6100 Royal Scot

Re: 6100 Royal Scot test runs

Agree...
During a talk I was told the overhaul of 4472 was being done very very extensively and everything was being attended to. So strange how 4472 was a totally clapped out machine again when purchased by the NRM.

 

Re: 6100 Royal Scot test runs

If it's been top slow for you you could always lend a hand yourself...

 

Re: 6100 Royal Scot test runs

Are you implying that I haven't?

 

Re: 6100 Royal Scot test runs

Sorry but you have lost me here,who or what organisation is supposed to be "lining their pockets" in this situation.Do you mean the overhaul is being "spun out" unnecessarily and the owners overcharged?

 

Re: 6100 Royal Scot test runs

It's very difficult to argue with that conclusion.

Especially as it's not the first time.

 

Re: 6100 Royal Scot test runs

I presume for wiring TPWS and OTMP. I only repeated the message.

You can't just go down to B&Q and get some pvc clad phone wire. The wire has to be produced to specific BS specifications which will be specified in the design approval documents which will have to meet Railway Group Standards. When the work has been completed it has to be tested and signed off by suitably qualified staff.

Regards, Neil

 

Re: 6100 Royal Scot test runs

So why wasn't ordered in good time then?

Great project management ...

( It just so happens that while I'm typing this I'm also staring at two reels of cable that just happen to be exactly what's required for TPWS installations

 

Re: 6100 Royal Scot test runs

Has'nt the illness suffered by Mr Kennington affected the overall progress?

 

Re: 6100 Royal Scot test runs

I must admit to having similar thoughts, despite extensive use i can't believe a loco can get so clapped out in a single ticket if maintained properly.

 

Re: 6100 Royal Scot test runs

Exactly. The truth about Scotsman is that it had never been looked after properly for thirty years. There were legacys going back to its days at Carnforth, and there's a certain irony that one of the people responsible then is rather closely connected with it now. Because it was Scotsman, it was allowed to go out with defects which would have definitely stopped any other engine. It never ceases to amaze me how incredible sums of money can be expended on certain locomotives, with so little to show for it.

 

Re: 6100 Royal Scot test runs

My understanding is that it did affect progress greatly for a while, but not necessarily in the way that most people might have supposed.

Mind you, issues of health are more important than anything else. So let's hope that he continues to do well with his recovery.

 

Re: 6100 Royal Scot test runs

I think the important thing here is 6100 will be back in steam on the mainlien where she belongs.
Its easy for people to sit behind computers hidden behind made up identities slagging things off, but remember there are some out there who work on engines for the sheer love of it and coudl do with help rather than criticism.

JS

 

Re: 6100 Royal Scot test runs

Thats so true. I wonder how many people who are critising the overhaul and management of main line steam engines have actually contributed to the upkeep or overhaul of a loco, whether its money or physically. I've never directly overhauled a loco but have done work in the sheds in Weybourne, but I wouldn't sit on a forum and start slagging off what they've done, (or as the case may be not done) as most people who work in the sheds either are volunteers or very low paid staff who probably could get better paid sitting in an office. I know this doesnt apply to everyone but serious lads lets be a bit more pro-active instead of making unhelpful comments.

 

Re: 6100 Royal Scot test runs

Thats so true. I wonder how many people who are critising the overhaul and management of main line steam engines have actually contributed to the upkeep or overhaul of a loco, whether its money or physically. I've never directly overhauled a loco but have done work in the sheds in Weybourne, but I wouldn't sit on a forum and start slagging off what they've done, (or as the case may be not done) as most people who work in the sheds either are volunteers or very low paid staff who probably could get better paid sitting in an office. I know this doesnt apply to everyone but serious lads lets be a bit more pro-active instead of making unhelpful comments.[/quote:10jpjvmn]

We're not talking about the people who do the actual work, but the - so called - management. The sort of people who get consultancy fees rather than payment for the time they actually spend getting their hands dirty. If you'd encountered these people you'd understand very well. If not, then just think about the cost of certain projects, time taken to produce results, and the individuals involved. It's not difficult to work out.

 

Re: 6100 Royal Scot test runs

So would you rather have 6100 back at bressingham static? or is it your money being wasted?

As far as I know the loco owners are paying for the restoration along with funding from the national lottery, so even if money is being wasted I would rather it be wasted on a steam loco rather than some white elephant.

The point I am also making here is that some people are very quick to criticise and find fault with restorations whether it be time scales ie lack of progress etc, but there are very few poeple who roll there sleeves up each weekend and actually get involved with restorations. (and yes I am one of the few)

JS

 

Re: 6100 Royal Scot test runs

You don't get it do you.

Money is being wasted, yes. To a degree lottery money is public money, so yes, it's yours and mine.

What's more important than that is credibility, and the fact that money wasted fails to be spent on other engines. The money is not wasted on a steam engine, it's being wasted on people who should be doing a better job, instead of looking after themselves first. Do you think with all the outrageous overspends that go on, especially with lottery funded projects, that the people who decide where to put lottery money will look with any great favour at locomotive projects?

Bressingham deserved the lottery funding. It was surveyed and estimated properly etc, and was supposed to have been done in-house like the terrier. Which was quietly completed in sight of budget because the vultures didn't move in like they did with the Scot. But they then allowed themselves to be persuaded by an arrogant and vocal individual with a high profile that they would be better off letting it go outside and totally out of control. Too late they realised their mistake and almost bankrupted that part of the business into the bargain, as well as not doing anything to fix the problem.

If you think pointing out such scandalous things is offensive to the people who get their hands dirty, then I'm afraid that's just too bad. Most of those that suffer such incompetence, as those that do the work usually do, will be only too pleased to see it aired. Not to mention quite a few others who know what's going on, but don't feel it's their place to comment - more's the pity.

 

Re: 6100 Royal Scot test runs

I do understand what you are saying to some degree, having been involved in a number of non railway lottery projects the management is most often the most difficult and expensive elements, although this can sometimes be caused by the conditions imposed by the HLF.

However I think the point being made here, and its much the same with the Princess Elizabeth thread elsewhere is that many of the posts on here that hint at incompetence and wrong-doing are written by anonomous posters and whilst hint at a great deal never really name facts or names. Whilst there is the whole issue of libel etc, it immediately makes the reader perhaps perceive that the complaints are more of a personal vendetta by the poster??

It is apparent from postings on both topics that there are people out there who have evidence of wrongdoing - or at least consider that they do. As both organisations have charitable status it is comparitively easy to raise your concerns with either the charity commission or the relevant funder if you think that Articles of Association or funding contracts are being breached, this would at least get any matter invetsigated ratrher than pages of arguments on here, a well read forum, but lets be honest things said here are not going to change anything.

 

Re: 6100 Royal Scot test runs

Yeah, I wonder who this anonymous "Ian Riley" (writing about 6201) is?

In fact, almost every poster is anonymous. That's the nature of these forums. It's the function of the moderators to keep that aspect under supervision and control.

That's because it wouldn't be fair. Those that know something about the situation will quickly understand. I put some information in about another engine and a particular issue a couple of weeks ago and received quite a bit of direct feedback which assured me that it was a good thing to do.

That's why one tends to let facts speak for themselves. e.g. repeated gross overspend by the same people on a succession of projects; mismanagement over simple items like wire that should have been provided for in good time - lots of people know who lastminute.com is, and that's a classic example. The list is endless actually and it's good that a few people speak up for those that are not in a position to say anything. Just compare the overhaul of 6100 and 46115. Which was in the best condition to start with? What was the comparative cost? How long did the job take - man hours? etc. I wouldn't like to concentrate too much on 6100 because it's far from being an isolated case. But it is topical at present and is part of a repeated pattern that's gone on for years, and which if unchecked is going to continue.

One would have thought that it would make a difference. I know for a fact that formal complaints have been made about the Scot project for at least 5 years. Ever since the volunteers were shown the door. A fact that might yet come to haunt the HLF people responsible for inaction and poor monitoring. I also know that consideration has been given by one of the erstwhile volunteers to submitting information directly to fraud investigators. But I think he was more concerned about the public image of the preservation movement, as well as the personal effort it would involve.

At least more people know about it though. And judging by the reaction that often occurs, it gets to the heart of the matter.

 

Re: 6100 Royal Scot test runs

The Charity Commission - that's a toothless tiger if there ever was one!

Twelve years ago a group of us who perceived problems within a national charity took two box files of evidence to the Commission headquarters in Haymarket and waited to be met at an agreed appointment.

Our appointee actually ran - yes - ran away from us down the corridor!

So do I have any faith in the system - not when the silly handshake gang have their pawprints all over it - No!

And yet - I am a 23 year trustee of a Charity where maladministration was adjudged against a local authority some thirty years ago - they were removed as administrators and damages awarded - so perhaps there was more tenacity then!

 

Re: 6100 Royal Scot test runs

One would have thought that it would make a difference. I know for a fact that formal complaints have been made about the Scot project for at least 5 years. Ever since the volunteers were shown the door. A fact that might yet come to haunt the HLF people responsible for inaction and poor monitoring. I also know that consideration has been given by one of the erstwhile volunteers to submitting information directly to fraud investigators. But I think he was more concerned about the public image of the preservation movement, as well as the personal effort it would involve.

At least more people know about it though. And judging by the reaction that often occurs, it gets to the heart of the matter.[/quote]

Perhaps I should clarify I wasn't at any stage disagreeing with you, the points that you were making or your knowledge of the topic - it was more a general post in relation to this kind of matter.

However it is a pity in such cases that names cannot be named somewhere as without this knowledege both the funders and future locomotive owners may enter into similar situations where they appoint parties that look great on appointment and then the truth comes out and its too far down the line to get rid of them without causing embarrsement to those who appointed in the first place. I can think of many examples of such indivuduals who look great to the outsider, but if you know the area of expertise you wouldnt let them near it - is it the case that bodies like the HLF do not have the skills to oversee or spprove such specialised appointments!

Equally sadly I would concur with Frank's assessment of the Charity Commission, it appears to be often the case that those perpetrating the wrong doing are vastly more experienced than those policing the system and thus have the abilities to keep one step ahead of them. I was involved in a case where with a little digging around it was apparemnt that trustees were blatantly syphoning money off in consultants fees etc, the CC finally investigated and reported after about 5 years by which stage the million or so has mysteriously disappeared!