61994 Great Marquess

I have expressed nothing which is legally actionable, merely drawn my own subjective conclusions about Cameron's personality from his words and deeds, and what has been reported about his response to offers of support for the K4. As for the rest, Simon has said it all, better than I can. Cameron has made clear that the locos' retirement is permanent, and his establishing a trust to keep them at Balbuthie in perpetuity rather demonstrates the point. These locos will never steam again unless and until, after Cameron's death, the trust is either persuaded to change direction or is wound up following the inevitable failure of the museum.

 

You have accused him of breach of contract.

 

Really? At one level every object is unique: I'm sure to their owners, even locos with significantly large numbers of one type preserved all have their individual characteristics. Looked at another way, you could say the K4 is just one of many 2-6-0 tender engines preserved, including 5 Maunsell U / N class (the N also being - presumably - a "unique survivor without parallel or equivalent"); several Riddles 76xxx class; a couple of Horwich crabs; a couple of Churchward 43xx, a Stanier 2-6-0 (yet another one that is no doubt without parallel or ... you get the idea).

We've been down this road before. Many of the same people arguing about some unique characteristic for the K4 that warrants special protection were the same ones who quite blithely considered the sole surviving Victorian outside-cylinder Adams T3 just another 4-4-0 of which there are many, and saw no problem with getting rid of carefully preserved Eastleigh craftsmanship in the name of getting it running again.

So the key divide to me seems to me between the "there is a duty that everything must run all the time" vs perhaps a view that running is only one part of what "preservation" means.

From what little I know, the owner has chosen a course of action, but that course of action does at least mean secure under cover accommodation for two locomotives which should not only allow them to be seen by the public, but will also ensure their survival for years to come. I find it quite hard to be up in arms about how unjust that state of affairs is while there are still hundreds of locomotives (and carriages, and wagons) nominally "preserved" but sitting outside with little or no protection from the weather, or vandals, slowly decaying. Perhaps when all those - many of which are also, in their way, "unique survivors without parallel or equivalent" are under cover, then is the time to start worrying about whether we will ever see the K4 in steam again.

From time to time, I read a classic aviation magazine sent over from New Zealand by my parents-in-law (NZ being something of a hotbed of warbird restoration). Many of the articles espouse the notion you see about people being "custodians, now owners". The back pages are full of adverts for warbird sales at 6 or 7 figure sums ...

Tom

 

It could be, but it doesn't have to be. If it was brought back to life and used on "The Jacobite", it should be marketed as *the* loco that was built for the line and little touches like that can all help to make the experience that bit more special, which may be increasingly useful as the Harry Potter effect wears off.

There are clearly differing views on this. My personal view stems from gaining no real enjoyment seeing steam locomotives sat lifeless in a museum, the experience for me pales compared to seeing a loco in steam and operating. I do, however, appreciate that not every loco can be operational and providing covered accommodation with the bonus of public access is far far better than being left to rot in a siding somewhere. I also accept that some people do enjoy the static museum experience. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that JC will have the same beaming smile on his face stood on the footplate of a lifeless A4 in a Fife shed as he has had on his many excursions with the loco. Given this, I'm not sure what is driving his decision, it is probably a combination of not being able to "let go", along with a genuine desire to safeguard the future of the locomotives as best he can. It could even be that personal circumstances are at play and he knows his health would not tolerate supporting another 7 year ticket, but he also knows that he wouldn't be able to stay away and leave it to others if the loco(s) were out there on the big railway. I guess time will tell, I am incredibly appreciative of what JC has done for us enthusiasts, and I hope that the future custodians will be open to letting these locos live again when the time is right.

 

Big Al, Cameron's own words about his planned museum were mainly about himself, his legacy, his contribution, barely a word about the locos and none at all about Garnock. Stuffing and mounting two locos in a shed on a farm in Fife, miles from the nearest railway, is not preservation. It's merely storage - even if theoretically publicly accessible (I believe that, if the museum opens, visitor numbers will be derisory). Now, if they were preserved (ideally in operating condition) at an established site like Bo'ness, that would be a different matter altogether.

Saggin' Dragon, even if a classic car ends up being sold by its custodian, it is thereby transferred onward for further operational use and preservation... not simply taken off the road, SORNed and shoved away in a barn on a remote rural farm.

Rosedale, it is well-known that certain conditions or requirements were placed upon the sale of the K4. It was to be kept running, and be returned to Apple Green. Widely reported at the time. It's not some massive secret. Now, fair enough, Cameron decided to ignore the bit about livery - it's only paint, after all - but retiring the loco to be stuffed and mounted on his farm is not in the spirit under which the loco was transferred to his custody.

Jamessquared, I wouldn't say the N is outright unique, as it's really just an older 'U' with smaller driving wheels, right? The K4 has no such near-sibling. The K1 really doesn't count, being a two-cylinder machine. FWIW I subscribe fully to the notion that preservation is about operation - as long as restoration is carried out sympathetically and any material removed which is of historic/educational value is stored, I look forward to the T3 running at Swanage. It's a damn sight more appropriate a site for its preservation than York, Shildon or Toronto! I can think of no unique-survivor main line locomotive permanently sat outdoors rotting away... maybe the odd industrial, and one knows about certain Midland 3F/4F types (and the odd Bulleid) awaiting restoration, but none of those are sole survivors of their type.

 

We praise JC, and others, for their input into preservation and quite rightly so as the heritage movement would be a poorer place without their input. I just hope all the other loco owners, individuals and groups, do not follow Mr. Cameron's lead when they reach advanced years. Heritage railways will be in a right mess if they do. I'll never be sole owner of 34081 - unless I win the Lottery - but when I have to hang up my overalls I hope someone else will keep her running as I have no wish to see her stuffed and mounted.

 

Difficult to accuse someone of BOC when no one on here, to my knowledge at least, has the contract terms of sale of the locomotives...

It has been well established here that the owner is free to do as he wishes.

Is that a fact? Can you substantiate that please?

 

I learn from howmanyleft.co.uk that there is only one surviving Vauxhall Chevette GLS. As it is a unique survivor without parallel or equivalent I hereby demand that the owner hands it over to me right now, and further assert that if he doesn't do what I want when I want then he is in some way evil. I am, you see, a cretin.

 

Steven,

3442 arrived at the SVR on 9th September 1972 and ran a mere 200 miles in service during 1973, due as you say to the weight restrictions of the line at that time, and was placed into storage. With works being undertaken to raise the SVR's axle-loading to 20 tons in the late 1970's, a group of volunteers commenced a comprehensive overhaul on The Great Marquess culminating in its return to regular service in April 1989. Between then and its withdrawal at the end of 1997 it saw regular use and ran a total of 38,607 miles in SVR service. The Great Marquess suffered a failure of the crank axle, the driver’s side driving wheel having moved on the stub axle. The problem was considered repairable (contrary to speculation in the railway press at the time), but also very costly. As the locomotive was nearly ‘out of ticket’, it was decided that it was uneconomical to proceed with the repair, and thus it joined the long term repair queue until purchased by John Cameron.

Andy

 

Which part? The part about tourist attractions attracting tourists or the part about tourism creating jobs or the part about Fife having one of the highest unemployment rates in Scotland?

Bloody hell.

 

Totally agree that any unsubstantiated allegations are best avoided.
I doubt it will be of any concern to Mr Cameron if his decision is viewed by some as a selfish act. The point being the buck stops with him as far as decision making so the choice was always going to be his alone. He has spent over 50 years pleasing himself with the happy spin off being thousands of folk got to share in that to some degree. This is just the final indulgence and I imply no criticism by that even if I wish it was not so.

 

Accusing people of breach of contract, making false assertions about the Scottish economy and now throwing insults around. Aren't you a delight?!

 

Its becoming ever clearer that you have a personal interest/involvement in this matter, perhaps some transparency of what that is might help people take your accusations more seriously.

Nonsense, I know any number of people who have purchased classic cars which now sit in private barns rotting away, barn finds is a whole area of interest in that movement.

Unless you were closely involved (see point above) how would you know what the 'spirit' of the sale (transfer is somewhat emotive language), ultimately it all comes down to what was written in the contract and you (or I) have no idea unless we were involved, I hate to break it to you but reporting is often (in the case of SR very often) incorrect.

Whilst I would not want to go into a wide debate about conservation philosophy as it would take matters on an incredibly dull tangent, you have not described preservation as ultimately operation destroys fabric and you end up with Triggers Broom (or 60103), you have described restoration which is a whole new ball game.

 

You hope.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Well, I might say the first modern, outside-cylinder, outside motion, high superheat, Belpaire firebox, high-accessibility loco - the prototype for what came a generation later. It is a highly significant type.

But in a way that is the point. Both the N and the K4 are unique survivors of their type. Once you get beyond that, its all subjective about significance It's hard to make an objective argument that on the one hand the K4 is some unique survivor without parallel or equivalent, but for example the N, or the Stanier mogul, isn't.

I can think of two just in Southern England (on two different railways).

Tom

 

These statements seem rather contradictory. If no one on here has seen the contract then we do not know whether Mr Cameron is free to do as he wishes, or is bound by any terms specified in the original sale.

 

Only 1 (wish there were more). When will you bloody heathens learn......

And she is both unique and highly significant due to her role in WW1, yet I don't see a clamour for the GWS to sell her to the highest bidder as she is presently on static display with no immediate plans for return to steam.

 

To be fair I can't tell the difference between 5322 and 7325/9303... Well they all look the same these Western engines