S&D Railway Trust

Its ticket runs out next year but the ‘run and repair’ agreement runs longer.

Patrick


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I see. I suppose the question is then, at what point will the WSR plc be deemed to have breached their side of the agreement.

 

Surely that can only be determined in 2030? when the agreement ends and if the loco has not been overhauled at that point.

 

WSR position will be that the removal of 53808 negated the overhaul agreement, the trust would have to evaluate the cost risk in challenging this.

 

Temporary loans rather than permanent ?

 

Wouldn't matter. If the WSR gave permission for the loco to move, they couldn't then claim breach of contract at a later date.

 

You have faith in the WSR understanding their undertakings ?

 

Not necessarily true - the whole set of contracts would need looking at, not just the permission to move at a point in time.

 

I meant more from a legal point of view. If the WSR was to claim breach, then the SDRT presumably has a piece of paper with a WSR signature that says it was agreed. Nothing to do with trusting the plc (who would!), it's about what you can prove if it ever went to court.

 

Would this significant additional cost be a "six-figure sum" by any chance? Modern steel-framed buildings are not difficult to dismantle, and if volunteer labour is available, limited to the cost of hiring a cherry picker and a digger.

 

Possibly at the time when they announced that they had no money for the overhaul so they weren't going to do it and that the loco would be better off hired out for the rest of it's ticket so that it could earn some money to go towards paying for the overhaul that the Plc should be paying for?

 

Here's what the Trust and the plc actually said on 25/7/20:
"The Somerset & Dorset Railway Trust and the West Somerset Railway PLC are now able to announce that they have reached agreement regarding locomotive, 7F No. 53808. This agreement will see the locomotive operating agreement with the WSR PLC being suspended for the remaining period of 53808’s boiler certificate which is due to end in the autumn of 2022. This will allow the locomotive to be hired externally during this period to earn additional hire fees towards its next major overhaul. The PLC has indicated to the SDRT that it wishes to discuss the return of the locomotive to the WSR and to discuss funding options which would enable the overhaul, due in 2023, to be carried out as planned. The SDRT has agreed that a timely discussion would be appropriate."

I've no idea whether the Trust and the plc have since held this 'timely discussion' about 53808, though we know the Trust believe the discussions about the Washford lease have led nowhere.
The whole of the 25/7/20 joint press release can still be read here:
https://www.west-somerset-railway.c...omerset-railway-plc-about-locomotive-7f-53808

 

Thanks for digging that out.

An issue has been that the PLC "wishes to discuss the [..] funding options which would enable the overhaul [,,] to be carried out as planned." Note 'wishes' and the conditional 'would'. That's not a commitment that, when the time comes for the timely discussion, in 2023 the PLC intends to fund (less the hire fees) an overhaul in accordance with the locomotive operating agreement.

The PLC has already intimated it wants "funding options" to include others to contribute to the funding. The WSRA would only contribute if there were to be a running agreement extending beyond the period of the current one, and the trust might not want to extend that period. The PLC also wanted the trust to fund the tender tank.

My inner Machiavelli has been at work. The PLC's interests would be an overhaul to allow as much use as possible before the agreement expires, with as much funding as possible provided by someone else. The trust's position is more complex. It could benefit from a delay in the overhaul with the WSR funding as much as possible and completing it as near to the end of the agreement as possible, so they get an unencumbered loco with few miles/years on the ticket. But they've also got the issue of the PLC directors' public doubts about the PLC being a going concern, and any other doubts they may have from the PLC's approach has been with regard to the lease arrangement. I might be wholly wrong, but that suggests to me that the timely discussions might not be straightforward.

Patrick

 

Difficult to offer worthwile comment without knowledge of what the 'run and overhaul' agreement made between the S&D Trust and the WSR plc actually says. However, it seems that both bodies agree that:

• the 2-8-0's boiler ticket expires in 2022; and
• an overhaul to be performed by the plc falls due in 2023

That suggests that, when 2023 rolls round, the Trust has a reasonably straightforward question to put to the plc: “will you, or will you not, carry out in 2023 the overhaul of our locomotive in accordance with the terms of the agreement between us to that effect?”

If the plc responds in the affirmative then the likelihood seems to be that the Trust is contractually obliged to return the locomotive to the WSR so that the plc can perform the overhaul. Assuming the locomotive is out of traffic for, say, one year whilst the overhaul is carried out, the WSR apparently then enjoys the prospect of a further period of its use, I understand up to 2030. Even if the Trust were to share my distaste for such a continuing relationship with the WSR, it seems it would nonetheless be contractually bound to honour such an arrangement.

There have been hints in previous posts to this thread that the overhaul falling due in 2023 may not be the only such commitment under the agreement, but I have no details of any other obligations assumed by the plc in this respect.

If the plc's response to my notional question is other than an unqualified affirmative then the stage may indeed be set for discussions that are unlikely to prove straightforward. In particular, there's the question of whether the Trust might fund replacement of the tender tank. I believe there was a time when the Trust was favourably disposed to making such a contribution to the overhaul, but that may well have changed since the impact upon the Trust's finances of the removal expenses resulting from its ejection from Washford by the plc has become apparent.

In any case, if the Trust were in principle willing to discuss funding options that relieved the burden falling upon the plc then presumably these would involve amendments to the original agreement for which the Trust would be entitled to seek a quid pro quo. Were both parties to share an objective of reducing the financial burden falling on the plc such as to put it into a position in which it is able to discharge its overhaul obligation, then one possible form such a quid pro quo might take is a shortening of the post-overhaul period in which the WSR is to have the further use of the locomotive.

A willingness to engage in discussions that might lead to any such variation of the original agreement seems likely to lie entirely within the gift of the Trust. In the light of the way in which it has behaved towards the Trust in the last two years, the plc has no reason to expect that it will be allowed any latitude in the discharge of its obligations under the agreement. I would certainly expect the Trust Board to insist that any dilution of those obligations is suitably balanced by other modifications to the agreement favourable to the Trust.

 

The Trust want the best for their locomotive, I think it can be safely assumed. In that case, I have no doubt they would be satisfied with an overhaul carried out at the WSR. Despite some melodramatic language on these pages, 53808 was treated as a pet by road crews and maintenance staff during her time on the WSR, and I have heard no murmurs from the Trust of the treatment of her. The work being turned out by Minehead shops is the equal of any, I don't think the Trust could want for better. The sole stumbling block will be the PLC's willingness, or lack thereof, to honour their obligation.

 

The problem though, is there are some, in a position of influence, who would be very happy to not see 53808 return, especially if it opens an opportunity for a fresh out of overhaul Hall class to move to the line, once the track can take it, Then there is the subject of trust, can the S&D trust Trust the word of the PLC? My personal belief is that the trust would be better advised to look elsewhere away from the toxic environment of the politics that have found home on the WSR.

 

Just taking the bit I have quoted. Obviously, none of us know the extent of repairs needed, but I'd suggest that for most large locos, one year is quite optimistic - not many large locos are getting turned round in that time, especially if there is significant boiler work to do.

It is also worth considering on timescales that there is, to a considerable degree, a level of flexibility between timescale and price. In other words, a skilled workshop may be able to use more volunteer labour and cut costs, but almost certainly extend timescale. Or they may choose to pay for things that could be done "for free", getting the loco out quicker but at higher cost. Which of those is preferable depends on the relative availabilities of money and people; and the planned usage of the loco once overhauled: a railway may be forced to speed up an overhaul if they need the motive power the following year, or may have the luxury of slowing it down if they feel they are fairly secure for the next couple of years,

You also have the consideration that in a busy workshop, resources (machines, cranes, space, people) will be juggled between possibly several projects. If you need an external crane, say, for a boiler lift then you might have to choose between getting it done now, or waiting a few months until several jobs can be lined up for one day, cutting the per-job proportion of the crane hire fee but delaying the project.

Then there is a supply chain issue. If for example the loco needs new tyres, you probably need to be thinking about ordering them now if you want the loco running in 2023. [I don't know if it needs new tyres or not - that is just an example of the kinds of supply chain issues there are at the moment].

The point being - even in a situation of a high degree of trust between workshop and owner - an overhaul is not some easily quantifiable thing in cost and timescale. Workshop and owner would likely be in regular dialogue making decisions to trade between timescale and cost at every juncture.

Currently, the WSR seems to be very short of steam locomotives. Strengthening the provision available to run on the line would seem to be a priority for their own core ability to run a service. So, like it or not, in questions of resourcing, it is hard to imagine them prioritising an overhaul on a loco unless they have a solid option on using it once complete. In other words, the time in the works is I suspect not independent of the precise details of a future running agreement.

Tom

 

As a small point of interest, yes 53808 will need new tyres