Flying Scotsman

The Middleton Railway has just been given a HLF grant for the purchase and overhaul of a loco, as well. Not in the same league in terms of investment, though.

 

That's a fair point. And of course it's history in preservation is unique.

But the loco is also in danger of becoming a sort of tourist caricature, like the various Thomas. We have to ask the question, is it important because it is Flying Scotsman the media star, or is it important as the last representative of a numerous and successful class? To me its the latter, but clearly to many it is the former.

I still think that if the 'competent' people who have organised work on the loco had made an attempt to be aware of the history of this type of loco, then some unpleasant discoveries could have been avoided. It's not difficult to find details of their maintenance issues in the usually-recognised sources. I found them without any trouble.

As far as interpreting words is concerned, I realise freedom of speech is in the process of being exterminated in this country, but I'm sure the moderators are capable of dealing with anyone who goes beyond acceptability without head-masterly (but laughably pompous) lectures from other posters. I'm a moderator on a different forum, and I can assure you that the laws of libel are not quite as draconian as some imagine.

 

No they aren't competent because they have a bit of paper. Really, no. But the belief that they are is how bits of paper have almost entirely replaced actual competence to do the job in certain activities in this country. It's a deceit beloved of bureaucrats and insurance companies, but it actually has no force in law. It's no good waving your certificate in a court of law as a defence if you have done something stupid that has either harmed people or lost their money in an unreasonable way. But I'll leave the subject now before I in turn start to sound head-masterly

 

The importance of the bits of paper is that you know who to blame, and therefore prosecute if it all goes badly
A qualification doesnt gaurantee competence but it puts your neck on the block if you get it wrong - even if you have employed seemingly experienced and competent ( but unqualified) people to support your endeavors.

 

Competence is not solely having a piece of paper but, when you're in the dock, the first question the barrister will ask, is 'Please tell the court what qualifications you have to do this job' and being able to wave the bit of paper, assuming it is a relevant bit of paper, goes a long way to answering that question. A levels and BSc's don't count. Professional qualifications do.

 

The competency requirement is an ongoing headache with in the heritage railway movement, I know people who have a certificate saying thay are competitant to operate a machine that i would not trust them any where near, having seen their method of working, and then how many of us are trained operators with certificates to operate every item we may get asked to use? and who decides if someone is competent, people might be reluctant to sign people off if they think that in doing so, they put their own heads on the block. we as an industry come from all trades and very often use things in our hobby that we will not hold any formal training in.

 

A verbal insult is not actionable. At least, it wasn't until the new law that says anyone who is offended can make a complaint. However, he might have paid up because he couldn't afford to be taken to court and fight it - if it was a civil case you usually don't get costs.

But good on him for producing the certificates, at least it proved his parents were married! (Or at least, had the same surname...)

The point is, rather like an MOT, a certificate may only cover a point in time - it doesn't prevent anyone from acting in an incompetent fashion. It depends on the nature of the certificate, of course. Sea-going certificates used to be accompanied by details of years of service etc. with comments from previous captains and the like - I've still got my father and grandfather's ship's books - and thus to some extent guaranteed not only that an exam had been passed, but that the holder had experience and a safe track-record.

 

I do enjoy a good debate. You can have all the certificates and training you like but in the end it is all about using that knowledge to make the right decisions. we are all capable of making the wrong one! We are all capable of ignoring what should be done in favour of what we would like to do about a problem! And we are all capable of deciding when or not we admit we just don't know enough and need to consult someone else! People get emotional about these amazing machines and can sometimes make the wrong choices. Training and certificates give you a fighting chance but don't tell you what you don't know, what you can't see.

The key is to learn from these mistakes...6100, 4472, and maybe even 850... All have not met the expectations of everyone... I just hope that Bahamas and other projects are never afraid or too proud to stop and rethink or ask the many excellent engineering brains we still have that understand how to get the best out of these beasts. Anyone who has HLF money has a responsibility to take their time and get it right.

There is a difficult balance to these projects. Publish a plan and people hold you to it. Don't publish one and people think you haven't got one. It's interesting to see how they are keeping people guessing about Galatea. I am sure they have a plan, they just want to do the job properly without the pressure, which in turn would cause panic and wrong choices.

I am a project manager, and have been involved with engine projects and I believe that planning can bring a lot of benefit to them but you must be prepared to change timescales when necessary and should always have a financial contingency for doing so.

So an ideal for Bahamas team which I am sure they don't need....evaluate the work needed thoroughly first...plan it in detail....keep it to yourself....don't book it for charters months before it is finished...allow a financial contingency.....allow plenty of time for testing....use external experts to bounce off ideas.....make sure you can demonstrate the project and finances have always been under control ... And no recriminations if you have to take more time to do it right.

 

I suspect the Bahamas people will have had to demonstrate to the Heritage Lottery people in considerable detail that they have a plan and the methodology to carry it out.

46118

 

Have lessons been learnt over the 4472 saga,over correct planning and the 6100 saga as regards complete transparency of lottery funded projects ?, i hope so, otherwise future applications might well get turned down if the lottery fund dont trust preservation projects

 

How many railway orientated HLF projects have failed to deliver? 6100 is the headline grabber but I would suggest that the vast majority have achieved the aims of the project, as agreed with HLF. Even 6100 managed to tick most of the boxes, despite what we all know. I'd say the movement has a pretty good track record and the HLF knows this.

 

Well, they put £2.9m into our carriage shed (delivered sufficiently under budget that we were able to use some of the surplus to build the above workshop facility) and £50k into restoration / conversion of LCDR 4 wheeler carriage 3360 into a wheelchair-accessible saloon (delivered about four weeks late on a very challenging timescale, mostly on account of snow stopping volunteers getting to HK for a few weeks during the project). OK, not loco restorations, but the carriage shed in particular was a complex project with lots of snaggling factors (built close to a sensitive river site; a requirement to re-site a bat roost etc) and it was delivered OK. I'm sure many other railways could offer similar examples of successfully completed HLF-funded projects.

I'm sure that the HLF are competent enough to be able to judge the sound proposals from the no-hopers, and also probably have a pretty good idea (both from previous track record with them, and with other projects) about which groups are likely to be able to deliver on what they promise and which not. Not to say that you won't get occasional projects that go badly awry - that happens in all walks of life - but ultimately a grant-awarding body like the HLF will have criteria by which it awards grants: they would certainly include an assessment of the project management skills of the bidding organisation, but I'd very much doubt that they could blackball a project proposal by one group on the basis of poor delivery by another entirely unrelated group.

Tom

 

There have been a number of loco projects from established groups that have proved problematical though - Lord Nelson and Duke of Gloucester were two examples. However the problem with HLF nowadays is that their aspirations for educational content seem to to have stood things on their head, so if you want money to restore something you have to have an educational programme that what you want to do just happens to sit into somehow.

 

Thing with the HLF is that it is funding a lot of projects that already have a massive support base or have headline generating potential to make the HLF look good at restoring things. Alas the choice of projects can be somewhat lacking. 65033 is an engine that has more historical legacy than most yet because its Northern gets overlooked. Thats a case of where the money should go, especially if it was to a team of aprentice locomotive fitters to learn the tools to get the engines of the future running. Get something like that done well and done right, and let the big boys sort themselves out. HLF should be for projects that showcase heritage and need encouragement to take to the masses. Not something that already has mass support and potential.

 

We have gone to great lengths to plan the overhaul of 45596. Our Chief Engineer not only knows the engine intimately, haviing been responsibe for its faultless opewrating record to date - as well as the highly acclaimed restoration of the Coal Tank but is also a highly experienced project manager for multimillion pounds intrernational projects! We are not 'grey haired men playing trains' but a group of successful multi-experienced business men!

 

Hey, i am too but my Hair is Aluminium blonde thank you.

The Melter

 

Eh? Could you elaborate on this point of view. I sincerely doubt the HLF looks at a steam locomotive and goes "by eck, that's Northern, we're not giving owt to that".

I understand your passion for the NER but I can't entertain the idea that things being of Northern origin automatically rules them out for HLF funding...

 

I'd hardly consider Bahamas to be a southern locomotive... that got funding... as did the LNWR coal tank...when was the last time that was south of Watford ?

 

What region was Scotsman built for?
What railway was it built by ?

I do not think Northern engines have had a bad deal from a funding point of view at all,
A1,A2(not lottery i know but funded all the same),A3,A4.
The Melter