Of pounds (shillings) and pence

6th September 2020

September is upon us. The nights are drawing in. As we near the first anniversary of hearing the term 'Covid' -, what is it going to cost us all?

If there's a theme tonight, perhaps it ought to be this, from Charles Dickens' novel David Copperfield
'Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness'
'Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery.'

Now perhaps this requires a word of explanation for all you younger readers for whom pounds have always been made up of one hundred pennies. Speaking as a mermber of the year in our school that was told it was 'lucky because it didn't have to learn farthings' any more, this was because once upon a time a pound was made up of twenty shillings, and of those shillings each was made up of 12 pennies, and the combination was oft referred to a LSD (pounds shillings pence) long before it took on the shorthand for a hallucinatory drug. (How ever pence came to be indicated by a 'd' I dunno, but it did.) In essence the quote means that if your expenditure is less than your income, the result is happiness, but if your expenditure exceeds your income - well, you couldn't just ring up the Bank of Mum and Dad for a hand out. Farthings? Well, we had all sorts of cute little coins left over from days when money bought far more than it does today. So we had halfpennies which were half of one penny, and farthings which were a quarter of one penny. And at one time we had Tuppences, three-penny-bits, sixpences and even groats (which were worth fourpence - or 4d).

When decimalisation came along there were even protest marches to 'save the sixpence' which was worth 6d or 2.5p, but inflation soon rendered the coin almost worthless. But enough of all this nostalgia. Monday was a bank holiday but as Andrew was taking grandson back to his mother's I was on my own down at the shed and the work I was pursuing is of little relevance here. Andrew and I spent an evening - Tuesday or Wednesday, I forget which - finishing off bits on Ashdown and on Thursday morning it was ready to leave - near enough. The low loader meanwhile had been up to bonnie Sturgeon-land and was returning with a rather decrepit Ruston 165DE, one of a pair that were once arranged to operate in tandem at a steelworks, but that SRPS no longer wished to retain. (There's been a video of it loading on Youtube and Facebook).

Ludwig hauled Ashdown up to Rowsley. I was hoping that by the time I got there the Ruston would have been lowered on to the rails, but a securing chain had become trapped in a wheel spoke and in the end it was necessary to push the loco a smidge further up the deck before the chain could be freed off. With a swap around the Ruston became the barrier and Ludwig pushed Ashdown on to the trailer ready for departure.

Originally this was to be such as to arrive Shillingstone on Friday morning, but an air leak had developed on the trailer so it returned to Heanor's base and finding that an air bag on the suspension had failed, the move put off while it was changed.

Back at the shed in the afternoon, Alistair L and his son came over to take advantage of the good weather and continue their sprucing up of Charlie. They were back again on Saturday and this time we were able to have brought Charlie over nearer the shed. Charlie now carries its name, for the first time, and very smart it looks too.

While shunting we were engaged in conversation with a couple on the footpath, the outcome of which was a guided tour by me. They were staying with relatives in Bradwell, and were anxious to give a donation but when I pointed them to the tin, they explained that since Covid they no longer carry any cash as no-one wants to accept it. I can see what they mean, but I am not about to invest in a card machine for the occasional visitor. This is an impasse that we'll have to consider carefully!

Although this morning was occupied with dropping an engine into a customer's loco, as the day went on we started a bit of re-arrangement. Jagger had joined us and was emptying various loose components from the Ruston cab into the 12t box van. Next to the box van is the cement van, and although we have yet to make a start on reflooring it was 'on the list' to get the engine turnover stand off the shed floor (where it has been something of an obstruction for ages) and out into the cement van. Here it is, having been carefully swung out over various obstructions and at rest in its new home. Given that our original plan had been to put it in the 12T van (but realised, by modelling it on CAD, that getting it in would be an exercise in itself) it can be seen to be vastly more spacious in its new abode. The plan is to renew the floor in stages, moving the stand on to the new parts as soon as they have extended far enough. So the first engine repair due to go in there (Jack's C6S) will have to wait a little longer.

You may be wondering why I used that quote back at the beginning, but it will now become clearer as I return to the events that have occurred on Peak Rail this week. Regular watchers of the Companies House website spotted early in the week that a 'Fixed and Floating Charge' had been registered on Friday 28th (though not visible until Tuesday). Basically this infers that the Waterman Heritage Railway Trust is lending Peak Rail plc money, and to protect its interests, has a charge over all PR's assets should the company default. More knowledgeable people than I have looked at it and report that it is a fairly standard document (indeed it appears to be software generated as in a couple of places it says 'Error! Schedule not found') save that it grants the Trust the power to appoint a receiver and operate the railway.

Then later in the week, the long awaited accounts came out and what a depressing picture it paints. For starters, it declares a loss for 2019 of over £87,000, and from the Directors report you'd believe that Covid began last year, and that the floods of November destroyed the years takings, even though it then states that Santas was successful. Accompanying the reports is an appeal letter stating that the floods did £100,000 of damage to the river bridge outside Matlock (but the Directors Report states that the damage was covered by insurance) and wanting £60,000 to complete the overhaul of Royal Pioneer. Now, I seem to recall that previously there was supposed to be a ring-fenced fund sufficient to cover the repairs on that loco, and at a past AGM (2017 I think) the MD stated that the boiler would be back by the following January. We rather assumed that this meant that repairs would be complete: the boiler is back, but is supposed to be going out to another contractor (the third if memory serves) and is still not fit to steam.

One thing that is notably conspicuous by its absence is the much-vaunted Quarry Consortium, which in past years has been about to go to tender for a feasability study (never heard anything more about that) and would be proceeding with track laying in a few years. Indeed the only refrence is to Peak Rail's plans to extend north being also 'a diversionary route ... serving ... quarrying industry in the High Peak area.' (Ten days ago I was talking to a manager in anther quarrying company, who confirmed that all capital investments have gone on hold until the crystal balls clear and management can see what is happening to the economy post-Covid).

But if all this woe wasn't bad enough, in one of the footnotes is refrence to the Grinsty claim. So let's recap. Peak Rail hired Austerity Lord Phil for several years until it was stopped in August 2016. Grinsty Rail subsequently sued Peak Rail amongst other things for numerous steamings of the loco which exceeded the contractual agreement for its use. As part of the protocols, you declare a 'Part 36': a value you will settle for at any early stage in the proceedings. Grinsty's Part 36 was issued in February 2017 and rejected by Peak Rail. After several preliminary court hearings and an attempt to settle out of court, Peak Rail accepted the Part 36 in the autumn and is thus legally deemed to have lost the case. The settlement was for £130,000 plus costs, but instead of drawing a line under the affair, Peak Rail threatened to sue Grinsty (I've seen the letter) so they instructed their solicitors to proceed with further elements of the claim - including repairs and damge to the loco.

Peak Rail got that put to Arbitration instead of Court and the accounts show that this claim amounts to £142,000 but made no provision in the accounts as, in a style all too familiar over the last few years the Board asserts that its counter claims are strong and the outcome cannot be predicted. This Saturday there was a departmental managers meeting at Darley Dale and several sources present at the meeting confirm that it was admitted that the Arbitrator had come to a decision but no detail as to what that decision was. That it was not declared as a victory suggests that all is not well and volunteers leaving Rowsley reported arrivals to what looks to have been a Board meeting Saturday night - a most unusual time and day to normal practice if so.

You might think this is bad enough, but in a demonstration of history repeating itself, rumours have circulated that the owner of Austerity 72 which effectively replaced Lord Phil, has also lodged a claim, sources quoting figures of £75,000, some more. All this would be fodder indeed for a stormy AGM, but citing Covid regulations, the AGM will be prohibited to shareholders, who are instead invited merely to submit proxies to the Directors and questions they would like asked. A cynic might think that this was awfully convenient to avoid searching questions. So are we set for insolvency of PR plc and the Waterman Heritage Railway Trust riding to the rescue? Well, we come back yet again to that quote I put at the beginning. For if you consult the Charities Commission website, you find that the Trust is a small charity, not eligible for gift aid, and in its last accounts (year ended March 2019) had income of £6600 and outgoings of £156,000. Indeed, over the last 5 years its total income is apparently £16825 and its outgoings £410,105. I think Dickens would be amazed.

That's it then for this week, off to bed now as we've an early start for Dorset on the morrow. I'll be back next week to regale you. See ya then.