S&D Railway Trust

I may be wrong but this isn’t the first time this has happened, I think they have been given or threatened with notice before.
As I see it they could get rid of the S&D and take ownership of their locomotive by making them bankrupt?

 

If you were cynical that would be one way of seeing it. However, such a strategy would I think cause almost irreparable reputational damage to the WSR if it did behave in such a manner.

 

There was some concern circa-2010/11 that the Plc might not renew the (previous) lease when it ended in 2020, on the basis that they might want the site for PW use (sound familiar?), but AFAIK there was never any suggestion that the lease might be terminated prematurely.

On the basis that the S&DRT have been paying their rent correctly to the WSR, then I would doubt that they are a debtor of the Plc to any extent, certainly not enough to justify the seizure of any of their assets.

 

Surely if anything it's the other way around.
When the lease on 53808 comes to an end in 5? years time it's very likely that the railway will tell the S&DRT "thanks very much for the last 10 years of work from your loco, you can take it back now as we have no money and won't be overhauling it". At this point I really hope the S&DRT get proper justice, and if that bankrupts the plc then I'm sorry for the volunteers who are innocently caught up in this but not sorry for the current management and those who have supported and condoned their actions, justice must prevail.

Keith

 

I think the argument is that the S&DRT is forced to take the PLC to court, loses the court case, S&DRT is bankrupted by the costs to the court case. The WSR then takes 88 to cover their legal costs.

The PLC can then symbolically stick 88 in a head shunt to rot away while the red route GWR engines chuff up and down. A warning to those who dare to question the Great Conductor.

 

That's over-egging the pudding a bit, isn't it ? If, and it is a very big "if", the S&DRT was forced into bankruptcy in the way you describe : i.e. due to an inability to pay court costs, then any assets would become under the control of the Receiver appointed by the Court and could not just be handed over to another party without due process.

 

If, that were to happen, i would imagine there would be a feeling of such anger directed at not just the chairman, but his enablers also , any victory would only lead to an even greater downfall . i would think the Trust would get offers of support, including a new home for 88, that the trust possibly would out live the WSR, because it would I suspect, lead to another group being bullied into submission, and further internal power struggles .

 

Who on earth thinks that the SDRT will go bankrupt?

 

Absolutely. As I’ve said before, I think assuming that there is some kind of overarching plan by the PLC and their supporters credits them with greater intelligence than they deserve.

They claim they don’t have the money for an overhaul so quite what they would do with an out of ticket 88 and no money and of course, no supporting group willing to contribute towards the costs by say for example funding a new tender top.

Tbh, I don’t really know what the thinking of the board was when they kicked this whole thing off. I don’t know if it was a Trump like fit of pique that the S&DRT didn’t kow tow to the PLC? I don’t know if it is because there is a desire to make the line more GWR? I don’t know if it is about ‘sending a message’ to the factions on the WSR (bow down or you will be next)?

I think a more intelligent board would have thought twice before commencing this action and certainly would have looked for an exit strategy after Covid hit. I don’t know if it is stupidity or vanity that means that the board persists. I don’t know if it is stupidity, fear or vanity that drives the enablers.

It is akin to a bunch of people driving a car with no brakes down a hill towards a brick wall and then each fighting to have a go at pressing the accelerator down harder.

 

Its all of those, there are at least two people each with their own agenda, one has history of wanting the S&D out, the other, wants to stamp his authority on the railway

 

Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

 

I was also taking into consideration everything that has happened with Wsra and the the concern that the policy was to shut every supporting association down and just having the Plc also taking over their assets,
I think there has already been irreparable damage which I don’t see the Wsr getting out of.

 

Is it not dubious to continue to use 88 (especially to use up its boiler ticket) if you cannot fulfill the lease requirement to overhaul it? Is this a ploy to get it taken away from the railway?

 

I’m not sure I get these conspiracy theories about No. 88.

Once services resume, the plc has access to a loco that is basically free on a day-to-day basis, with a big liability at the end. By contrast, if it left now, the plc would need to replace it with something else which is very unlikely to be free on a day-to-day basis, and would still have the liability for the repair of 88. Indeed, given that a lot of loco repair costs for labour will be in the strip down and rebuild, the liability for the overhaul is front-loaded; i.e. repairing it in its current state won’t be much cheaper than doing so in four or five years time.

So that gives two scenarios. If you believe the plc is basically scrupulous, it is in its interest to continue “free” use of the loco and then try to cover the overhaul. If instead you believe it is basically unscrupulous, then it still makes sense to use the loco for “free” and then default on the overhaul agreement.

So in either scenario, the plc’s motive power requirement is best met by the loco continuing to work on the railway - getting rid of it still leaves the liability, plus the need to resource a replacement at presumably higher cost. Only if you believe the plc to be being vindictive does any scenario in which the loco leaves in the near future make any sense.

Tom

 

Yes I tend to agree Tom, in fact I am not really sure what the point of the mention of not having money for the overhaul was, other than subtle pressure over Washford eviction.
It is like an airline who is in financial trouble telling a lease company 5 years out that they will not have enough money to give it a D check before they return it. You may think it, you hope you may be able to do it when the time comes, and you would only raise the issue if you wanted to re-negotiate the lease.
I do not see the WSR apparently wanting to revise the lease or stop using the loco as it is not exactly awash with them, so not sure what the aim was really.

 

'Makes sense' to whom, Tom?
The Plc have a legal, binding agreement to return the loco in good working order - in the same vein, the S&DRT have a legal, binding lease.
None of this situation makes any sense.

 

Within what timeframe from the loco coming out of traffic ?

Jon

 

Reported upthread as between end of its boiler cert (2026 at the latest) and 2030 (end date of the agreement).

Patrick

 

Unless perhaps someone has a freshly overhauled Hall looking for work on a line the owner has strong connections with? (Although I have no idea whether there might be such a thing or if there's just a pile of bits with JJP's name on at Tyseley.)

I know none of the characters involved, but it certainly seems to me that the plc is being highly selective at the moment, and it's not a big leap to see them being vindictive.

 

I see his logic - in either scenario about the future of the locomotive, the incentive to get maximum value out of 53808 is high. The difference is that one scenario is genuinely reasonable; the other would be, to say the least, highly unethical.