6201 Princess Elizabeth

Good to see people posting some mature, and educated posts, good on you chaps =D> , its reassuring to see, a balcanced sensible discussion (whichever side of the debate your thoughts are on).......rather than attacking people for their spelling and grammar, Cabmans dodgy typing only shows how passionate he is about certain posts on here, Also he hsa tort Me evereething ,abowt speling and grammor and how too trype properlee!! #-o

 

If anyone is serious about membership of 6201 contact
6201 Secretary
Mr A Harries
1 Ormerod Close
Sandbach
Cheshire

 

Here we go, you can only criticise if you're a member, parted with cash, got your hands dirty etc. That disqualifies most of us from having an opinion on the vast majority of heritage projects. Can you honestly say you've never criticised any project with which you aren't involved?

 

*Sniff* I smell a troll !

 

Well that remark sure added to the debate. Nice to read your pithy comments.

 

You called? O O

 

LOL Salty!

 

Martin as regards 4771 I would agree that all is quiet - but I would not agree that there is no interest.

We are dealing with the NRM there which will do government bidding first and foremost, and exercise curatorial decisions somewhere below that level. There is a time for a watching brief and a softly softly approach.

We are entering a period when whilst there are new locos, 70013 46115 60163 available - there are an awful lot going out - 6201, 6233, 4771, 60009.

6201 need not be going out - is privately owned - not a museum loco, and there seems to be a need for a proper mature decision making process - not one man's vanity.

 

Patiently waiting for an official comment 8-[
The Melter (and a 6201 fan)

 

Ahhhh, a PARROT, Who's a pretty boy then????????????

 

This is what he does when he disagrees with a someone, he attempts to brand them a troll.

 

I guessed as much. How puerile!

 

But are the working members the ones who are making the decisions? From the outside it seems a ruling clique is making all the decisions to the apparent detriment of the loco's continued main line operation. You don't seem very passionate about 6201's early retirement, in fact your post could be construed as apologist for the 6201 "politburo", you're not their official spokesman by any chance are you?

 

Sidmouth is attempting to offer some reason and common sense. Alas I fear he is wasting his time as in reply you have posted the above nonsense and rather ruined the point you were trying to make.

 

Am I missing the point entirely here....

6201's committee have decided to take her to Crewe a decision which has upset a number of members of this forum who are also members of the 6201 group. However if it upsets you that much say something directly to the owning group of which i assume you are a member and thus I would also assume have voting rights - force an AGM whatever.

I see little gained in bitching on here naming the parties who you consider responsible for the present position (who seem not to post on here and thus have no position to reply) - your position being further weakened by a continuing refusal to stick your head above the parapet by revealing your real names, I am sure people would rspect and support you more if you did that, equally if anything the continuous in-fighting and bitching is hardly likley to attract new members to the society!

As for those who are not members of the society, have not paid their subs or done the work to support this loco, its got nothing to do with you (or me for that matter) so why keep posting conjecture etc...

Sorry for the rant, I would be as upset as anyone if she does get retired for now. Its just that if there is dirty linen to be washed it really should be done in private by those directly involved and not just become a pointless free for all!

 

Can I suggest a perhaps controversial take on the "you're not a member/working member, so its nothing to do with you" angle - not aimed at 6201 or any particular organisation.

I have been involved in the "management" side of heritage railways for over 15 years and know there are many (including those who post on here) who will have been involved for up to 3 times as long. I have always felt the responsibility in this position is to hand on to the next generation a railway, loco, carriage or whatever that has a future and is in as good or better condition than when the current generation came along. This is quite a tall order but it must be at the heart of "preservation" in a steam railway context.

If this is the case, then the responsibility is at least to not only the present memebrship, but also the past and, perhaps even more so, the future membership. Anyone on this forum could become a member of most organisations we discuss, and if they feel very strongly should probably do so, but those directing these organisations do have a wider responsibility than their own working or even non-working members. They are custodians of the past for future.

In this case, there can definitely be arguments both ways - that the early retirement of 6201 may conserve the loco or that another couple of years would boost funds for future preservation - and even if the loco is not, at this stage, to be returned to working order, preserving a non-working loco still costs money.

 

No one of us owns anything of heritage - we are all mere custodians passing it on for future stewardship.

The actions taken last month seem designed to prevent such a forward transfer - although perhaps done out of a narrower but well meaning motive that fails the "big picture" test.

If the decision had been taken following investigation and dismissal of all other posiitive options then no-one could complain - but it wasn't, and those options - which were most definitely in play - were frustrated.

That is the root cause of this debate