6100 Royal Scot

If 6100's return is a few years away why not stuff and mount it somewhere (e.g. Bressingham) in the meantime?

 

I must agree that Ian has quite enough to deal with at the moment. His own fleet, contract work and finding new premises. When he has found a suitable location and completed the move then he might be open to tender for the completion of this engine should it be put out such. As others have observed there is no real need for 6100 to be rushed to completion, Mr Hosking has a substantial commitment to locomotives already "in ticket" or actively undergoing work. The "Scot" may have to remain in limbo for a while longer.

 

Assuming such a position is tenable. Given the receipt of National Lottery funding there may be time-critical scenarios to meet in order to avoid the impression of fraud; whilst the restoration of 6100 is not fraudulent per se there have been queries raised about earlier cost decisions and the expenditure in relation to progressing the restoration.

I was led to believe when the NatLot funds were granted that a time line was set up to monitor progress; is that still the case ?

 

I wonder what the terms of the lottery funding were, if it simply stated that the loco had to be restored to working order, then that was achieved. It worked. Twice, I believe.

Although they "think" they have met the criteria of a Lottery Funding Bid, and delivered, I can assure you the methods, and the state of the loco now will not have gone un noticed.

While people shrug their shoulders on the desperate state of affairs, why would National Lottery entertain bids or applications from parties who have patently not delivered.

In the long term it is another one dropped, and the paper chain will make interesting reading for the justification of funds.

As someone who has had great success with Sport England, I know what is involved, how you have to word a application, and the hoops you have to jump through to make these things happen.

Again the movement shoots itself in the foot, and before people say their are loads of good work done, 2 major failures are in the public domain at the same time.

 

Guy Carr 360, But as the loco has in effect changed hands does that still have any bearing, for instance, could Bressingham at some stage find itself having to pay back the lottery funding, as it was them who applied in the first place should it be found that the conditions have not been fully met?

 

Whatever. The outcome is that this is another high profile steam locomotive project gone horribly wrong. It won't have gone unnoticed, and it won't help the case for future applications.

 

Probably somewhat dependent on the total number they have funded - anybody know what that would be?

 

But as the loco has in effect changed hands does that still have any bearing, for instance, could Bressingham at some stage find itself having to pay back the lottery funding, as it was them who applied in the first place should it be found that the conditions have not been fully met?

A difficult one to answer, I would think the chances of the group that applied for funding ever receiving again are slim, due to poor performance, I would have expected main line running, being used for excursions, being seen all over the country would all have been in the application. Its how they work, and how you sell your project to HLF. The fact that none of that has been delivered, barring a couple of steamings, and 6 years down the line it lies in bits at Crewe, with no apparent (would like to be wrong) progress, does your movement no good at all.

Whatever. The outcome is that this is another high profile steam locomotive project gone horribly wrong. It won't have gone unnoticed, and it won't help the case for future applications.

That is the real danger, with the Olympics gone, maybe more £££ will be available, these failures could not bode well for future large applications.
Bear in mind MANY items would not have been restored without HLF funds, to patently fail in 2 high profile cases so badly, could kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

I wonder if the HLF think that two loco projects that have not gone to plan are any more endemic than say two sports projects that similarly stumble? I would imagine/hope not.

Because sports projects have governing bodies between the HLF and the applicant, they have a way of making sure the projects succeed, something that is missing in your movement.

Just think of the number of projects that have had help of HLF funds, the great work done, that's what stands a chance of being lost.....

 

i think that in future the heritage lottery fund will probally insist on some third party inspection of the work done and that funds are being spent properly most likily by someone who has a good reputation ,someone like Bob Meanley

 

I don't think that the failure of some of loco projects (and there have been others that have struggled - I'm thiking of 71000s last overhaul, for example) will affect the outcome of all big future applications from heritage railways, or even from loco owning groups (the Bahamas people got theirs) but I'm sure that bars will be raised and there will be more hoops to weed out the weaker projects.

 

On the contrary i believe it is because of the vast majority of projects that did succeed that the lottery people will see these two projects for what they are,
two isolated cases and a very small percentage of the whole. I would imagine that the value they have seen from all the other railway related schemes ( not just loco based)
would give them a feeling of confidence in our movement, constantly highlighting these two failures will do nothing for anyone, it is not the difficulties of these two projects that will put future funding at risk it is the midless old women on here who have nothing better to do than look at other peoples dirty laundry and keep shouting the odds .



The Melter

 

Ok to answer my own question, from the Heritage Lottery site .. http://www.hlf.org.uk/ourproject/projectsbysector/industry/Pages/index.aspx#.Us6-EPRdUrU

"More than £8.1m has been awarded for the preservation of over 65 railway locomotives and trams."

Not discovered the loco/tram split yet.

 

If you type Royal Scot in the Heritage Lottery site's search box it shows a grant of £547,000 in 2002. The recipient is named as the Royal Scot Locomotive and General Trust. Since the Trust did not exist in 2002 I assume this entry was updated when the locomotive was sold by Bressingham. I would not be surprised if the terms and conditions of such a large grant required consultation with and/or approval of the HLF before any sale took place.

 

On the contrary i believe it is because of the vast majority of projects that did succeed that the lottery people will see these two projects for what they are,
two isolated cases and a very small percentage of the whole. I would imagine that the value they have seen from all the other railway related schemes ( not just loco based)
would give them a feeling of confidence in our movement, constantly highlighting these two failures will do nothing for anyone, it is not the difficulties of these two projects that will put future funding at risk it is the midless old women on here who have nothing better to do than look at other peoples dirty laundry and keep shouting the odds .

That's a very simplistic view, you don't have to look much further for many other not so high profile problems.

Remind us how much 6100 & 4472 were awarded of the £8.1m quoted by Sheff.

Is it 1 or 2%??????

Thought not.......

Try nearer 15%, if football or another sport was failing at that level, the red tops would be involved, so maybe getting somebody to act as a "moderator" for Lottery Money is not so bad an idea, as suggested.

Burying your head in the sand is obviously your preferred method of viewing the matter......

 

Was the loco sold? If Bressingham is/was a trust, selling the assets of that trust is no straightforward matter in my experience.

 

It wasn't sold, it was 'transferred' to the Royal Scot Locomotive General Trust. Jeremy Hosking sits on the board of this trust (along with several other people) so it's by no means 'his' locomotive.

 

That's what I thought.