April to June 2005

6th April 2005 - 15:00

I’ve had a pile of mails regarding the HLF decision, as many people perceive this as the end of the road or at least a serious setback. However, almost from the outset comparisons have been made between our project and that to return the last flightworthy Vulcan bomber to the air. Take a look at the following link and you may see a disturbing pattern beginning to emerge, www.tvoc.co.uk/main .

Any of that sound vaguely familiar?

Now take a look at this one, www.tvoc.co.uk/index2 .

I may have this completely wrong, but I’m rapidly concluding that it’s all part of the game and in order to get a result it’s necessary to sling your irreplaceable piece of British heritage (in this case an almost flightworthy Vulcan) over your shoulder and keep climbing until you find a vein of common sense. I know from talking with members of the Vulcan team that they have had to go to extraordinary lengths to succeed and richly deserved it is too.
Whether the HLF do this on purpose to weed out the nutters I have no idea but it’s somewhat infuriating. As this seems to be merely another bridge to cross on the route to having them do something useful with our ‘iconic’ blue boat we’ve carried on undaunted and last week found us visiting with none other than Malcolm Wilson (pictured below) whose M-Sport operation in Cockermouth operates the Ford World Rally Championship team.


Mr Wilson, it seems, is equally adept at driving a desk as he is a rally car because his facility at Dovenby is a stunning blend of classic architecture and state-of-the-art facilities for preparing and running a world-class motorsport team. More importantly from the project point of view is that many of the skills and certainly all of the facilities exist on one secure site to not only rebuild K7, but also to allow enthusiasts and members of the public to visit as this process takes place. It was a breath of fresh air to escape the committee-driven environment for a few hours too. Malcolm is very definitely the captain of his ship. He makes all the crucial decisions and accepts the fallout if they go pear shaped. Except that he’s good at what he does so they don’t go pear shaped.
In order to secure part of our package from the various Cumbrian funding pots we need to demonstrate that Cumbrian folks will benefit, which all seems fair enough. Obviously the funding organisations would prefer if we spent a tiny proportion of their cash and provided a raft of jobs but it’s swings and roundabouts and what we can’t offer in terms of bulk job creation we can certainly replace in specialist training and uniqueness. Hence the drive to base the project in Cockermouth.
Unfortunately this means returning to the committee philosophy where no one can make their minds up about anything and where the dialogue goes something like.

“To qualify for funding, it’s of the utmost importance that as many people as possible receive the greatest possible experience of K7 per pound spent,” say the committee.
“Fine,” we reply, “so we take the boat out and run her on Coniston in a triumphant, homecoming event and the whole world will see her.”
Worried looks on the committee’s faces…
“Ooooh, we’re not sure about that, isn’t it terribly dangerous?” they ask, whereupon they take no notice as we explain for the umpteenth time how the Seattle guys have made it perfectly safe and offered to help us out. But the thought of a museum exhibit moving, making a noise and burning fuel seems too much for them so we try a gentler tack.
“Okay,” we offer cautiously, “how about we simply float her on the lake, maybe start the engine for a tethered test, then at least the museum visitors will appreciate that what they’re seeing is the real deal and we’ll still have a massive audience.”
More worried looks.
“Ooooh, but what will the conservationists say about taking out the old engine? It won’t be original anymore…”
“It’s held in with four bolts and two pipes,” we explain patiently. “So we can put the old one back when we’re finished if you prefer.”
Still a general aura of concern hangs over the committee.
“But what if the noise upsets old Mrs Miggins at the end of the lake?” they ask worriedly. “She was in the blitz, you know… Maybe we should just clean the boat with cotton buds and put it in a glass case…”

It’s at about this point when I would normally begin tearing out my hair, if I had any. Because having emasculated the project by committee, the next item invariably becomes the lack of benefit per pound spent and so off we go again. I shudder to think what would happen to Malcolm’s rally cars if he had to endure the same hopeless process.
They’d come last!
On another note, I’m eagerly anticipating the arrival of my copies of the ‘expert’ advisors reports, though an unexpected piece of nonsense has promised to delay their arrival. It transpires that a minor plot was hatched by the HLF to send the paperwork via our good friend Vicky at the Ruskin in the hope that some of the more ludicrous pages might fall out before it arrived on my desk. They’re especially good at losing vital pages as we’ve seen but Vicky and I have been in the trenches together since day-one so it was an ill-conceived plan at best. I’m still waiting…

28th April 2005 - 16:00

I seem to have prodded a hornet’s nest this week, I thought it was only a local thing but it seems to have sent shockwaves as far as Cumbria. One of the Newcastle papers published a typically inaccurate report that our funding application has been turned down for the SECOND time though where they got that notion from no one seems to know. This in turn attracted the news crews from both local TV stations as well as BBC Radio Newcastle and provoked all sorts of defensive manoeuvres on the part of an HLF spokesperson when cornered by our intrepid Geordie reporter. One quote reads:

‘With regard to the expert advice, the committee view all the information that is presented to them and make a decision based on that information – they debated this case long and hard.’

There is no doubt that this is true. We’re sure they did review all the information and we know that the debate was intense because we had a friend in court who fought our corner valiantly but against insuperable odds. But, in all fairness the HLF were absolutely right to turn down the application on the basis of what their ‘experts’ wrote so the committee are off the hook for the moment as they really had no other option.

My radio interview later in the day provoked a second masterful body-swerve by the HLF and whilst deftly avoiding any mention of ‘experts’ who seem to be above actually having to view our ‘iconic object’ with its ‘urgent conservation need’, they suggested that if we were to roll over and adopt a ‘conservation led approach’ things might be different. The fact that we’ve always had a conservation led approach to restoring the boat seems to have been overlooked yet again.

There’s no escaping it, the so-called ‘experts’ have let the side down. Their reports, (yes I received my un-adulterated copies in the end), are filled with technical inaccuracies. The information contained therein is largely incomplete, frequently contradictory and as a consequence each of the documents is riddled with questions that could have been answered in a single phone call had any of them bothered their lazy backsides to properly research the subject about which they’d been asked to compile a report. One of them discusses the following option:

‘Restore it as a working vessel using original documents. This would involve a new engine and considerable restoration. There would be some gain in technical knowledge through the work but considerable loss of original fabric.’

This is absolutely typical in that it is poorly researched, inaccurate and misleading to the committee. Fair enough, we’d need to replace the engine in order to run the boat but it’s held in with four bolts and two pipes, oh, and don’t forget the throttle linkage. We could swap the original back in an afternoon if that’s what they wanted. Worse still, this ‘considerable loss of original fabric’ is complete nonsense as the conservation plan that I wrote in 2001 involves keeping all but a few shreds of the original boat and had they bothered to ask I would have been glad to explain it in detail.

Incredible as it seems, my original, unbelievable supposition appears to be true; not one of the ‘experts’ to whom the HLF turned to for guidance ever actually visited the wreck or communicated with the project team at any time or in any way. The thrust of their argument evokes both optimism and dismay and they mostly agree that if we’re going to return K7 to running order and then not actually run her then they’re not getting value for money!
Quite understandable and just as easily sorted; we’ll run her, OK?
Had the ‘experts’ called me – ever - I’d have sent them copies of our original proposals for operating K7, which would have answered all of their questions on that particular subject whilst their other favourite topic seems to be the general condition of the cockpit, who owns it, how much of it we recovered, etc. etc.

So for future reference, any would-be expert advisors can e-mail me at Bill@BluebirdProject.com and I’ll tell you all about it!

It’s not all bad, mind you. One of the reports was filled with positive ideas for running the boat and most agreed that it was technically feasible to rebuild her but imagine what a farce this would be if we were fighting a legal case? The judge would have thrown it out long ago. So in keeping with the legal theme we thought we’d politely request that we be heard at appeal.
Great plan but the HLF doesn’t have an appeals procedure and it’s been hinted that the only way forward is through a completely new application (and another 6 month delay), but surely this must be for those whose planning requires more work or is lacking in some way. Maybe ours needs work too but until we obtain fair representation from ‘experts’, who are actually expert in the subject at hand, no one will know for sure. The alternative is to pursue this injustice through the official complaints procedure but we didn’t want to embark on anything as contentious as a complaint. After all, to quote a top secret HLF source on the absolute promise of anonymity we’re-

“raising smiles / hackles in equal measure” down at HLF central.

Of course, we’d rather have the smiles, but as the problem clearly doesn’t lie at our end of the table we’re optimistic that the HLF will do what is proper and enter into some sort of formal dialogue with us in order to straighten this out. Time will tell and in the meantime, below you will find another sample of ‘expert’ advice that was declared by one of our number to be-

‘So far wrong that we can’t even get upset about it…’

It reads as follows and is taken verbatim from the report.

‘This case requires a judgement to be made about the significance and heritage value of a boat that was wrecked during an attempt to advance the world water speed record in 1967. The project as proposed is almost certainly achievable and would provide an additional visitor attraction for Coniston and the surrounding region. However, it poses a number of questions relating to overall heritage merit and long-term significance, and these lead to related questions of value for money.

Almost everyone in the UK who is aged over 40 will know the story and be familiar with the footage; on the other hand most people under 40 are unfamiliar with the events and, when told of them, often evince little interest. This is in large part because the breaking and holding of speed records, on land or water, is no longer an activity that excites a great deal of interest. The reasons for this are unclear, although it may have something to do with the general increase in the speed of everyday life – we are all now used to travelling in aircraft or on the TGV at high speeds ,and watching Formula 1 race cars achieve a velocity not far short of the older land-speed records. Whatever the reason, speed records are now seldom seen, as they were forty years ago, to be of great importance and a matter of national pride.’

[Didn’t the HLF spend a few million buying Thrust SSC not so long back, or did I get that bit wrong? It goes on to say.]

‘The question that arises, therefore, is whether the undoubted national enthusiasm for speed records, and for Campbell in particular, that characterised the 1950’s and 1960’s, really represents a significant aspect of national heritage or whether they are an interesting sidelight on the social history of the times. If the latter is the case, there must be serious question of what interest there will be in the Bluebird story in the future, when those for whom it is part of their personal experience are no longer alive. If it is the case that interest in the story will further diminish over time, then the Bluebird Project would not be value for money in HLF terms, despite its undoubted romantic appeal.’

[Isn’t the whole point of museums to let us look at stuff that’s from before our time? Or am I from a different planet? - And finally, you’re going to love this bit!]

‘There is no doubt that the story of Donald Campbell and Bluebird is a dramatic, romantic and tragic one that is still alive and vivid for the local population of Coniston. It will probably remain so for a longer period in the Lake District than in the rest of the UK. Despite this, the project is not one that can be strongly recommended since the history of water speed records does not represent a major aspect of the national heritage and this significance will probably decrease for future generations.’

So there you have it, ‘expert’ advice at its best and a stark demonstration of the sort of thing we’re up against here. What really concerns me is how such an important project (or perhaps it’s not important at all, I’m not the expert here), can get into such a ridiculous position…

More to follow soon.

5th May 2005 - 16:00

Now that the dust has settled after last week’s storm in a teacup I thought I’d offer my thoughts on a few of the issues that landed with the fallout.

I was accused of being a little unfair on the HLF for two reasons. Firstly, I have been reliably informed that the bit about not being interested in Bluebird / Campbell unless you’re aged 40 or over was met with the same derision by the committee as it has been by everyone else. And so it ought to be, so that effectively takes one ‘expert’ out of the loop – no bad thing if you ask me.
Secondly, the quotes that I included from the reports were seen by some to be the pick of the crop and my response to that is that of course they were. There are many more positive quotes than negative ones but I reckoned that showing the worst of it was appropriate enough.
Of the four reports, one was pure rubbish as you’ve seen. One was all-for the project. The third couldn’t quite make up its mind and there were a ragged, couple of pages from some office-bound museumologist preaching the old, ‘clean it with cotton buds and stick it in a glass case’ thing.
Then there’s this question of whether K7 will actually offer the area, and Coniston in particular, any benefit at all? Maybe she should be housed in the Science Museum where more people can visit but no interest has been shown by the Science Museum. When I spoke with them in the early days they told me something like…

‘Our collecting policy precludes us taking on any new objects of this sort at this time.’

I did invite Beaulieu to get involved with K7 at an early stage too as they have CN7 and the two would look good alongside each other but they told me:

‘It’s not a car.’ So that was that.

I next tried Duxford as they’d been so helpful with the early conservation of K7 but they simply pointed out that it’s not a plane either. I argued that it flew once and had a jet engine but they have plenty of aircraft to go at and boats aren’t really their thing.
At that point I gave up on the big-boys and Vicky has championed the cause ever since. Incidentally, someone mailed me this link to a Cumbrian triumph so well done to them for wringing about 1.6 million out of the Lottery pot.

http://greenmuseum.org/c/enterchange/artists/welfare/

I include this not in order to knock their efforts in any way. They are clearly as passionate about their subject as we are about ours, as well as having succeeded where thus far we’ve failed. But I suspect that this is the sort of thing with which our ‘experts’ probably feel more comfortable rather than the frightening unknown of restoring a boat. This would also explain why they failed to raise their backsides from those comfy office chairs and properly research the subject. Instead it seems they chose to thoroughly cover said extremity with jargon they picked up whilst treading the path of least resistance.
On a slightly different note, the question of whether these ‘experts’ should have consulted with me in the first place was also raised. After all, it was argued, they were appointed by and working for the HLF at the time.
I reckon the answer to that is pretty obvious. Apart from it being unprofessional (in my humble opinion) to preach about something you know nothing about, I live with the boat every day, have done for the past four years and would have been glad to discuss it at length. But worse still, what if it had gone the other way? What if the ‘experts’ were all over our project and bursting with enthusiasm only to find out later that we’d got it wrong at our end.
Whose disaster would it have been if they’d thrown money at us and then realised that the sums were wrong or the wreck was little more than a pile of scrap metal? No prizes for guessing at which end of the table that would have landed!
There’s just no getting round it, the affair was badly handled and we haven’t received a fair trial. There’s little point in making a fresh application as there’s no way for us to feel confident that it will be treated with any more competence than the last one.
Vicky’s request for a new hearing will be winging its way to HLF Central by the end of the week so we’ll have to wait and see.

24th June 2005 - 16:00

As you can see, I wrote the below (update dated 5th May) some time ago and did consider consigning it to the bin but you might as well have it. Our request that we sit around a table with the HLF and discuss where the process came apart was declined so it’s time for plan-B. I was frankly amazed that they seem to have no facility to revisit problem areas but there you have it.
I’ve been a little quiet of late, as apart from expecting our first baby in August and having to decorate a room and make the house baby-friendly, I’ve been researching another novel.

I spent a week aboard the Greenpeace ship Esperanza (pictured above). I’m told it means ‘hope’ or similar. She’s a 72m ex-fire tug of Russian construction that’s been converted to carry Greenpeace’s word around the world. I used to do diving jobs for ‘the Greenies’ and loved every minute of it. People often regard them as water-borne, hippy, eco-warriors yet I found myself embarrassed to be amongst so many multi-lingual doctors of this and that; because most of what Greenpeace do involves lending their vessels to respectable marine scientists as research platforms. We were working with the Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS) on a project to research the Mingulay reef system in the Hebrides and I had a fantastic time operating the sonar on their ROV and trying my hand with a sampling grab on the end of 200m of cable. Something that proved right up my street, probably because of all the practice with the side-scan winch.

I then popped home for a fortnight, during which we had to have our unborn offspring scanned, and whilst parking outside the Newcastle Royal Victoria Infirmary, I spotted a sign on the opposite side of the road that said something like
‘Restoration of Leazes Park, supported by the HLF’.
Leaving my heavily pregnant wife standing in the street I dashed into the park to find out what they’d done in there, as it was always a wilderness of ragged trees with a gloopy, green pond in the middle. I was delighted to discover that they’d destroyed most of its original fabric by tearing down the mature foliage and replaced it all with saplings. It’s now fully restored to the beautiful, Victorian park that it once was and I certainly didn’t expect ever to see that in my lifetime. Well done to the HLF. Here’s a link…

http://www.hlf.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FB52A3E7-31DC-4660-9F97-6BD42FC230F3/481/LeazesPark100505.pdf

I tried to find a good link to another fantastic and much deserved restoration job in Newcastle. Here are a few pics of her as she is today.

http://www.northumbria.info/Pages/turbinia.html

What is seldom revealed is that she was actually crunched in half in a collision, (I found a pic of that too, http://www.nhsc.org.uk/index.cfm/event/getVessel/vref/138)

She was then cut in two for transportation to exhibition park in Newcastle where she was an important attraction until eventually falling into disrepair. The vandals got in and nicked most of her brasswork, her paint was falling off and the glass was broken but worry not, she’s now fully restored and gleaming like a new pin so that anyone who wants to see the legendary boat can pop into the Discovery Museum in Newcastle and take a look. She has an inspection panel in the side so you can see her revolutionary steam turbine but otherwise she’s good enough to float.
Oh, and by the way, the unborn offspring was all there and I even begged a go with the scanning machine. I never could resist any form of sonar but that’s another story.

Then I spent a week aboard a pair-trawler 80 miles east of Aberdeen fishing for haddock. One of the major issues that Greenpeace battle with is the accidental killing of dolphins by pair-trawlers fishing for sea bass in the English Channel and to add insult to injury, it’s mainly the French boats that are responsible. Take a look at this. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/dolphin-bycatch-death-eviden

Pair trawling, by the way, means that two boats pull one enormous net. It’s like a mesh funnel and as bass are pelagic fish, meaning that they swim in the middle water, it’s hardly surprising that the odd dolphin strays into the net. That’s why I found myself doing research on a pair trawler; not that they caught any dolphins, mind you, but then they were bottom fishing. It was two days of seasick-ridden purgatory followed by a few more days of great fun with a brilliant bunch of guys. But I came home to a real tragedy. At about the time we were casting off our lines in Eyemouth harbour, a young though highly experienced diver went missing off the north east coast.

http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/4070378.stm

I came home to find my desk piled high with requests to take our precision sonar kit out there and try to find him but by the time my mobile phone came back into reception on the following Friday morning he’d been missing for a week despite valiant efforts by his friends and the emergency services to locate him. Good old Capt. Connacher and I spent two days out there with the sidescan and identified a promising target but when we dropped two of the most experienced divers in the UK on it we were bitterly disappointed to discover that we’d located a solitary rock in the middle of a featureless seabed. I never knew Nick Jackson but he was diving mixed-gas rebreather just as I used to, and only 25 years old. Our thoughts are with his family and friends; and with him, wherever he may be.

So what about Bluebird I hear you ask. Well, as it looks like plan-A is dead, we’ve been forced into our fallback position but don’t be disheartened.
I’m guest speaker at a big gathering of British Aerospace engineers next month because their heritage division is taking a serious interest in helping us with the restoration work. The only major problem is that of transferring ownership of the boat to Vicky but all sorts of options are available in that department so it will come out in the wash. Not wanting to say too much more, being the superstitious sailor that I am, I’ll let you all know how it goes with Bae.