would prevail. It was only when the DCCL promised to dump our coach so it could rot away like theirs is doing that we finally said "enough is enough".

For years we HAD to mark time. How could I go to our members and say "Give us money, but whether we can ever use it sensibly is a guess." We could NOT do as we wanted as we were 100% at the mercy of the DTL/DCCL, and for a myriad of reasons even an outstanding boss like David Howard could not do as much as he wished. In the end he got sick of a well paid job with a civil service pension, and left. That speaks volumes! Not one boss of the railways has stopped on to retirement age since 1978, not one!

We do have £25,000 in the piggy bank but that will not be enough, so I want more, but before I ask YOU for a tenner or other people for a lot more, we need a full structural study, and a properly costed rebuild plan. As to our track record. The DTL said the boilerwork on Fenella would cost £16,000 and they are professionals. I am an amateur but I took advice and said £30-35,000. It ended up at £36,215. Who got it right?

Yes we DO want money but I want the time to put together a plan that is realistic. That takes care and effort. In the meanwhile there is a Cleminson Coach in Douglas that is rotting away. I have suggested to the people whose posts show how much they loathe us that they get together and save that coach. I have asked Richard how his questions help save either coach and all I get is a charge that I am obfuscating!

I have suggested that NP could start a campaign to save the Douglas Cleminson coach. Yes it would be nice if NP supported our coach as well, but the Douglas coach needs friends and it needs them now. I have suggested that is a cause that merits YOUR support, and that I will help with patterns, but I do not want an active involvement in it, as I have more than enough to so, so my 'attitude' can in no way hamper that project, can it? I am saying "Stop Yapping and Save that coach. You do not need to transport it off the Island. NP had far more clout in fund raising than I do. You have everything going for you. DO IT!"

Could it be that I am the only person who gives a xxxx about the Cleminson in Douglas. I hope not. Give us time and we will restore OUR coach, but I beg of those of you who want to throw stones. Let us get on with our job, and when we have progress to report, I will tell you. In the meanwhile, how about saving the other Cleminson coach? They aren't exactly plentiful, you know.

If you would stop complaining and start doing, we might get somewhere. I won't complain that you are going about preserving that coach in the wrong way or demand how many people are actively involved. I will applaud your progress. I do not ask for your applause. I just ask that we be allowed to get on and do the job.

Robert H.

 

As i said a few moments ago to Jamessquared, we need time to study the coach and prepare the paperwork.
When I have that, we can start doing work. That, in my view is when we can ask for money. I was asking for advice from other coach preservationists and several have come forward.

As I have said how did Richard's questions contribute to saving either coach. How much money do you have is more important, and I have told you that without being asked. There is, to the best of my knowledge, though I may be wrong, no group trying to save the Douglas Cleminson. If any of you actually care about Cleminson coaches, how about getting moving. You can be as transparent as you like with the colour of the hair, the eyes and how many teeth every member has if you want.

IF the Douglas coach is destroyed, then it may be unkind, but I am going to say "I told you so". Restoring ours will be a big job. I know that and the Douglas coach has been so neglected by the DTL/DCCL that it will require a lot of work.

If there is a 'hidden agenda' as so many conspiracy theorists seem to think, and there is not, it would be that I want to have all of the facts and figures to hand. I want to know that we need to spend say £X on wood, £Y on continuous brakes, which we will need to fit, £Z on upholstery. X, Y and Z equals so much. We have this much so we need that much. I could throw guesses around, as the DTL did in guessing the cost of the boiler work on Fenella in the 1980s.

Leave us to get on with it, but in the meanwhile if you would stop throwing stones and work together you could save the DCCL Cleminson. Is that really too much to ask. I think the next few posts will answer that question, won't they. I am not hopeful but you cannot imagine how much I want to be proved wrong.

We shall see.

Robert H