60009

But this is exactly what Mr Cameron is doing: succession planning. Its clear that there are far more express steam locos about than there are people with the required deep pockets to run them on the mainline. I don't know what it would cost to endow a trust with the necessary capital/income to indefinitely run a locomotive on the main line, but suspect it would be colossal.

Setting up a museum to house indefinitely whilst not running is at least vaguely affordable... And what's the choice? Try and find a buyer who might or might not look after it?

 

Throughout this thread I have repeatedly said I’m not aiming my points directly at JC. I have just given my thoughts on ownership and I find myself misrepresented again.

Jim, please re read my post from earlier. I wasn’t taking aim at JC on that point though you have somehow made it seem that way.

My point was about a wider consideration of succession planning which I think perhaps now merits its own thread.

I think Toms thoughts re the car analogy are food for thought and would encourage that, instead of getting defensive on protecting the interests of the individual specifically, we do think about the wider interest about where the line is drawn.

For my part I’d rather it wasn’t enshrined in law but was very much about individual responsibility with mind to future generations experiences of that we leave behind.

Perhaps that level of thinking - applied everywhere - might not leave us with a planet on edge of destruction environmentally but hey ho...

 

And may I add, that would be a fair and fine thing to do.

Nobody here I hope seriously thinks JC hasn’t given his all for us. For my part, I still think it is the wrong decision ultimately, but I respect the effort and forethought going into his future preservation of the two engines.

We can surely also have a practical discussion on the finer points of ownership and succession planning?

 

Some others have been taking aim though...

It wasn't intended to be a direct critique of your post. That's the trouble with quoting a phrase I suppose, however apposite. It does tend to make your post look like a specific criticism of an individual post rather than a comment on it, which this was intended to be.

 

Yes, but please do it in a dedicated thread, as I for one am tired of reading through all this wibble to try and find some news on 60009!

 

My apologies for my part in that then - perhaps the mods could intervene?

 

This is becoming like an episode of the Moral Maze (a programme I enjoy greatly, but it does make me shout at the radio sometimes). The fact is in recent years a number of ‘preserved’ locomotives, and a much larger number of carriages & wagons, have been scrapped and/or dismantled for spares. I expect there will be more and sometimes it is the right decision. Succession and sustainability planning is essential for all preservation schemes whether they are individual loco owners or larger organisations.

 

'Wibble' is a far more charitable adjective than I would use....

 

I think it’s a necessary discussion though and for the most part has been more thoughtful than other discussions elsewhere.

Back to the ether...

 

I agree with the sentiment of the discussion - but I would suggest it's a discussion more suited to General Railway Chat than here.

 

I should have been more expansive: I wasn't talking about legal constraints, but moral ones. Legally, he could (although, of course, he won't - this is just to help make the point) melt them down and sell them for scrap.

Were he to plan to do that, you would no doubt be in strong disagreement, and seek to get that plan changed - despite the fact that they are his property, and he has the legal right to do so, if he wanted to (which, again, of course he does not).

So too for those who don't want to see them plinthed, to run no more; he may have the legal right to do so, but...

Noel

 

Think whether or not the 'LNER two' become static exhibits or not in the long term is fairly irrelevant as within the next half century I cannot see coal being mined or the environmental stazi allowing it to be burnt anyway. Then they will all be 'on the plinth with stuffing'.

Therefore if a loco is out of action for 15-20 years as a lot are, fund set up for restoration / paint brush waggling / yakking and tea drinking, another decade goes by before it runs. One further stint in operation and kaboom - that's it, no more toys out the box as we will all be shuffling about in Teslas.

Should you think the timescales are pessimistic then just remember 80100 rolled up at Sheffield Park 40 years ago this month...

 

Has anyone thought about the situation from JC's viewpoint ?

It appears to me that JC has spent much of his lifetime associated with the locomotive and its operations - including the costs of employing both support staff and paying for overhauls, maintenance and road transfers as appropriate. Having spoken with him - and read reports of his his thoughts - I feel I understand his unwillingness to continue main line operation of the duo because (1) if he funds an overhaul of either locomotive he feels concern at whether he will be alive to see the locomotive return to main line service and (2) he cannot be sure that any new owner would show the same care and attention that he has (e.g. consider Tony Marchington and 4472/60103). Given his concern I accept his decision to give both locomotives the best long term future by creating a museum on his property to provide education on both his loves - sheep farming and steam locomotives. I know his decision was not an easy one to make but sometimes the best decisions are the hardest to make and the constant criticisms by many who want to see the locomotive operating but contribute neither cash nor effort to maintain main line status say more about the critics than they do about JC.

At least JC has been both honest with himself and the public in making a decision that he feels is best for the long term security of a "faithful old lady".

 

You have a very valid point, however I suspect we as a movement will get round the environmental thing by playing the minority and tourism cards... going forward as we become more detached from the good old days the mainline scene will be all but gone and the saturated six wheeler will be the biggest loco type in working order as economics take precedence...

 

We can't get round the "environmental thing" as you call it. We will be in a mess many, many times worse than most conceive.

 

In your opinion.

Keith

 

Either way there's no point worrying about it, when the time comes we either manage to gain special dispensation or we all pack up and go home.

 

That is close to my attitude. I enjoy steam and the lifestyle to which I have become accustomed in the expectation that I will be in my box before the s**t really hits the fan. But I have become less sanguine about that as time has passed. I ease my conscience by pointing out from time to time what should be blindingly obvious even to ignoramuses.

 

Without looking it up, I can't remember which mainland European countries do it but at least some do have a 'listing' system for objects as well as buildings - and a number of locomotives are 'scheduled national monuments'. I am pretty sure the same system applies in the USA. The status also releases funding. A number of preserved ships enjoy the status as well - some moan about an owner being honest in their plans not to keep two locos in working order but ship preservationists in the UK have seen a significant proportion of larger vessels scrapped after a number of years in preservation, a number of them thanks to the 'redevelopment' activities of one organisation, I believe! In one case, a Great War vessel was scrapped comparatively recently, whilst arguably 50% of the 'large' modern warships preserved in the UK went a couple of years back. Hence, railway preservationists have much, much more to be grateful for than complain about.

What concerns me now is that John Cameron was seeking to provide a home for his locos where he could enjoy them whenever he wanted to (unlike the many years when they have been operating, often many miles from his home) but also share them with anyone who wanted to come and see them. The Council have decided they are not going to let him. Given the main's service to the wider community and country of Scotland, as well as Railway preservation, I find that sad.

Steven

 

Maybe so but one man's wishes should not be allowed to override the planning rules. I'm sure JC's team is working on an alternative proposal in an attempt to meet local concerns
and planning requirements.