4920 Dumbleton Hall

TBF the blame has to lie with the SDRT. They could've and should've written into the sale agreement the locomotive could not be sold abroad or not sold on at price above what they sold it for etc, or that they would receive a % of the sale price (like when footballers are sold between clubs). They must've known there was a massive chance it was going to be turned into something to do with Harry Potter given it's the same type of locomotive as 5972 and was being sold to the same owner. From what Richard Elliot is quoted as saying, it sounds like it wasn't a surprise to him.

 

I just really hope that WCR put something in the sale clause that once Warner no longer need it it MUST not be scrapped.

Chris

 

Seeing as my dad was on the board of the DHPS at the time of the sale, and i told him what was going to happen before it did, and this was all emailed to Richard Elliot beforehand, he was more bothered about getting the 300k for the loco.

 

And if it’s breached? What then? Who enforces it, and using what money?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

And I also guess to what end as it is not really a usable mainline loco for WCRC is it? They would really have to be doing it on behalf of some Heritage Line who would have to pick up the costs I suspect.

 

And suppose putting those clauses in caused the sale to fall through - what then? The loco would likely still be gradually rusting away in a siding, no closer to being overhauled.

As things stand, there's been a £1m injection of cash into the industry from a source that would otherwise not have been available; of which £300k has essentially ended up in South Devon. The alternative as I see it would be that had you put the kind of restrictive clauses in the sale agreement you suggest, the loco would have remained unsold.

We know that the movement as a whole is under resourced in cash terms; that there isn't enough overhaul capacity to keep the locos we have running; not enough storage space to keep those awaiting overhaul secure; and insufficient work for them all even if they could be made to run. Given those circumstances, a loco going abroad to secure under cover storage in exchange for a cash injection into the industry is hardly the worst outcome there could have been.

Tom

 

I’m in agreement with Tom on this. It’s not as if the loco has been scrapped. Whilst I’d rather it had stayed in the UK and being used that’s just me being sentimental. How many foreign locos have been brought to the UK? It’s a significant number and we don’t jump up and down and say it’s wrong and that we’re depriving the home country of a heritage asset. Other locomotives have been exported from the UK in the past and have eventually returned to our shores when circumstances change. 30926, 4079 and Dunrobin are three that immediately spring to mind.

 

Reading the bit in the Currant Bun, the £300k seems to be the only bit that is actually sourced and evidenced, and that's from a group that are the only source for the article and in the main seem to be merely trying to justify their position in the face of criticism, is there any evidence whatsoever that it was sold on for £1m or is that just conjecture.

Generally agree with the majority on here, it was theirs and theirs only to sell which they chose to do.

 

How many of those objecting to the sale to WCRC were willing to solve the problem by contributing funds and manpower to create the working locomotive that they now decree 4920 should have become rather undergo its actual sale and transfer to Japan ? I believe the word is hypocrisy.

 

The point I was making was that it seems members of the SDRT are moaning the locomotive has been sold abroad for £1m when they sold it for £300k under the pretence it was going to be overhauled and ran in the UK.

I am not commenting on 4920 as such but more the SDRT' members view. It is in a better position now than it was prior to the sale, rusting away on an isolated siding.

WCRC / Warner Brothers wanted 4920. The SDRT probably could've held on and held on and got a lot more, especially as I believe they were approached by WCRC, were they not?

 

They could've put clauses in, would've cost them next to nothing to do that, this happens and take WCRC to court and get a payout. A more likely scenario is that WCRC/WB would have paid more up front to not have this in the sale agreement, they clearly wanted 4920.

 

Possibly, but we don't know what was influencing them as sellers - including the risk of losing the whole deal.

As for enforcing judgment, there are significant costs in time and money of taking legal action - and no certainty about the outcome. That is of course assuming that you could legally put a clause in that would bind the buyer following any subsequent transfer/sale of the locomotive.

It certainly seems that there is now a degree of seller's remorse; one hopes that this case helps inform the negotiating position in future sales.

 

£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

 

Of course. But with a £700k gap between values, it seems like there is a gap between what some members think they should have had, and what the negotiators actually obtained.

 

You have hit the nail on the head here. Many enthusiasts (including some on this forum) seem to be under the impression that there is a large cross-movement group of people known as "they". "They" have huge reserves of money and time to be able to do basically anything you could dream of in preservation, and the only issue is for some reason they seem reluctant to spend the resources they have at hand, so require comments on the internet and in the pub bemoaning the lack of action in the hope that "they" may change their mind as a result

 

Would be interesting to learn what enthusiasts in those locos' home countries think about them being exported.

 

I’m not sure that’s the takeaway is it? Isn’t the issue that there are more locos than trains to pull, sheds to store them in, or engineers to overhaul them. Increasingly professional heritage attractions can’t afford

The last is a people / capability / capacity issue, but without better answers on the first two, it becomes moot IMO.

Arguably developments like Margate, Darlington, Doncaster tackle part of the storage question (as does, whether folk like it or not, John Cameron’s museum). And some railways are doing better than others providing more/better undercover storage of their own. But there’s surely nowhere near enough?

Unless those new museums and storage prove to be sustainable in the long term, and more come on tap across the country, it seems inevitable that more kit will be seen to be surplus to requirements, and treasured items will find themselves sold or in the weeds…

More people and money isn’t always the answer.

Simon

 

Museums need funding - not just to create them but to run and staff them. Who is going to pay for this?

Private individuals or companies can change their mind at any time. Public sector organisations have very little to create new museums - they're struggling to run what they've got.

Also, museums should be interpretative not just storage facilities. The items on display should be there for a specific historic reason which relates to the theme of the museum, not just because there isn't space for them elsewhere.

 

I would suggest that £300K was a fair and reasonable price to pay for an out of ticket 4-6-0 in need of overhaul. The grumbling seems to be because WCRC were able to sell it on to another organisation for an inflated price. If that was you instead of WCRC, would you have not done the same?