Steam locos - what's significant, and what is at risk?

Possible to see what has happened over Beachy Head as ensuring the preservation of a genuine Doncaster boiler.

 

To the best of my belief, all property of a deceased person that is donated to a charity is exempt from inheritance tax, whether the donation is explicitly specified in the person's Will or done by decision of the executor(s) (and obviously not in conflict with the Will). All property that is not donated to charity must be valued for assessing inheritance tax.

 

It is perhaps worth noting that the list of historical items that require permission to export is very long indeed - strictly speaking you need permission to take your grandfather's diary out of the country!

 

But charities may have issues with such bequests. The extreme case is the NT, which tends to require an endowment with properties bequeathed it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Equally the “nation” might not want to accept large numbers of railway locomotives or other items, as we know the NRM already has more than it can comfortably handle; isn’t likely to restore many more locos to working order; and has de-accessioned quite a number of items in recent years.

A notable exception was ‘Fire Queen’ - recently accepted by the nation in lieu of tax, via a cultural scheme administered by the Arts Council.

 

I think that there's a balance to be struck: these are not just *any* assets - they're privately owned, yes, but they're also a very tangible part of the nation's social history. In this sense, I think that 'ownership' is too simplistic a term: ownership could be interpreted to mean that owner could simply decide to scrap 76017 on a whim and the rest of us wouldn't have a say. Instead, I'd argue that a broader notion of 'custodianship' on behalf of future generations applies, and that therefore there is a social (NB, not legal) obligation to be more forthcoming about these assets care and welfare. Indeed, the recent kerfuffle about a certain Castle and her boiler seems to bear this out.

 

That only works if there is external (state?) funding to support the continued existence of the item in question. Otherwise if a loco is owned by an individual, group of individuals, or a company they remain free to do what they like with it (within the law). Any social obligation is about as ethereal as a yet to be found brexit benefit.

 

That I would say, is the crux of the matter, but, its left, and the railway are now an engine down, and have had to hire in a loco, that they otherwise would not have had to, which makes the break even cost possibly harder, let alone making a profit, all of which it has to be remembered will make or break the railway's future, and its precisely for that reason, that next year, IMHO, there must be a decision on severing all links with the past, and protecting its self so that in future, only loco's that the ownership of is clear, and committed to the railway, and pose no future chance of the 76017 sage can ever happen again, should be considered for overhaul.

 

It doesn’t have to be funding, but may be regulation - the laws around “listed” buildings would seem like a reasonable analogy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'm not sure that massively helps.

Firstly it might lead to some decisions as enthusiasts we'd find odd. As an example, in all the hoo-har about Thornbury Castle, no-one could actually answer why it was very significant (and therefore, in your terms, worthy of listing). In railway terms, it's the equivalent of a Grade II Georgian terrace in Bath - nice, but not of especial significance in isolation.

Secondly, and more significantly - in the present case, listing wouldn't have prevented what happened. In that respect, a mobile asset like a locomotive is fundamentally different from a building. There's a fundamental mismatch in the intrinsic value to society of a loco like 76017 (not that great, I'd suggest); and the value to a specific railway, which has a significant investment (financial, manpower, and not least emotional) and therefore to which it represents considerable value.

The bottom line is that there is not enough money and resources around to preserve everything. So I think @martin1656 is probably closer to correct: railways will increasingly become very wary of facilitating the overhaul of rolling stock unless they have the long-term future locked down, either by ownership or enforceable contracts. If the volunteers on a railway move heaven and earth to produce a beautifully restored station building, that station isn’t going to move - but if they put the same effort into a loco, it could easily depart unless the contracts with the owning organisation are watertight.

The days of a quasi-independent group occupying a corner of a yard and plugging away at their own project (while benefitting from space, possibly tools and power, manpower who might otherwise be deployed elsewhere) are increasingly untenable, I'd suggest, for both financial and regulatory reasons.

Tom

 

I had in mind as an analogy assets of community value. It's currently for land and buildings but the principle could presumably be extended for other things where its main use is or has recently been to further the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community, and it could do so in the future?

EDIT - I've just seen @Jamessquared 's and this partly answers it

Their PURPOSE – the purpose to which they are being or have been used, rather than the nature of the asset itself – i.e. not in terms of any historical or architectural merit or location or rarity value.

https://mycommunity.org.uk/community-right-to-bid-step-2-identifying-assets-of-community-value

 

My point was less about whether it's a listing, or as @D1039 suggests, "asset of community value". It's more that there doesn't have to be a link between funding and status, and that controls can be put in place.

I happen to agree with you on the value of such external regulation, and the challenges it would bring - and that the implication is that the trust of one organisation to invest for the benefit of the owner of an asset will reduce to the point where it is governed by ownership or enforceable contract.

On that note, there's a tangentially linked conversation on WNXX, where one member describes his experience of his preservation group being evicted from the railway they thought was home. Though his was the wronged party, and arguably had a signed contract, they had no guarantee of winning a court case if it went that far - as another private owner found at the cost of having to sell a locomotive.

 

So what is "privately owned"? Are all those WCRC and LSL locos both steam and diesel privately owned? If so then you are proposing to impact on a companies business. Although some LSL locos may be in a trust.
It is a little like the argument when Concorde retired that BA should be "made" to keep one flying. Unless something has been identified as nationally important then you own it and you can do what you want with it. Why should you or I have a say in something someone else has paid for?
Great way to stop anyone preserving, running or overhauling a loco if you are just going to "steal it" because a few think it is important.

 

I do get it, but to an extent that principle is made and you or I - or at least the community - already do have a say in certain things someone else has paid for. Both listing and community use for buildings and land have been mentioned, and works of art and open access to land are other examples. How reasonable it would be to extend that to heritage assets such as 76107 is moot.

 

AFAIK the US lists 'Heritage Assets'

 

All of which takes us back full circle to the ownership question. Who, and in what form, is the owner of 'Loco. No. xxx'?
Pat

 

I'll just leave this here.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Objets_monuments_historiques:_locomotives

However, not every locomotive is listed, just as you would not expect every old building to be listed just because it is old.

 

There is already a UK railway ‘listing’ process - the Railway Heritage Designation scheme which, since privatisation, has been responsible for identifying and protecting historic artefacts and vehicles on the operational railway. Once designated the owner of the item cannot dispose of it without reference to the RHD advisory board (the board are currently looking to re-home a Network South-East branded ‘Welcome to Barking’ sign).

Before privatisation the NRM or its Clapham predecessor could claim things directly from BR and this enabled the bulk of the National Collection as we know it today.

No other transport mode or industry has this degree of heritage protection from the state and I guess this has arisen partly due to the dominance of state funding for the rail industry, both before and after privatisation. The RHD scheme has never applied to items on preserved railways but these (including preservation charities) are largely privately funded.

So I imagine the gov’t, if asked, would think they’d done more than enough, over many years, to protect railway heritage.

 

As we enter my area of expertise I feel I must wade in...

I know its hypothetical and broadly the point you make later on, but should it be possible for 76017 to have been covered by legislation similar to LB legislation it would make sweet fanny adams difference to what has happened her. It doesn't stop one disposing of an asset to anyone, merely controls one scrapping it or altering it. People need to be careful what they wish for, as things like signalling braking etc get ever more complex and intrusive such a regime could inadvertently take engines off the mainline if the changes required to facilitate are considered harmful to significance without sufficient public benefits being achieved.

I think the preservation community has bumbled along mainly on a simple economic factor that preservationists offer more for vehicles than the likes of Booths or Sims would.

ACV's acre actually a bit of a red herring/smoke and mirrors thing (funny that as they came from the government of the last 12 years) insofar as even if something is added to the list as an ACV it only really means that should the owner choose to dispose they had to give the community a 6 month window to purchase it on the open market, there is no compulsion on the seller to sell to the community nor offer them any sort of discount so they are up against the wider market eventually.

In modern parlance listed buildings/SAMS/Conservation Areas etc all tend to be referred to when being assessed formally as 'Heritage Assets'

Its outside my area of expertise and I don't know much about it but the mechanism for protecting fine art etc seems to be the most pertinent in the case of railway assets?

 

But only where export is in question (e.g. "Dumbleton Hall").