6100 Royal Scot

its very sad though isnt it, through either one persons bloody mindedness, or quest to exercise his own self importance a very well respected museum has been brought to its knees, and yet there has been no explanation as to why or how things have gone wrong, why there has been overspends that have meant a museum selling parts of its collection to fund something that has not benifited them one bit in my own view bressingham has been badly advised to had even started the overhaul without a firm programe and costings in place along with someone independent to sign off the expenditure , they were after all placing their funds into the hands of a third party and now it could even place the future of bressingham in dought , if the collection gets to the point where a number of important attractions have been sold and are no longer there and they are financially strugling to keep what they have got together it will impact on visitor numbers

 

Don't know about Martin, but I have.

 

I think that a lot of us know what has gone on and where to lay the blame but lack the hard evidence to put it in writing. Even Bongo was careful in how he phrased things. I've asked one railway mag editor why his magazine hasn't done a 'News of the World' type expose and the response was that he would love to but their legal team won't let them. They all run on a tight budget and there simply isn't sufficient scope in increased circulation to cover any potential legal costs. If someone has hard facts that they can justify in court then, possibly. The Yorkshire post article on Scotsman was hard hitting and in telling of some of the horrors that had been found, was factual, but stopped short of naming any names.
Don't suppose any of the editors of the Sunday papers are railway enthusiast?

 

I think we need to be careful here that we don't get what we wish for.

Yes we'd all like to know exact how 6100 came to be in the state it's in, but if the papers got inolved, we're more likely to end up with headlines like "Puffer nutters squander lottery cash whilst (name your charity) goes without!!

 

in answer to the moderator who asked, i do know someone who was involved with the restoration of martinello , but out of respect to them i would rather not name them, i dont see how you can say that i have made serious aligations, because what i have said was said previously by others and whilst unlike some i dont have first hand experience of the standard of work turned out as regards 6100, i have been around steam long enough to be able in my own estemation to understand that if i did work simular to what has been reported that it would be not acceptable to the CME of the railway i worked at ,

 

I don't think it is fair to say its all down to one person. Maybe he is responsible for the standard of work, and also the same on Flying Scotsman. But there's also at least one other culpable person who is involved with both engines and has been a trustee at Bressingham as well. If you read this thread carefully, it's quite revealing and fits in with what has been publicly announced over the years.

 

I have already written here about the unwillingness to get involved that typifies the regulatory bodies. I am a trustee of one charity where the Charity Commission did get involved - and ended up surcharging the local authority for maladministration by one of its pre 1974 Urban District Council constituents back in 1976

Another contributor to this forum, myself and others, well over a decade ago, had sufficient concerns to convince us that a formal investigation was warranted into another national body that we were connectd with.

I hasten to add that this was nothing to do with railways

A dossier running to two box files full of records was made up and taken, in person, to the Charity Commission - where the caseworker responsbile actually ran away from me down the corridor rather than take custody of the papers. Mywife saw it so i'm not hallucinating!

That charity is now running exactly to the business plan that we said it would, i.e. being fleeced, but as it is led by freemasons and liverymen of the City of London - we weren't allowed near.

Sounds like we weren't alone. The MPs aren't the only stable that needs cleaning up

 

Frank, you can't openly make personal accusations of course. But if I as a private person asked you for your opinion on which charities you thought were well worth contributing to, as a high proportion of my money would be efficiently applied to projects, no doubt you could tell me your personal opinion, without me needing to know why. The opposite is equally true, isn't it?

 

As the other contributor involved with TBirdFrank in this affair (his posting above), perhaps tfftfftff86 would be so kind as to do some editing to his posting as at present it doesn't make any sense.

When one has a national organisation (not referring to Bressingham) whose leading light is prepared to disregard the law, lie to, deceive and cheat its members so that he can have his own way, then questions will be asked. As this can all be proven I have no worries in saying this.

Additionally, think on this one. Is everything right with a national hobby organisation that needs to spend in the order of £50,000 for the 'administration' of 4,000 member per year? This at early/mid 1990s monetary values. That is £12 - 50p per member. How do clubs/societies that you belong to compare? For 4000 members is 11,000 items of postage believable - not including magazine distribution?

 

I know where you're coming from, but playing Devils Advocate, for each member a membership renewal letter and then a copy of the accounts could account for 8000 postings. How about return of membership cards and general correspondence for the other 3000? However, £50K on admin of these members is another matter, entirely!

 

Not the case, Steve. Accounts, AGM literature, Membership renewals and subsequent cards all sent with magazine.

 

What actually is the organisational structure of Bressingham?

I see that there is a registered charity by the name of Bressingham Steam Preservation Company Limited ("BSPCL"), which owns 100% of the issued share capital of its trading subsiduary Bressingham Souvenirs Limited; however what is the arrangement for a supporting membership? There is no reference to any membership of BSPCL; is it possible to take this out, or alternatively is there some 'Friends of...' organisation (presumably with no direct voting rights)?

I note from published accounts that "Trustees are recruited when a vacancy arises. Candidates are selected according to the specific skills and experience requirements that existing trustees have identified. Selected candidates are invited to attend a meeting of the Trustees and outline the qualities they could bring to the charity. The Trustees then discuss the candidates In Camera and successful candidates are called back and invited to become Trustees".

Is this not essentially a closed shop? If Trusteeship is selected in this way, and there is no actual membership able to attend an AGM and raise questions of the management, then I am hardly surprised that some of the comments that are being raised about management (and for the purposes of this post I'm not referring to the engineering side; that's a story in itself of which others know far more than I!) are circulating.

 

As a regular visitor to Bressingham I now see this museum as a family day out rather than a "steam enthusiaists" day out so I rather guess that as long as there is live steam for the kids in the way of the narrow gauge lines and the gallopers running I very much doubt if people really care if there are 20 traction engines there or 2! The same applies for standard gauge locos.

The royal carraige seems to get more attention of the public than the lovely locos standing adjacent.

Im sure Bressingham have learnt by their mistakes and nothing to do with standard gauge steam there will be overhauled, just a pity that the so called enthusiasts have choosen to knock Bressingham rather than to support them.

Restoring steam locos of any type often goes well over budget especially if work is contracted out , Ive been there!

Jim S

 

And you can also end up with a rubbish job that has to be redone by others, I've been there too. The easiest thing in the world is heap scorn on others and their efforts when you don't *really* know the truth of the matter. I just hope the Bressingham boys have the courage to get the Baddesely Garratt back in working order,

 

In that case, i wonder, might it not be better for Bresingham to sell off the mogol, b4 and terrier after all most the larger exibits are NRM engines, that would then free them of responsibility for the in certificate engines ,if as you state its not seen as a reason for people to visit, im sure that the terrier would get snapped up, as would the B4, the stuff from york can go back and with the money they make, after paying crewe off, can be invested in something the public who visit bressinham would enjoy, such as another showground attraction, or longer narrow gauge line etc

 

The problem when you contract out work is that you to a degree lose control over the standard of the work being done, after all contact work is done to a cost and because of that it might fall lower than your own standards , like spamcan ive been there also, when a group do work themselves ,its done to the standard they want, which should be the highest possible, with the skills and equipment at their disposal i have often seen re working having to be done, not because the contractor did shoddy work, but because the work done was done to a cost it was not finished off as well as we would have expected

 

In Heritage Railways report Bressingham officials are concerned that LNWR want to return it in perfect condition they want a job which is satisfactory but not to a higher standard than was first envisaged. A well placed source is quoted as saying Bressingham isn't looking for a Rolls Royce job.
Rolls Royce use to say the quality remains long after the price as been forgotten.