46233 Duchess of Sutherland.

Except morally, perhaps?

 

..... and hence why many of us didn't bother to waste our hard earned Ralph.

 

Surely the biggest question is what proof does David Wilcock produce for his claims? I haven't read the article, having dropped my subscription to SR some time ago (and to be fair, I actually think Heritage Railway is more sensationalist now than SR - but probably more interesting too, and not for the same items!) I suspect the allegations are being taken as fact because they suppoort the view that many on here previous had (and has been used to support/form the allegations, it seems).

While I can see that some people may be upset, what if it was revealed that some-one had sent a cheque for say £5,000 for BR green? Should that and Brell Ewart's cheque both be disqualified and what would the result be then? I am not saying this happened (I have no reason to believe it did), but given the passion with which Wilcock any many other feel "BR Livery or scrap it", it would have been just as possible. I suspect Brell Ewart may have viewed the whole episode as some-one of a joke at the expense of the BR livery taliban - make them put their money where their mouth is! I seem to recall a rather well renowned loco and carriage painter writing to mazagines more than once making the same point - he who pays the piper calls the tune and Mr Ewart will have put much, much more into the loco over the years than the total raised by this poll. He isn't just "some rich bloke", he is the "rich bloke" who has worked long and hard to keep 6233 in traffic. I am afraid running steam locomotives on the mainline is something of a rich man's game. No-one seems to object with some richmen, but others face, or livery preferences, clearly don't fit.

I shall await reading the article with interest.

 

David Wilcock directly quotes Martin Baker, the chairman of the PRCLT. One assumes that these are genuine quotes, otherwise David Wilcock would be opening himself, and SR, up to some serious litigation. Therefore I am for now taking the article more or less at face value.

 

Indeed. By allowing people to donate hundreds, or even thousands, thereby buying hundreds or thousands of votes, the trust acted perfectly within the rules that it set out. The issue seems to be the way in which vote numbers were released for public consumption during the voting period.

 

Even if people did place, say 1,000 votes, surely it doesn't matter? The main thing to come out of this is that the Duchess team now have more money to restore and maintain the locomotive than before is it not? I accept that some might see people being allowed to place hundreds of votes at a time being 'unfair' but how 'unfair' would it be if, without the cash gained from multiple votes being placed, the Duchess sat in a shed somewhere lifeless. Yes, I accept the way that the poll has been done might be seen as controversial by some, unfair by others but what really matters, when it comes down to it, is that the engine is restored and maintained so that we can ALL enjoy it when it's back out on the mainline in WHATEVER colour that may be.
As has been stated elsewhere, the locomotive is likely to have it's livery changed at some point in it's ticket anyway, we've seen her in black, we've seen her in red, now we're going to see her in green. What is wrong with that?

 

You are effectively saying it's alright to lie in order to obtain funds.

I don't believe I said that at all. Where did it say it was a one person one vote arrangement? Irt as alays going to be the outcome that the option that brought in the most cash would win, whether that came from one person or many. If anyone is entitled to be disappointed it's Brell Ewart, who's put up a lot of cash and still lost out to (if your view prevails) a load of people who've just put up a pound each. Rather generous on his part I'd have said (and didn't he buy both pacifics and standard tanks, restore them and then donate them to the Trust? People should respect his point of view as he's done a lot more than all the rest put together for the PRCT engines!)

 

Here here

 

Indeed, though ironically they have effectively refused a donation of £5,000, ostensibly because it was posted a day too late, though one suspects so that BR green won over LMS red! Cutting one's nose off to spite one's face comes to mind! One wonders how many preservation groups are wealthy enough toturn down a £5k donation?

My view (having come to this late) is that provided they were honest up front that it was £1 = 1 vote and multiple votes allowed, then there is nothing wrong in a rich donor buying multiple votes, though there was something wrong - if it is in fact true - that they gave what appeared to be a running total of the scores on the doors at various times which were apparently manipulated in a way designed to maximise contributions from whichever "side" was losing at any given moment.

Tom (who's in the "anything but BR green" camp when it comes to liveries...

 

It was an obvious prediction and outcome, all those crying foul should have known from the start. I refer to my post several months ago.

I also refer to this one below ...as a positive thing too..

 

The vote for a livery scheme initially seemed a good idea for fundraising. If the SR article is true, then it looks like any other group going down this route could learn a few lessons here and be more precise regarding how many times any single person can vote. However, as far as (4)6233 is concerned, once it is back on the main line, (which doesn't look too far away) any acrimony casued over the livery vote will soon be forgotten. It is a superb performer, whatever the colour of the paint and well done to all invovled for turning it round so quickly .

 

Oh for the love of God, does it ACTUALLY matter!? It raised money for 6233 & the BR fundamentalists get to see her in that wretched livery. As I said a few pages back, everyone wins.
I better clarify the 'wretched livery' phrase before anyone blows. I consider myself to be opposed to BR livery more because of some of the fundamentalists who only want to see locos in BR livery than the sheer tedium of it.

 

Are you, by any chance, the local postman? Seems the most likely way for you to predict that Mr Ewart's cheque wouldn't get there in time.

 

I have delivered lots of things in my time.
I wonder if they will have a paint it blue competition. In a few years time..

 

Quite possibly.

[future_announcement]
PRCLT would like to announce that we're having an open weekend where you can come along and help paint 6233 into BR Blue* for the final year before overhaul.
[/future_announcement]


*Crimson Lake paint will be provided for all attendees, but please bring along your own paintbrush.

 

I've now had the opportunity to read the article in full - and the whole picture is extremely alarming, and might I add, I think David Wilcock's article is not as sensationalist as has been painted previously in this thread.

There's several major issues at work here which I think are both being overlooked, and downplayed; and might I add, the "ends justify the means" mantra which seems to be prevalent amongst several of the members here disgusts me thoroughly.

First and foremost, the trust have effectively owned up, via their current chairman, as quoted in Steam Railway, to deliberately and knowingly changing the scoring of the poll over its length in order to mislead the public who were voting and secure both a pre-determined result, and as a by product of this, more funds to some extent (discounting the "big cheques" which may or may not have been cashed for their respective liveries).

This is unacceptable. It is defrauding lots of well meaning donators to the cause by changing both the conditions of the poll, and fixing the result (Malcolm Baker is quoted in David Wilcock's article as having not allowed the cashing of several cheques - not just Mr Ewart's - in order to "even up the poll") by pervading an air of evenness about the livery choices where there was clearly none.

David Wilcock asserts in his article that it went as far as the Trust's curator and administrator (Kate Watts) phoning Mr Ewart to ask him if they "could spread the votes over a number of weeks, so that they could raise more money".

Secondly, there is no doubt that Mr Ewart is well within his rights to do whatever he likes with his money, and under the rules of the poll, LMS crimson lake should have won. However, the question I would like to pose is this. Is it morally right for someone with such a vested interest in the locomotive to be allowed to participate in such a poll?

In more corporate competitions, employees and anyone previously associated with the company holding the competition in question would not be allowed to take part. I would say that Mr Ewart - a previous chairman of the PRCLT, for many years - should not have been allowed to participate in the same vein. His previous involvement creates a conflict of interest.

Thirdly, Mr Baker is quoted as saying that Mr Ewart - who, if we ignore his vested interest and possible conflict of interest in this poll - is acting entirely under the PRCLT's own rules by donating a cheque for £5000 - was "trying to fiddle it [the result]".

Now to be fair to Mr Baker, the rules of the competition said that cheques would not be cashed if they arrived after August 30th - Mr Ewart asserts he posted it on that date, but also asserts the money should be counted regardless.

So we are left with a chairman whose organization deliberately changed the number of votes that were actually added each week, trying to justify this through stating they tried to "even it up". How many times, and what amount of money - we don't know, but the implication is there that we are not talking four or five pounds, but possibly up to and including £5000.

It seems to me to have been an horrific error of judgment on the part of the PRCLT, and to be quite frank I think they should hand the whole amount back to the people who donated with their apologies.

Failing that, they should change their plans and have the locomotive appear in all the liveries that were choices in the poll, starting with BR Green and culminating in LMS Crimson lake, over the next four years, as their way of apologising to all of the people who took part in the poll believing it to be a fair method of both choosing the locomotive's livery and raising money for a cause they feel passionately about.

Anything less is an utter disgrace.

 

As a registered charity the trustees have, to say the least, if the quotes above are correct, sailed very close to the wind with their conduct in this matter and it simply cannot be taken as a truism that the end justifies the means when the Trust is reportable to the Charity Commission. Its dealings must be open, honest, transparent and truthful.

A poll is a poll and must be fairly conducted and open to scrutiny. Any element of wilful manipulation where charitable funds are involved is a very serious matter that goes to the heart of the whole preservation movement, if not the attention of other enforcement agencies.

The movement must learn from this fiasco and never do anything of this sort, or in this manner again.

 

I agree with 99% of what frank says... The only1% I disagree is that there is no compelling reason to ban the idea being done ever again, I think the idea was a good one and no reason why it couldn't be done again, but maybe an independent monitor or independent operator of it to ensure fair play. Maybe this is something National Preservations own forum could haved managed independently.. The results of polls are not editable.

Back from the future to the present.. i never believed this would be a fair fight from day 1, but the drunken bar style "pony up your dollars for a date with a blonde" spirit of it was harmless enough...I never saw anything suggesting seriousness here, This isn't Bernie Madoff's scam...had LMS Red won.. Then I'd have cried fowl, who knows could it be that's why the final cheque wasn't counted ?

The aim was to make money, and give the majority what they want...a non red 8p for a short time, if someone had put £5000 on red on day 1.., would anyone have bothered putting any bets on black, blue or green ? The spirit would have gone, the objective lost and the disappointment with it.

By comparison there's a Freightliner cab ride on auction on eBay right now, route, date, class or journey length undefined.., it's passed £500... I'd be equally fishy about it except... It's for charity and you know there's goodwill intended all round.., I expect it does well and I am very confident the winner will love it... So dig deep.
If this was somes personal gain or profit the story is very different.

Feel free to judge me on it.. After all I'm an impartial moderator here.

Maybe the other red LMS 8p currently operating may have a similar change of heart of livery..

 

That was my main issue too, The Colour it ends up is nothing like the biggest concern (personally i'd of preferred Blue anyway) but the fact some people think it was ok to act in the way they did, dismissing anyone who points out the lack of morals about the whole thing as paint frothers, BR Green may of won the day, but the fact the popular vote get there shoulden't be allowed to let others brush the disturbing facts about the whole saga under the carpet.

Long story short, the colour is not the issue, the way the whole thing was done it, and saying 'everything ok now' because Green won does NOT make it ok, it highlights some disturbing practices which must not be repeated of the trust doesn't wish to lose anymore credibility.

Wilcock's article quotes the trusts chairman and i think Mr Ewart as well so i'd say it's safe to assume it's factually correct unless Steam Railway has a good lawyer.