Bluebell Railway General Discussion

33108 vice 34059 today

 

Hi Tom,

Has there been any news on Stowe- don't think I have seen any news since the chassis went to Quainton?

Many thanks

 

It's not until you see them listed that you realise just how much is at the Bluebell in terms of locomotives.

It's also interesting to see how many are owned by the PLC; I'm not all too clued up on how railways are established but would have thought they would majoritarily be in the hands of the charity if only to protect them from a situation whereby should the PLC (which, I assume, deals with the day to day operating costs) goes into administration they can't be used by receivers to pay off debts. Not that the Bluebell is at any such risk that I'm aware of, and while I've no doubt a charity can also go into receivership a PLC is (again, in my understanding) the body most likely to face such a situation?

That said, lines such as the SVR and Bodmin have been merging companies divided in this way to reduce costs and need for finding people to fill all roles, so is there a single right answer?

 

If I remember correctly, I think the Bluebell Railway Trust was created (or ownerships were transferred) around 2009, when the ownership of the H Class was transferred to the Bluebell, but someone else might be able to give further clarity on that.

Although owned by the Bluebell, doesn't the Bulleid Society have some involvement in 34059 through a group linked to them?

 

According to Bluebell website 34059 owned by Bluebell but Bullied Society involved in fund raising and helping with preservation.


Sent from my SM-A556B using Tapatalk

 

I assume something changed later on as unless someone has repainted it to look like 32424 then that's what was on the SP webcams about 90 minutes ago!

 

Zingy!


(From the 1305 FB page)

 

The 33 ran the first A trip due to an issue with Sir Archie (now I understand resolved). 32424 was lit up and did the second and third A trips, after the OBO was knocked off the set to bring it within the weight limit.

Tom

 

The Trust is much older (was formed in 1985 I believe), but really ramped up its fundraising after 2001 due to changes in Gift Aid rules at that time making it a much more advantageous body for fundraising.

Tom

 

I think having the assets in the plc arose from the formation of the plc in the 1970s. At that time, the assets of the (at that time unincorporated BRPS) were transferred to the new plc, in exchange for the Society’s dominant shareholding. At that time, the assets were probably more secure there due to the Society being an unincorporated body. A lot has changed since then and further structural change / simplification is clearly on the cards.

As for the Bluebell Railway Trust’s locos, 592 and 263 came because their respective owning groups (Wainwright Locomotive Society and H Class Trust) were wound up, and being charities, in accordance with charity law had to look first for other charitable bodies with sympathetic aims to gift their assets to.

65 was purchased by the Trust from the Lewis-Evans family a few years ago, who wished to sell.

The 40% stake in 80151 I believe is a combination of the estate of one of the original owners being gifted to the Trust, and some equity in exchange for money paid by the Trust for the most recent overhaul.

As per a discussion at the AGM today, it is likely (but not yet completely agreed) that the Trust will buy a loco from the plc.

Tom

 

That obviously has the advantage of protecting the asset long term for the good of the railway, but is it also being used as a mechanism for the Trust to give the Plc a decent chunk of money to be spent without the usual charitable restrictions by the Plc? Not criticising if so, seems like a sensible prospect! Just curious.

 

Sensible, but not long-term sustainable! (As in, there’s only limited number of assets and a limited amount of unrestricted Trust funds).

There was an interesting comment made, about charities in general (rather than us specifically) that apparently the Charity Commission are advising that they predict there is only about another 10 years of significant legacies left.

Tom

 

Indeed, yes I didn't update though the 1pm behind 32424 ended up being 35 minutes late as a result of a lubrication issue on the Atlantic requiring to be resolved. A very interesting day.

 

Sounds like another Chinese puzzle- type day for Operations! Hope everything got resolved, and put to bed at a reasonable hour.

 

My latest video from yesterday’s members day for those who might be interested. Did pop into Sheffield Park and had a look around Atlantic House whilst we were there for 33108, great to see progress is progressing nicely on Normandy. Did also purchase a couple books of particular interest on the Schools Class, preparing for when Stowe eventually returns!

 

Say more

 

It was a passing comment, not a major discussion point, so not a lot more to say. But the context was that many in the baby boomer generation have accrued considerable wealth and a proportion of that is being passed on to charities as legacies. However, there are not many years of that left and, in comparison, the next generation (Gen X I guess) have not generated personal wealth in the same way. Hence, the baby boomers may well bequeath legacies to charities to a far greater extent than the following generation will, but that will be drying up in the foreseeable future.

Tom

 

I’ve also seen it suggested that there will be a massive inter generational wealth transfer as my parents generation die and pass their wealth to my generation. How that will benefit charities remains to be seen - I suspect much of that inheritance will be swallowed up in paying off mortgages and permitting the house moves that current over inflated house prices prevent, while more will be squirrelled away into savings for our old age.

 

Without wanting to start a whole new topic and thread drift, my personal experiences and observations is that any "wealth" the current older generation has gets swallowed up by social care fees and thus there are/will be no more substantial inheritances to bequeath to family - let alone charities, which I think ties in to what Tom has observed in his post.

 

There’s a lottery there - some win, some don’t (and I’ve seen both scenarios play out). For those who do win that lottery, the gains (largely due to house price inflation) can be significant - but how much will flow to charities is more questionable