46233 Duchess of Sutherland.

Comfy armchair with wingbacks, actually.

In the last five years when I've been at university, two of which (between various long spells in hospital, ongoing) were spent rather happily volunteering at Quorn & Woodhouse station. But that's a whole other kettle of fish; what I do with my time and money is irrelevant to the subject matter here.

 

Sorry to digress a bit. "Preservation movement's morals". One word "Barry". Wholesale acquisition of "spare" parts by some groups. Then selling the parts on to purchasers of the locos they originally came off.
Rant over.

 

Preservation .... Morals... same sentence...wow.

I thought Morals just dig holes in the garden, I never found many in preservation.
lack of morals.. well I could ream of pages of examples. (not that I am saying it's right, it's just sad thats how it is).

 

As a Charity Trustee I have to sign an undertaking every year, and am personally liable to conduct my stewardship of the charity honestly, fairly, and with due regard for charity law.

It is my opinion that the trustees of the PRCLT have significantly failed in this duty in the conduct of this poll, no matter that their motives were honourable.

That this can be overlooked by some posters is profoundly disturbing - as one can only assume that they are also prepared to use whatever means it takes to support their chosen causes, and once a slippery slope is embarked on, no-one knows whwere it leads.

The Trust could do themselves a great favour if they were to issue a public apology, having regard to all the facts as they are now known, for the way in which this otherwise praiseworthy fund raising exercise was managed, together with an undertaking to have due regard for probity in such matters in the future.

Other representatives of bodies with charitable aims should take note, and determine not to go there themselves.

 

I think we should all perhaps bear inmind that all this ill feeling has been generated on the strength of an article by David Wilcock in Steam Railway, both much maligned in other threads for their tabloid approach to the reporting of railway preservation - and we all know how accurate and scrupulous they can be. Before condemning the PRCLT out of hand, perhaps someone from there should be invited to give their side of the story. Only if they are upnprepared to do so, or cannot defend or justify what they've done should people climb on their high horses.

I've never thought of railway preservation as being a particularly moralistic pasttime, it's just a hobby that needs funding weither by myself or by trying to persuade others to part with their cash. I've spent a lot of time doing that, and my personal experience is that it is a lot harder to persuade so-called enthusiasts to part with their readies than members of the public. That might just explain why I have some degree of understanding for the PRCLT if they have been devious or underhand in their methods, whilst as a Trustee of a couple of charities myself I wouldn't condone it.

 

Absolutely, and my initial reaction was the same (a few pages back).

BUT, reading the article in question, and having it to hand, that does not seem to be the case on any level.

In fact the whole article is made up of direct quotations from Mr Baker, Mr Ewart, and a few of us on here on page 54 (myself included). It is the direct quotations Mr Wilcock has written from Mr Baker and Mr Ewart that send alarm bells ringing, particularly the ones which admit what was going on. There's nothing intimated in these quotations, they are admittances.

Now, unless David Wilcock has made up each and every quotation up, from the people in question, it stands to reason that they are factual admittances of what was going on behind the scenes, and it is this which has left some ill feeling most certainly.

In equal measure, that is a fair point; but is not the article in question allowing them their "right to reply" in any event, given they were asked explicitly a set of questions by David Wilcock on the matter in question?

One of the best moments of preservation happened over the last year, in my books, the way preserved railways rallied round the Glos-Warks line when they were (still are, to some extent) in dire straits. Then there's the stories about lending or outright donating components between locomotive groups, raising money for charities (Help for Heroes, Cancer Research UK and so on and so forth), and acts of goodwill on all sides in coming together to set up galas and waive fees, etc etc...

Maybe I have missed the point, or am very naive, but while there's no doubt some dubious goings on here and there, equally there are hard working volunteers and a lot of goodwill spread around to match in railway preservation. We should treasure those gems and make that the norm (if the reverse is sadly true, as has been intimated by a few here).

 

My belief is that the fundamental mistake made by the Trust made at the outset of the poll was to include LMS crimson lake as an option. This appears to be have been accepted, with hindsight, as an error. However, surely this could have been seen right from the word go as a serious flaw and I am very surprised that the Trustees signed the poll off (so to speak) with crimson lake being a contender, given that it was always going to return to that livery after a year or so.

Everything that has happened since, it could be argued, has been a by-product of that flawed decision.

I hope that in time, all of the furore will die down, that the Trust regains some of its undoubtedly lost credibility and everybody with any interest in the loco can enjoy it without the whole of the sorry poll episode leaving a lasting negative impression.

 

I think David, as you would expect of a journalist, has been very selective of what quotes he had used. He obviously feels the same as some of our users here that something wasn't correct with the poll and has chosen to use the views that support his own. I'm not too surprised that those of us, including myself, who didn't see the issues being raised as moral or ethical, haven't had their views represented in Steam Railway.

I'm still not sure how bad the PRLCT have been. I certainly feel that they could have handled the poll better. However I believe that some users are being very dramatic and sensationalist in their views (perhaps in the hope of being quoted in the mainstream media again?). What seems strange is people voting when they already had doubts about the veracity of the poll - which, as others have pointed out, seemed obvious fairly early on.

When the dust has settled I think two things will become clear: 1) That a significant amount of money has been raised for an engine that many people love and 46233 may well be their only chance to see a 'Duchess' in steam on the mainline, 2) That future polls have to be handled better with more transparency and a different method of voting.

Hopefully we will not see the end of livery polls as I think we should applaud the decision of the PRLCT to allow the enthusiast community a say in which colour their highest profile locomotive gets painted in.

 

If only Neil! :dance:

Though I don't disagree with you with "selective quotations" by any means. Reading it back, it is definitely one sided in that respect.

If I appear "sensationalist" it is because I feel strongly about what's gone on here (and yes I did vote after it was announced, prior to most of the posts questioning the poll).

I think TbirdFrank's posts are very telling about to what extent the trust appear to have "sailed close to the wind".

I don't disagree with any of that either, in fact I wholeheartedly support both your points there, with the caveat that point 2 is extremely important and that point 1 should not happen without point 2 being adhered to.

 

We can argue the ethics of the rules of the poll, but these were stated clearly enough - there was nothing to prevent an individual buying I000's of votes if they so wished. Maybe people though that wouldn't happen, but it did.

I think the crunch issue here is the admission by PRLCT that they then deliberately withheld large numbers of these block votes until such time as is suited them to dribble in a few more to keep things neck and neck, and so encourage supporters of the opposite view to shell out more cash in the belief that it was going to be a close run thing. Had they counted the block votes correctly, a soon as they were received, this would more than likely have scared off the other lobbies, and the poll would have ground to a halt with a much lower total.

This action was clearly designed to mislead and cannot be condoned by anyone with any scruples. It smacks of some of the more dubious get-rich-quick schemes (scams?) that have come to light as the financial industry has imploded over the last 5 years.

 

The attitude of some people on here is truly shocking - if the end justifies the means, where do you draw the line? Going even further, would it be ok to say an engine will go mainline after its next overhaul to help raise money, with no intention to do so? Is it fine if a railway said they will run trains at 45mph if people help pay to replace some bridges, in the knowledge its not going to happen?

You'll make more money the first time, sure, but what about the next time? How will people look at other, unrelated projects? If people cant trust charitable organisations not to try and rip them off, everyone suffers. If you want to annoy 'paint frothers' and a small minority with an obsession with a certain colour, this really isnt the way.

Chris

 

I have now read the articvle - I suggest anyone who hasn't, should, because the picture it paints is certainly not the impression you get from this thread.

The allegation appears to be basically that block purchase of votes by cheque were feed into weekly totals over time, but then possibly all credited at once, to keep the numbers close. That is certainly not implicit in a rule that allowed such purchase of votes. It is my belief that allowing block purchase was the flaw in the poll, not permitting the "brand" livery to be a choice. Multiple votes would be difficult to avoid in the telephone poll but I serious double more a couple of dozen per person would be placed!

The article actually reads as though it was promoted by Brell Ewart letting it be know that his 1st cheque - for £1,000 - hadn't been included at one go but more specifically his 2nd cheque - £5,000 - wasn't included at all. Had it been then the allegation of "fix" would have been valid but the rule broekn would have been the date of posting. The article also makes a couple of other key points:

> There were a number of "large" cheques for BR Green floating about, especially towards the closing date. The value is not stated but one suspects for "a number" and "large" to describe them they would go quite a way to counteracting the £1,000 cheque of Brell Ewart's that was counted.
> Alan Bloom and Brell Ewart, key figures in saving the loco and returning it to the mainline, both expressed a preference for LMS Maroon. Any discussion of the "morals" of the situation must surely include the wishes of those without whom the loco may no longer still be with us or at best be a permanently static exhibt.
> Even David Wilcock achkowledges the PRLCT view that LMS maroon is 6233 signature "brand" - in a similar way to BR Blue for 60007 and, more controverrsially, BR lettered LNER Green for 60163 and LNER Green for 4472. Having a definte identity for locomotive may be boring for some enthusiasts but I have plenty of personal experience of the wider public feeling cheated by seeing a loco in a guise that satisfies enthusiasts but it not the "brand" the wider, fare paying public expect.
> The result of the poll shows BR Greem received 51% of votes cast, even without Brell Ewart's £1,000, LMS Maroon would have been a clear 2nd and that if any colour had been advantaged by block voting, it was BR Green as, excluding the £1,000, no other colour had sufficient votes for large scale bnlock votes to have been included!

As I have previously said, this may not have been PRCLT's finest hour but the "crime" in no way justifies the vitriol exhibted in this thread. At the end of the day, the result desired by all those up in arms won anyway, it is a repaint for a given period and the loco has not changed hands or been harmed in any physical or lasting way.

However, on the subject of "morals" in Railway Preservation, I can think of a number of events, some allegd, others definite, some of which have been discussed in here, others which are not as widely known, that involve far more questionable actions than alleged by David Wilcock, some of which have seen some anger on here but others have seen any attempt at debate dismissed despite far greater potential or actual long term effects or, at least from what has been said, misrepresentation of situations.

 

It's not really an "allegation" when the trust's curator and administrator, Kate Watts, is quoted directly as saying to Mr Ewart "...the trust wanted to know if they could spread the votes over a number of weeks, so that they could raise more money".

That much is a confirmation, surely?

In complete agreement RE the block voting.

Both the former cheque and the latter one, I would argue, are still "fixing" the result, be it by spreading it over the weeks and months in order to make the poll appear to be progressing in a manner which would encourage more "voting" in that manner, or by allowing a former chair such a vested interest in the poll.

On that latter point, if he had given the cheque in on time, and it had been counted, there would be no complaints as it would be under the rules. It would still disgruntle many people (myself included) for the person in question to be allowed to vote in the first place, but nevertheless by the rules they set down the latter situation would be technically correct.

It actually states Mr Baker said that the cheques for BR Green were "hovering at the end of the poll" (although it also states that these were counted). My question - what on earth does "hovering" mean in that context?

No, actually. When you set up a public poll - emphasis on public - allowing the poll to be dictated by a few rich people extremely close to the locomotive creates a conflict of interest in the poll's setup and its outcome.

Why bother allowing the public to vote if you are just going to let a few key individuals decide the outcome in any event?

Oh right, it's about the money and the locomotive's overhaul. How silly of me.

All of the locomotives you have mentioned, have appeared at some point in other liveries for extended periods despite having a "core" brand. Funnily enough, Tornado's appeal hasn't been dampened by the BR Green, and the wartime black on Scotsman caused more interest, not less, and certainly caused a stir in enthusiast circles (some good, some bad).

6233 is different from all of those - she has appeared in the LMS black with straw lining for...what, six months to a year prior to overhaul after 40 years in LMS maroon?

I can't help but feel the paint colour is irrelevant actually, when we're talking about the poll.

What the trust did is morally wrong, and moreover, at least two people in this thread - trustees of other groups - have asserted that they may have come very close to breaching their duties as a charitable trust.

Fixing a public vote by spreading the votes over weeks instead of as collected, thereby painting a picture of the poll which was different to its reality, is coercing those sections of the general public and railway enthusiasts into contributing more, possibly in some cases beyond their means, and in this case particularly where you have one particular individual block voting in the thousands against the run of the poll.

Had the £1000 been counted all in one go, as would have been the correct thing to do, then the outcome may have been entirely different overall. It may not have given the result many people wanted, and the manner in which it had been won would have disgruntled a few I am sure, but under their own rules and morally speaking, it would have been the right thing to do.

Sorry, vitriol?

That's rich. Anyone expressing the point of view that it's morally bankrupt have been described as paint frothers, told they're sensationalist and generally dismissed out of hand. If anything, the negative reaction to the way the poll has been conducted has been more than measured, and has not resulted in the name calling that standing above the parapet, and saying "this is wrong" has...!

That's wrong for a start, I wanted blue...!

Funny that one point of view prevalent in this thread is being so readily dismissed in the manner you describe.

 

Wrong!

I think you'll find that the majority of people on here crying 'foul' are not blinkered BR green paint frothers (why would they want to protest anyway given the result?) but rather those who know right from wrong and object to a charitable organisation trying to hoodwink people into buying votes in a poll which they are manipulating to give a false impression of the state of play. There's no excuse, they were deceitful, and I have no time for any one like that.

 

I agree with Bean Counter.

 

Succinctly written, I agree with that.

 

On a lighter note, according to Railway Herald, 46233's 'Night Owl' loaded test run - open to passengers - is to take
place on the evening of Wednesday 28th March 2012.

Train starts at Hathersage, 46233 comes on at Derby and goes via Lichfield and Stafford to Crewe. Returns via same
route. Beer and sandwiches available --oh, and it's taking a diesel with it as well!!

 

Another concern I have considering the poll with hindsight is related to the acceptance of cheques, which should have been disallowed altogether. I say this as those treading this path effectively payed less per vote than someone dialling the premium rate phone-number an equal number of times, for the cost of a call can be discounted. If someone desperately wants to see a certain livery succeed, then they must be prepared to vote on the telephone the requisite amount of times like everyone else.

 

When is it going to get through?

This is not about paint. This is not about a poll.

This is about gerrymandering - and it is wrong - whether in a silly little paint poll like this, or in a parliamentary election.

Wrong can never be right and I'm sorry - but reputations can take years to build,and seconds to consign to the bin. That is where the PRCLT have put themselves as regards integrity and honesty just now, and as I have already written - a clear and concise apology for the manipulation of their donors and intending donors would go a long way right now.

As for those who can't see the error in what has occurred - wake up! or is simple decency and honourable bahaviour dead nowadays? It seems that way in the minds of some posters.

 

This is where opinions are beginning to diverge.

Some of us do see this as a 'silly little paint poll' while others are acting as if the future of railway preservation is a stake here.

Yes, it's clear that this poll could have been managed better but while it seems that nothing illegal has been done and, issues of morality are for the individual alone to decide upon, a collective shift is being undertaken that the drama surrounding the poll is not the same as the actions taken.