The Bluebird Project

Renegadenemo wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:27 am

We, like many others, would love to see Bluebird run again on Coniston Water. Coniston is one of the busiest lakes in England, so prior to any runs the security and integrity of the craft, operator safety and community impact implications must be fully considered, and risk assessed.

Just wondering what 'security' of the craft might mean. Anyone?

Integrity I get and operator safety too. Those are things that BBP had in place before the crew training and no one is better qualified than us to complete those tasks. 'Community impact implications' isn't one of ours so, seeing as we did our bit long ago and can produce all the relevant documents, at what stage should the community impact stuff have been taken care of or has it been?

Probably not the best choice of words from the Ruskin. Security as I know it would mean its safe inside the building, not being climbed over or meddled with, that would be the Ruskin trustees remit. I also assume they mean they wish to ensure the long life of the machine for future generations long after you and I are gone. Bearing in mind your age Bill and assuming your companies continue, if you get the contract you want what steps would you put in place to carry on after you decide to retire be it voluntarily or otherwise.(when I turned 70 I started to wonder how many years were left). Being fair I think it is an important consideration, I am sure you have thought about it. If you took ill and could not continue with this what steps would you see as being necessary to continue the story, a lot rests on your shoulders if the contract you want is agreed to.

Bearing in mind your age Bill...

Damn cheek! You and I will fall out, Mr Lazenby I'm but a youngster.

But you make a fair point that has been made many times and the team have instructions in the event that I wake up dead and provision will be made for the machine going forward in case we all decide to die or retire.

Young Emily is crazy-keen to carry on the good work and she definitely has the temperament. She came into my office this morning and asked me to put very simply (she's 10) what was going on because I was in conference for five hour yesterday and came home knackered and she knew this was unusual so I got her debrief this morning. I picked up a coloured Sharpie from the desk that she's been after for ages, pulled the lid off and gave it to her. She told me it was no good without the lid as it would dry out so I said I had a lid that she could have providing I could borrow the pen back now and again to write stuff down. She saw that as fair enough, popped the lid on the pen and stuffed it in her pocket.

But what if, I asked her, I come to want that pen and you change your mind and won't let me use it? She gave me a puzzled look and said, well that wouldn't be fair.

Damn cheek! You and I will fall out, Mr Lazenby I'm but a youngster.

how about 'popcorn' at dawn

Filtertron wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 12:21 pm I can buy a car which is a write-off in the legal sense, or 'wreck' if you will. It might be as simple as replacing a radiator strut; fit a new quarter panel skin, and put a new engine in it to put it back on the road. Once the engineering has been signed off on the repairs, I can then register the car. 90% of the car is original, but it is no longer a wreck. It ceased being a wreck when I pulled it down to repair it. An engine is a replaceable component, which Campbell himself was no stranger to. It's not a hard concept to understand.

No, it's not a hard concept to understand.

But there's one word in what you've said that you seem to be failing to fully grasp the significance of yourself, however, so I've highlighted it for you.

Certainly, if BBP Ltd. had purchased the wreck from the Ruskin, there would be no question that they owned it.

They haven't, so equally there is no question that it remains the property of the Ruskin, in its entirety, and in its restored state.

To extend your analogy, the repair work to K7, whilst substantial, is basically the same as taking a bumped car into a garage and replacing the bent panels. You will then owe the garage for whatever work it was pre-agreed you would pay them for, but you still clearly own the repaired article. And if the garage goes ahead and fixes a bunch of stuff that you never asked them to touch, or never agreed to pay for, then you have every right to tell them to do one when they present you with an invoice.

As I understand it, it was always implied that K7 was being restored on behalf of the Ruskin, with the cost being born by donations and public subscription. Indeed, until recently, this intention was clearly stated on BBP's website. If a signed contract exists somewhere that states the Ruskin will pick up any costs not covered by donations, then they will be obliged to honour it, of course.

In the absence of such a contract, I struggle to see how BBP Ltd. can lay any claim whatsoever to ownership of the boat. Anything else would be tantamount to my garage claiming that they now own my car just because they fixed it for me...

To extend your analogy, the repair work to K7, whilst substantial, is basically the same as taking a bumped car into a garage and replacing the bent panels. You will then owe the garage for whatever work it was pre-agreed you would pay them for, but you still clearly own the repaired article.

Or, you take your half-missing classic (as per Car S.O.S) to the restoration place and say that you have no means or ability to build it yourself or to pay their bills but will they do it FOC if you jump through a few hoops?

Your classic is so irresistible that they agree, so long as they can borrow it in the summer for a few car shows and a whizz around the odd circuit for historic reasons. Win on a plate for everyone! Deal.

So they lean on all their suppliers, who deal with them because you're not part of the process, (Sam_68, who's she?) who give parts and engineering services and paintwork and everything else needed on the understanding that one day they, in turn, will be able to take their own guests to see in running order the classic in which they had a hand in restoring.

Then, at long last, the day comes when it goes for a spin around the block. It works, but there's still much detail work to do before the MOT. But at that point you just say, forget our deal - hand the whole car over...

Answers on a postcard...

The scenarios are endless .
All we want as K7 Bluebird enthusiasts is to see K7 as she was intended to be seen , planing ,with rooster tails at a decent speed (no record attempts) on flat calm glass mirror like open water .......is that really to much to ask considering the effort and hard work that has been put into her for the restoration .....and yes Im asking you Ruskin Museum trustees .....Think of the publicity the museum will gain .
K7 was built to breath, run ,& inspire people .
Grown men were reduced to tears at the sight of K7 being returned to the water in 2018 .
We have waited long enough , do the deal and settle this and let Bill and the BBP team do what they do best and put K7 back where she belongs .........ON OPEN WATER !!!!!!!!

Sam_68 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:35 pm

Filtertron wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 12:21 pm I can buy a car which is a write-off in the legal sense, or 'wreck' if you will. It might be as simple as replacing a radiator strut; fit a new quarter panel skin, and put a new engine in it to put it back on the road. Once the engineering has been signed off on the repairs, I can then register the car. 90% of the car is original, but it is no longer a wreck. It ceased being a wreck when I pulled it down to repair it. An engine is a replaceable component, which Campbell himself was no stranger to. It's not a hard concept to understand.

No, it's not a hard concept to understand.

But there's one word in what you've said that you seem to be failing to fully grasp the significance of yourself, however, so I've highlighted it for you.

Semantics. It wouldn't make any difference if I bought it, or was given it. That wasn't my point. The point is that I have acquired the car. Whether by hook or crook is completely irrelevent. I was discussing the fact that the wreck no longer exists.

Sam_68 wrote:Certainly, if BBP Ltd. had purchased the wreck from the Ruskin, there would be no question that they owned it.

They haven't, so equally there is no question that it remains the property of the Ruskin, in its entirety, and in its restored state.

Legally, the Ruskin owns the wreck. However, as I have pointed out previously the wreck no longer exists, unless you count the corroded engine, and whatever remains on the lake bed at Coniston. As you and I are not privy to the full agreement between both parties, it is fair to say that the BBP retain legal ownership of all parts fitted to K7 which they have manufactured or fitted. I cannot imagine for a second that there wouldn't have been a caveat in the contract which didn't protect the interests of the BBP. Go back and think about the money that the BBP have put into K7. Would you do all of that without protecting your interests legally if things did go south? Of course you would, and I am sure the BBP have.

Sam_68 wrote:To extend your analogy, the repair work to K7, whilst substantial, is basically the same as taking a bumped car into a garage and replacing the bent panels. You will then owe the garage for whatever work it was pre-agreed you would pay them for, but you still clearly own the repaired article. And if the garage goes ahead and fixes a bunch of stuff that you never asked them to touch, or never agreed to pay for, then you have every right to tell them to do one when they present you with an invoice.

In a perfect world maybe. The hole in your argument is that costs do pop up with unforeseen problems relating to repair work. Your mechanic might notice you need a new head gasket, while your car is in for other repairs. I would surmise that if this wasn't repaired, you'd be complaining to your mechanic about why they didn't fix it while they had your car in the shop. Given the repair work to K7 was an unknown quantity, your argument doesn't apply. All of the restoration work was done with the Ruskin's knowledge. At no time that I am aware of did they question or object to making K7 operational again. If they wanted it to be a static exhibit, they would have said so from the outset.

Sam_68 wrote:As I understand it, it was always implied that K7 was being restored on behalf of the Ruskin, with the cost being born by donations and public subscription. Indeed, until recently, this intention was clearly stated on BBP's website. If a signed contract exists somewhere that states the Ruskin will pick up any costs not covered by donations, then they will be obliged to honour it, of course.

So you don't know definitively if that is the case or not. You're simply throwing assumptions about, based on the few sketchy details which have made their way into the public domain? I think this is the crux of the argument: none of us on the outside really know what agreements/contracts are in place between the Ruskin and BBP. We're not privy to the full documents, such as the often cited "2006 agreement". Do you know every single nuance and clause? I certainly don't, and I am not about to presume that I do either. How can you say with certainty that the BBP don't retain ownership of the components to make K7 complete again, and an operational vehicle at that?

Sam_68 wrote:In the absence of such a contract, I struggle to see how BBP Ltd. can lay any claim whatsoever to ownership of the boat. Anything else would be tantamount to my garage claiming that they now own my car just because they fixed it for me...

If you don't pay for the parts and labour, then your mechanic has every right to call a debt collector, and impound your car until it is paid for. This isn't the case here at all.

It is on the public record that Coniston couldn't get it together for K7's homecoming this year, as the committee in Coniston steering the event was dissolved for reasons unknown to me (perhaps the Ruskin's pending legal action? Who knows). The Ruskin were also invited to partner with the BBP for July's trials at Bute, which would have been a terrific opportunity for them. Instead, they go silent and start legal proceedings against the BBP, which isn't the right thing to do - in fact, I think this is extremely poor form on their behalf. This whole debacle could quite easily be settled if they would simply start communicating with the BBP.

I have remained silent on this until now but here goes....

I too have my opinion on this matter but I'm not going to share it here because a) I wasn't party to any discussions between the Ruskin and the BBP so my opinion isn't fully informed and b) Airing such opinions as I hold won't make a jot of difference to the eventual outcome.

I'm sure that Bill (and everybody else involved) knows what they are doing, so how about just letting them get on with it instead of indulging in this pointless and increasingly acrimonious speculation?
I'm sure you have all got better things to do; I know I have.

Right, rant over. I'm off to my workshop now to build a pulsejet and strap it to a go-kart.......

The North West Evening News has published an interesting article; according to the reporter the Ruskin Museum has covered the business rates and water rates for the BBP for 12 years Total £35000. The reporter said the BBP had been asked if the Ruskin had contributed towards the project and had been told no. The museum apparently has documents to prove they have.
According to the reporter the Museum has received a threat from the BBP to dismantle K7? Surely that cannot be right?
Interesting. The payments by The Ruskin seems like a very fair agreement.
No comment on the other matter.
Appears gloves are off.