Carnforth Overhauls.

:deadhorse:

 

here's one for the experts to identify, seen at carnforth last friday:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e71vTbJ_XoI

 

It looks like 48151

 

No myth about it, it was in the mags at the time. If you search the Charity Commission website www.charity-commission.gov.uk for the North of England Historic Railway Trust you can view its record, it shows the trustees as William David Smith and Christine Smith.

Charities have a great many advantages except when you want to dispose of a large asset, it has to be to a charity with similar aims, so Clun Castle had to dispose of Galatea the the North of England Historic Railway Trust rather than West Coast or whatever. I would guess the same applies to Clun Castle disposing of their Pannier tank.

Lordy

 

Looks like 44932 or 48151 has made a come back

 

So that raises two questions.

1. Why were Clun Castle able to dispose/donate the loco to another charity. Were they the owners? If so what happened to the original consortium who funded the purchase of the engine from the severn valley?

2. If the loco is now owned by a charity called "The North of England Historic Railway Trust" then in theory it can never be transferred into private hands.

 

Yawn!

Unless the Charity Commission give consent - there's at least three other jubilees - so why shouldn't they??

 

True but why would they? What good reason would the charity commission have for allowing a Trust to hand over it's asset to private owners especially when there is another trust with the same objectives. ie "The Galatea Locomotive Trust".
Surely Mr Smith's charity would have to over the loco to this other party first.

Frank, from reading your posts on other topics you are obviously an intelligent bloke with alot of knowledge of the steam scene. I on the other hand am pretty ignorant on this matter so please instead of replies such as "flogging a dead horse" and "yawn" could you shed some light of the issue or at least refer me to previous topics if it has in fact already been done to death.

 

Galatea, and Scots Guardsman before it, may have belonged to Trusts of one calibre or another.

Nothing was happening to them, and they were fading from view. if not from existence.

Mr Smith overcame the problems of Trust transfer, invested a great deal of time and money, and Scots Guardsman is now a sparkling item, with Galatea following on.Why people have to look behind the resolution of those problems I do not know.

The loco's could have continued as derelcit basket cases if the change of ownership had not been achieved - which future do you prefer??

 

Well said.. lets not forget that 6100's revival is probably also dependant on a similar situation.

 

To the best of my knowledge there is no legal requirement in charity law for a charity to dispose of assets only to other charities. [I mean assets which are part of the charities core activity]. Most charities have a disposal protocol that perfers such means of disposal, but at the end of the day if no other charity wishes to take it on then it may have to be disposed of other ways.

 

Can anyone say where the actual ownership of Galatea now lies, or the legal title to term it correctly?

Perhaps no-one is bothered, I get the impression that most enthusiasts are happy to have another loco to ride behind and photograph no matter what may have gone on in regard to its ownership in the past.

Personally I don’t expect to see Galatea running for quite a while yet.

Cheers
Dave

 

The ownership changes and management of it also intrigue me. Not that I have any concerns about its present resting place or whether David Smith owns it outright. It's the happy ending that counts. Just curious.

 

The loco was purchased from the SVR by 7029 Clun castle limited.... Who also put up a not insignificant sum of money towards the purchase price, the rest being donated to 7029CCL by Brian oliver and his consortium, to secure the loco. Sadly Brian oliver passed away, and had he still been with us the story would have undoubtedly been rather different....

 

Unless the original donation/sale was made subject to a legally binding covenant then there is no legal requirment for charities to dispose of items to other charities. However, certain bodies (including the sub-government umbrella body for museums) have such a requirement of their members, and this consequently affects registered museums.

 

Which also brings up another question, this break away group were touting themselves around as the 'Galatea loco trust' yet apparently they didn't own galatea or have control of it! I also remember 'locomotive marketing services' which was collecting money on behalf of the Galatea loco trust and who probably collected several thousand pounds worth of donations towards the loco from unsuspecting people. Any idea what happened to all this money? was it just pocketed, handed back to the people who generously donated it, or was it handed over to the north of england heritage trust for the purpose it was donated??????????

 

And what was the involvement of the Evans in all this?

 

As mentioned in an earlier post. The ideal outcome is for the loco to be restored and out working trains again. I would be suprised if anybody would argue against this point.

However, I can't help but feel that the people in Brian Oliver's consortium have had their money taken by 7029CCL who then sold the asset to a third party.
Did the consortium get ripped off or did they agree that their contribution to the purchase was simply a donation toward the future of the loco?

A google search on "Galatea Locomotive Trust" brings up an address in Stockport. Isn't that wher Brian Oliver came from?

 

Surely the question of ownership /Trust is something that should not bother the lineside enthusiast who is only interested in the running of the engine(s) on the ain line.

The legal ownership of the loco usually comes into play to protect the asset(s) [ i.e. locomotive(s) ] in such legal situations as the death of a locomotive owner or the right of said owner to undertake legal contracs to operate the asset(s) and earn income from them. I would suggest that the question of owership of 45699 may be linked to the death of Brian Oliver and the question of ownership has become the source of protracted legal dispute; the involvement of Trusts is usually undertaken to avoid such problems and I would presume that the Carnforth WCRC personel are sufficiently well versed to have arranged matters to protect the locomotive(s) in their care.

I do begin to wonder at the impudence of many enthusiasts who question the ownership of locomotive(s) that they wish to see running on the main line whilst not actually contributing to the upkeep and maintenance of them but consider themselves sufficiently qualified to comment unfavourably on those who spend many hours in voluntary effort that sees little reward and even less gratitude.

I notice in parallel threads on 6100 and 4472 that much adverse comment is being made despite the fact that the current "owners" have been open about the faults they are finding and the actions they are taking to correct them - including some for which they have no responsibility but feel the necessity to fix at their own expense in order to make the locomotive the best runner possible under the modern operating requirements of today's railway network.

As an interested enthusiast I am in 2 minds about many of these comments - on the one hand I enjoy the scurrilous comments that are directed at someone who has not done a repair properly but on the other hand this raises the question of what benefit does it bring to either the locomotive or its current owner. Surely in the interests of the locomotive it would be best to contact the current owner directly ( and off record ) to draw attention to any faults / problems arising and offer the benefit of experience rather than show off your knowledge and experience in a public forum that may work to the disadvantage of everyone concerned.

It is a truism perhaps but there are some things that should remain private, some that should remain public and others remain an "open secret" where details are discussed on a "need to know basis"; the current situation of forum discussion does no-one any good and may - I suspect - prove counter productive in the willingness of some to discuss things with anyone in a public forum.