6100 Royal Scot

Presumably its the wrong colour for MR. Riley - or perhaps its why he's selling 76079?

 

And if it's sold into private ownership no doubt the Lottery will want their money back....

 

I don't think that would be either the Banks or the new owners responsibilty.., I'd imagine they would become a creditor of Bressingham, who were owners, sponsors and management of the engine.. Should the NLHF deciede to pursue funds recover.. this may not help Bressingham too much ! Without knowing the terms of the deal I'm only guessing... but that would be my guess.

The sad thing is 850 and now 6100 have failed to reach potential following lottery grants, and 4472 is definitely a Project at Amber risk right now, that cannot be a good indicator for the future ! I would imagine the NLHF may impose much stricter guidelines on Financial and Project management in the future, if indeed they chose to continue funding high profile mainline steam locomotive overhauls.

 

How come no-one has mentioned a Lottery Heritage Fund mortgage on the loco?

Their grants are not unconditional gifts, and usually have a clawback / mortgage provision against the grantee and project asset.

The bank may not be the sole mortgagor.

 

Is it the Asset (6100) that it's guarenteed against ? (That would be an unacceptable risk to the Bank imho, in the same reason 60163 couldnt be mortgaged.. i.e. a box of bit's is not worth the whole realisation of the asset and in event of failure.. you'd have a box of scrap bits (or a dismantled loco) to sell...).. far better the Project Sponsors be the responsible party to put up a collateral to guarentee the project.. in this case it probably wasnt the engine as they'd be mortgaging it twice, thinking about it...I would have imagined the Bank not lending on an asset that's already mortgaged ?..

it's probably backed by Bressingham itself ? - Again.. i'm guessing, but yes I'd guess their's a clawback provision on a reducing scale depending on the milestones of the project being reached. That said it could depend on the valuation of the engine... if the HLF sponsored £300k, and the Bank (was it £300k as well ?) then the engine may well be valued at £1.2mn and so mortgaged at 50% or less... but if the bank only had a minority stake then it'd need good provisions to be able to force a sale as a minority stakeholder ?

I guess it'll all wash out for us to see.

 

The following press release was issued by Bressingham's General Manager last week...

“Bressingham Steam Museum announces that it has transferred ownership of Class 6P Locomotive No. 6100 “Royal Scot” to the Royal Scot and General Trust. The Trust will operate the locomotive on the main line and, upon completion of the restoration, it will in the first instance return to London and be based at Southall. It has always been our dream to restore Royal Scot to pristine main line running condition and to put it into a charitable trust to ensure that the locomotive would be operated and maintained to achieve its full potential. We welcome the setting up of the Royal Scot and General trust and see this ambition now being realised

Bressingham will have continued involvement in the Royal Scot Trust and will provide a trustee. Bressingham associates who wish to continue to be part of the operation and maintenance of Royal Scot will be able to do so, and will be warmly welcomed at Southall. The Trustees of Bressingham Steam Museum have concluded that separation of the locomotive from the museum and garden-related operations at Diss will enable both to realise their full potential, and that this is in the interests of the BSM, the locomotive, and all who have an interest in both.”

... of course there are always those who don't want to let the facts get in the way of a good story. My guess - and it IS only a guess - is that RM got wind of the transfer of ownership, but went to press before they received the offical announcement, so put 2 and 2 together and failed to make 4.

Tim

 

Two weeks ago, a refugee from its "restoration" team was rounding up a support crew for mainline operation.

 

Can't remember the timescale.
Although the honest answer is of course, "It's ready when its ready".
Train Mags don't like that answer though!

 

Thats not entirely accurate - my copy says 'Royal Scot for Sale ?' It talks about a rumour not a fact.

 

All the below is pure speculation but as a corporate financier I would hazard that the transfer is borne out of a desire to seperate the risk of making the loan repayments due for the resotration (to Waterman and Lloyds TSB) to ROyal Scot alone, hence isolating the other Bressingham assets (locos and land) from the hands of the creditors if not repaid........

This is sensible from the point of view of Bressingham but leaves the bank (tax payer)/LNWR with a very big and real risk that they cannot recoup the estimated 6 figure sums (300k I u/s) outstanding.

Without opeining old wounds or profeesing to be an expert in project management costs/restoration I do struggle with the sums bandied around about how much 6100 has cost and despite my aversion to some of Bongo/Impalas insightful (but provocative) remarks he does have a point that at a plus 7 figure sum one wouldnt expect such fundamental problems to afflict a locomotive that benefitted from a full set of fittings and was alledgedly in reasonable condition when work started. I do concur that with so much public money vested, that an enquiry is appropriate and that hopefully lessons can be learnt.- The movement has (quite rightly) benefited from much tax payer resource and this debacle (foul play or not) cannot be laid to rest for the sake of the movement and the credibility of the good contractors out there and whom the movement relies on for skills and resource but @ a fair cost to those who pay.

Unfortunately any degree of project management involves a degree of contracting which at the lower end of the integrity spectrum can range from "use a mate" to "self contract"- often for ones own profit. I do not cast aspersions at all and make no accusations but from the incomplete information held and dispersed the costs and the results do not stack up and to the extent that this feeling clearly exists the heritage movement should quite rightly understand the lessons to be learnt......if only to protect the integrity of good and viable projects.

Again I reitterate- no acccusations cast but as a substantial donor of some projects and keen follower of the movement I hope this affair does not prejudice the chances of other credible projects getting off the ground with tax payer support

Best of luck to the engine on the mainline

 

The Waverley refit in 2000/2001 used several millions in HLF grant to Waverley Steam Navigation Ltd, the owning charity.

The ship itself is mortgaged to the HLF as security for the expenditure, although I do not know the full terms.

This has led to other decisions, as her security is deemed to lie with the HLF in the first instance, as this is considered to protect her existence as a heritage artefact. To see a similarly funded situation where a clearing bank is claiming the power to conduct a "distress" sale of the grant aided asset in the open market is - to say the least, worrying.

The detail needs to be made fully public for the understanding of other HLF funding recipients.

 

I disagree with the use of the term "taxpayer support." I would consider that to infer that the scheme has been funded with aid from general taxation income when in fact it has been funded in part by a Lottery grant. The former is money that most of us have to pay one way or another but the latter is purely voluntary as nobody *has* to buy a Lottery ticket. I am a taxpayer but I do not buy Lottery tickets so I do not consider 6100 to have received any of my money in the form of "taxpayer support." I also wonder how many people buy Lottery tickets with good causes in mind as opposed to dreaming of winning the "big one."

 

I very much doubt that the vast majority of Lottery ticket buyers give a second thought (or indeed a flying f**k) about what good causes their money may or may not go to. People who intentionally give to good causes do so direct, because they know which cause they want to give their cash to.

In contrast, people who buy Lottery tickets do so because they want to get rich quick. Of course, the chances of doing so are so infitessimally miniscule that I often wonder what on earth planet people are on who fall for the whole 'well I might get lucky' thing. It's one of the more irrational, idiosyncratic sides of the human psyche.

On the other hand, for a lot of good causes it's rather useful that there are so many of those people about...

 

Agreed. As someone whose group is preparing an HLF application, I hope these people keep buying Lottery tickets in ever increasing numbers.

 

The new issue of Heritage Railway (No.127) which arrived today reveals the new 'owner' of 46100. He is building up quite a fleet for himself.

 

Are you going to give a clue to those of us a bit further from a copy of HR?[/quote:3imbewzy]

The HR website is still showing issue 126 so no news there!