61994 Great Marquess

I dispute that utterly. As a unique survivor without parallel or equivalent, it is part of our national heritage, privately owned or not. To find such proprietorial attitudes in e.g. the classic car world is pretty much unheard of - the line I keep hearing from owners of the likes of W.O. Bentley Speed Sixes etc is "I'm not the owner, I'm just the custodian looking after it for future generations". Would that Cameron had learned that lesson!

 

Leaving aside the question of ideology (I suggest best not for this thread), how do you see this working when the NRM has thinned it's collection, and is fundamentally cash-strapped so would be no unlikely to be able to fund a return to steam? And if ownership passed to AN Other, why would that person/organisation spend money to return to steam for an asset they didn't own?

The decision is to be regretted, but the castigation here is frankly OTT.

 

We've already heard of Riley and the NYMR (at least) both offering to fund its overhaul and operation. It is not the case that nobody but Cameron is willing to support the loco... but, in NYMR's case, they were told that they could overhaul it at their own expense but he would still require its delivery to Balbuthie for static display in 2019, giving them virtually no time to recoup the costs of overhaul. In the face of such unreasonable demands, they understandably withdrew their offer.

 

I am sorry, but I have to suspect you really have no clue what you are talking about and I am pretty sure have never met John, nor understand the circumstances of his current (not infinite) plans for the 2 locos. (As far as I am aware, never has he said that the locos will never steam again, for example).

Do you allow constant public access to any cherished objects you own? Do you allow them to spend long periods at the opposite end of the country so those who can pay large sums can ride behind them and others see them occasionally?

Both these locomotives, like John himself, have Scotland 'in their veins' yet John has actually allowed them to be away from their 'spiritual home' (and where they spent much of their 'working lives') allowing wide access whilst actually meaning he had to travel long distances to even see them. If he now feels it is 'his' time to be able to go and see the locos whenever he wishes, fair does - and it is a museum that he is planning, which I am pretty sure will mean public access on a regular basis. Particularly for people in Scotland, it will be easier to see them than it is at the moment, when one is stored in a not necessarily accessible area (I haven't a clue precisely where at Grosmont 61994 is) and the other is on a secure depot with no public access much of the time.

It isn't as though 61994/3442 has been running constantly (actually, unlike what John has done with 60009) - from the mid-1970s to 1989, the loco wasn't running and has spent a far greater proportion of time in steam during John's ownership than Viscount Garnock's - and that is no criticism of Viscount Garnock. As I recall, in the mid-1970s, the loco was too heavy for the SVR where it was based - @torgormaig will probably be able to confirm. It was going to move elsewhere until the SVR had been upgraded, but suffered a boiler problem which was seen as 'unrepairable' at the time. That was probably seen as 'it will never steam again' but technology and repair techniques moved on and it have steamed again - and I am sure will do so again in the future!

Steven

 

I have not made it clear in my post (above) but I do not believe that the general public should take part in a referendum (EVER!). By having a say I mean that policy mechanisms should be in place similar to those for art and architecture.

I should be most obliged if you explain what is remotely hysterical or ludicrous about my post.

My initial comment relates to the belief held by @Fred Kerr and others that "he who pays the piper calls the tune". As a statement of principle, I don't believe that can stand up to even superficial analysis.

As it happens, I have nuanced and inconclusive views about Cameron's intentions for the K4.

 

Fair points, but those offers were all underpinned in their various ways by notions of the property rights of individuals.

As far as return to steam goes, I don't see Balbuthie as the end of the world. Not that it would be my preference, the locomotive will be conserved and looked after, and able to remain on show for those that wish to see it.

@Enterprise made a point upthread about the restrictions that apply in other areas; none of those restrictions would extend to compulsorily restoring an exhibit to working order.

 

And you can prove all these statement, knowing them as genuine, provable 'facts' do you? Or are they 'things a bloke down the pub' told you? If the latter, I suggest you change your drinking place!

(I should add I have no knowledge, so perhaps @BrightonBaltic is indeed in position of all the facts and can prove every slight and allegation he has made against John Cameron - but if he can't, I think he needs to take a serious think about what he is posting).

Steven

 

Nobody is denying that what he has done for railway preservation has been great. Nobody. I have said it in print in Steam Railway Magazine - we are all grateful for his work and the fact he put his hand in his pocket every time. The A4 is clearly his and his alone.

I do however take truck with the word "property". The Great Marquess - the K4 - is not just owned by John Cameron, it has a history outside of his ownership and has had many volunteers across a number of preserved railways who have invested their time, effort, money, blood sweat and tears into it too.

There are several groups who laid out plans and good ones at that for John Cameron for the K4 to have another overhaul. The terms presented back to one group in particular were so unfavourable as to be derisory.

The K4 is a special case. It is the last remaining Gresley mogul. It is representative of more than just its own class - it represents hundreds of other 2-6-0s that Gresley built across the GNR and LNER that used conjugated valve gear.

I will not apologise for feeling miffed on behalf of current and future generations that such an excellent locomotive - the original "pocket rocket" of Scotland - is to be incarcerated on a museum on a farm in Fife.

Forgive me Steven - I am aware of John's contributions to railway preservation and I am exceedingly grateful (without John I rather wonder if we'd have the Beavertail, for instance) - but this decision has felt short sighted, stubborn and dog in the manger like to me. It is not a castigation: it is regret and sadness that such a career as 61994's should end like this.

Gents, we're getting into circular debate territory. I am happy to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

This is a tricky one for me. I like this loco a lot, there is no denying she is special, so I'm sad she is getting a period of retirement. But then again, I'm enthused by the prospect of her being closer to home in Fife.

To add to that, it reads like Mr Cameron wants to impart education and history of rail and agriculture to others, which is admirable indeed.

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/steam-railway-uk/20170127/282574492786669

From reading that, the locos are to be placed in trust. The wording of the trust is going to be key to weather either of them run again IMHO.

 

Some posts above are straying into potentially very interesting legal territory. I would advise caution.

 

But it is his right. Unless the earlier comments regarding the purchase from the Viscount estate are written down, in black and white, as part of the purchase requirements, nobody has any legal standing to tell Mr Cameron otherwise.

Regardless of any generous offers from third parties, he is under no jurisdiction to have to entertain them. That may be regrettable in my own views, your own views and maybe even everybody's views in our hobby. But that still does not have any right to overrule Mr Cameron's own views and decisions.

Yes, we regard locomotives as national treasures, but they are not protected by any listed status (imagine the complications when it comes to overhauls if they were), and indeed in private ownership they are just that, owned by a private individual who has final say on the decisions made in that regard. That individual can then choose to consult volunteers, support crew etc....but is under no obligation to act on those additional views unless a legal contract stating so is in place.

 

But to the vast majority of people travelling on the Jacobite it would be just another steam locomotive taking their train through beautiful scenery.

 

It's interesting that the Cameron Mk.1 support coach is also destined for the museum. That's quite an investment to make in what is at the end of the day a very ordinary vehicle.

 

What are you insinuating good sir?

 

No disagreement from me on that point.

 

Only Mr Cameron knows his motives. Everybody else is left to form an opinion solely on the apparent outcome of his choices. We may very well wish he made a significantly different decision but given the law of the land confers upon him autonomous rights, that would seem to be that. From what is reported he does not strike me as someone likely to be gripped by self doubt, persuaded by others or change his mind any regrets expressed will be in vain.

 

Indeed, I would hope for the forum owners sake and the posters sake that Mr Cameron is not the litigious type....

Indeed but there are opinions and there is throwing accusations around without providing anything as silly as evidence.....

 

Time for a K4 newbuild then?

 

What on Earth are you talking about? I'm not insinuating a thing. If he wants to go to the expense of preserving a Mk.1 BSK in perpetuity then good for him; if anything it strikes me as a token of his sincere desire to ensure that his collection - all of it - remains in good hands, and rather a repudiation of potentially libellous allegations made by certain people in this thread that he is 'hoarding' his locomotives out of greed.