Flying Scotsman

And that's why I expect timely and accurate information from the NRM and in recent times usually get it.

 

If people want news quicker.. then they need to put hands into wallets to help pay for the work so more people can be put on the work to get it finished quicker

 

That is a very dangerous argument and is the reason why so many big projects go vastly over budget - and many still fail despite even more money being poured into them. The complete opposite is true. As any competent project manager will tell you, the last thing to say in such circumstances is "we've spent all this money, we can't afford to stop now". All too often it's a case of throwing good money after bad.

 

To be fair, the point made was that they could learn from Tornado, about merchandise and sales to gain revenue for the engine. I think the NRM has made some headway with this and marketting has been good. Tornado does show what can be done, but then Flying Scotsman and Mallard are about the only engines that can compete with a wider public awareness which is where most money will come from. As for the future I dont doubt Scotsman will remain in the NRM pool, supported by a custodian group for mainline work, rather than contracted out as is practice currently.

As for the overhaul with Riley, Im glad its there as his engines perform faultlessly and if Scotman can match that then it will surely silence the critics for the cost of this overhaul. Yes mistakes have been made, but now the project has turned this corner and is looking forwards. This engine will steam for years to come, owing to an engine in steam brings a greater experience. Scotsman can be the example of what they can go, Mallard the example of how it was. Nothing can be done about mistakes made and money lost. Its time to write that off, focus on what we have and get the job finished properly.

 

The problem here is that the majority of FS's overhaul funds are not coming from passionate supporters' pockets, they're coming from the taxpayer, as will the costs of future overhauls. Why should the taxpayer fund this any more than they should pay for a Premiership footballer?

If you really are so passionate about FS, dig deep into your pockets and buy it back off the NRM. Then you can spend whatever you like on it and you won't hear a peep from me. But while public money is being spent on it and I contribute to it through my taxes then I have every right to complain.

 

So they abort the restoration and plinth her. What do you suggest they do about all the public contributions to the 'Steam our Scotsman' appeals? I'd want mine back, so it could cost more to refund everyone than to complete the job. But one thing's for sure, if that happened I won't be rolling it over into a 'W14 new build' appeal.

 

Because the Government has decided to spent a proportion of money raised through taxes on (partially) funding the national science museum group. The group is allocated a budget to spend how it sees fit.

Like everything else that money raised through tax is spent on, the taxpayer has no direct control over how the money is spent and is not entitled to detailed expenditure reports on it either. If taxpayers are not happy with this situation and how the Government's money is spent, then lobby Government to chance the tax system, or to withdraw their funding of the science museum group.

Once taxes are paid it is no longer the taxpayer's money - it is the Government's, and it is the Government who decides how and what it is spent on, not the taxpayer. As such it is the Government who are entitled to updates on project progress from the likes of the NRM.

 

That's the economics of the mad-house. As you've admitted, FS won't be making money on the mainline, certainly not enough to recover what's been spent, certainly not enough to pay for her next overhaul. Looked at against those costs, any money she'll bring in from mainline running is tiny.

Supposing she runs 20 trips a year at a fee of £5000 a time for 10 years. 20 x 5000 x 10 = £1 million income. How far will that go towards the cost of her next overhaul, let alone pay for routine maintenance over the next years or repaying the £1,866,000 that the taxpayer has put into her current overhaul.

 

Wow, so much bitterness. You need to chill. Perhaps take up writing books on cycling or something.

 

You are welcome to your oppinion which is a generalisation. It all depends on the project and NRM did the sensible thing and put the project on hold whilst they took stock of where they were.

I assume every project you were involved in came in on time and on budget

 

The NRM and its parent Science Museum Group is answerable to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for the 62% of its income that it receives as a grant from the taxpayer. SMG is in receipt of public money and it cannot simply spend it 'as it sees fit'. It must spend it responsibly and it has to account to government and to bodies such as the National Audit Office for what it spends. Don't forget, it's not that long ago that there was a threat that the NRM might be closed down or scaled back. If the government thinks that the NRM is being foolish or incompetent in the way it spends its money, even if that was the fault of people long gone, it might just wonder if closure wasn't such a bad idea after all.

Wrong - it isn't the government's money, it's public funds and I am quite entitled to know how they are being spent. And if I want an explanation as to how my money is being spent, I can (1) make a Freedom of Information Request and (2) I can ask my MP to investigate and ask awkward questions.

 

Of course - if not below budget and/or ahead of schedule.

 

Ah yes, but are you actually a tax payer? I think that is relevant to your point of view,
I am a tax payer and i do not mind at all, i can think of things they spend money on that i will never see in countries i will never go to.
FS is a better use of my taxes than so many other things.

The Melter

 

As if you'd have said otherwise.

 

Ralph - your intervention has stopped me saying something I might later regret. I will ignore W14 in future - Dave

 

who is W14?

The Melter

 

The story of the Isle of Wight Steam Railway begins with one of those interested parties, Ron Strutt a mid teens chap who had a few years earlier tried to purchase one of the old Island engines from British Rail ... but had failed. Ron and friend Iain Whitlam called a meeting in south London during late '65 to gather interest from like minded people in possibly preserving something of the old Island railways. Iain coined the name Wight Locomotive Society and they agreed to try and secure at least one ex London & South Western Railway O2 class engine and possibly a carriage or few

http://www.iwsteamrailway.co.uk/how-it-all-began-the-first-five-years.aspx

I should say we have an excellent relationship with IoWSR and I only post this for information as I had to look up Ron as well.

 

Indeed, which is what I wrote. The Science Museum Group is allocated money by the Government, and it is the Government who are entitled to know how that money is used. However you wish to break it down, the Department for Culture, Media & Sport and the National Audit Office are both just branches of the same "Government".

Indeed - it is the Government's opinion that matters, not the views of self-opinionated, self-appointed vocal trainspotting whingers.

Lol. I'm afraid outside the quaint spin-doctored world of media presentations, the phrase "public funds" is a fancy sanitised more palatable way of saying "Government Money". It is the Government who decide directly how and on what it is spent, not "the public". All "the public" can do is elect a different Government who suggest they may spend the money differently.

If you want an explanation as to how the Government spends the money it raises through taxes, then you can of course make requests, but you can't demand anything. You can file a freedom of information request, and you may get a response, or you may be told to naff off for a variety of reasons (information not held, cost to collate the requested information not justifiable etc. etc.). FofI requests are just that, a "request". You are not entitled to that information and are in no position to demand it.

In the same way that you can request your MP ask awkward questions, but if the MP does not sympathise with your concerns, or is of the opinion that your crusade is not of interest or concern to the majority of constituents to which they represent, then they can either politely ignore you, or more bluntly tell you to bog off!

Once again, you (and I) are in no position to demand information on how Government budgets and funds are allocated, neither are you able to pick and choose how much of your taxes you pay based on your views on spending policy.

How and on what the NRM chooses to spend its 'taxpayer' funds is a matter for the NRM, the Science Museum group and ultimately the Government. It ain't for them to report to a load of moaning trainspotters armed with computers, and especially not the childish whining ones!

 

Agreed: BBC Children in Need just raised >£30,000,000, around the cost of two Tornado aircraft. In September, the BBC reported on "one of the worst and most expensive contracting fiascos in the history of the public sector," a failed NHS IT system which has cost £9.8 billion over the last eleven years. 4472's purchase and overhaul have cost more than they should have done, but in terms of the bill to the individual Taxpayer this works out at pence each.

It strikes me that to some on here, the NRM is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. Most of us just want to see this loco back in traffic.

On a different topic, I always regret that W14 (Fishbourne) and W31 (Chale) were lost to us (see post 2555)

David