Mid Hants Railway Operational Matters

Is 34058 a SLL loco? I was never clear on the terms of the agreement. Has it been sold to SLL? Or is it a joint venture to get it back in steam with the MHR retaining ownership?

And what’s this about 35005 being held back for special events? After all the time effort and money has gone into restoring it, are they saying it’s not really the right loco for the line?

 

To compare, the Ivatt had firebox stays repaired over the winter months, for which the boiler was also lifted out. I'm not sure when the lift took place, but it was between when I last saw it at the October gala and when I saw it back in the frames in the workshops over February half term; they haven't done anything to get it beyond the upcoming end of its boiler ticket, which is (from memory) end of next year. As with everything, it all depends on how bad the affected areas are I suppose. Fingers crossed it's an 'easy' (As much as that term applies in railway worlds) fix.

 

35005 and associated social history research and restoration of two Bulleid coaches gained some very large HLF and other grants for the Mid Hants as they were at the time. Together they gave publicity and cashflow. Also when the project started coal wasn't so expensive.
It's a "glory loco" which will bring in publicity.
Restore a standard mogul or an S15 and for general or specialist media and it won't get the coverage after the first week.
I suspect that there have been a few conversations with some other MN owners about their coal consumption. Apparently , the G&WSR only use 35006 on high days and holidays due to the cost of coal.

Cheers, Neil

 

I think ownership was transferred from the MHR to SLL around a year or two ago, but I think part of the agreement was that 34058 would return to the MHR when restored, as part of a closer relationship with SLL. Happy to be corrected on that though.

 

The lift happened after mid November.
the plan was to use the crane that we used to put the power unit back in Lion but they weren’t ready in time so they had to use another to do it.

 

Yes I think that the agreement allows the MHR 10 years use, before SLL can then determine freely where it runs subsequently after the next overhaul. There was a rather large cash amount that the WLHRT held in a restricted account from the late Mike Vout that will go towards the restoration and a number of MHR members have purchased shares in SLL to help support them with the restoration as well.

 

With all this talk about Bulleids and the aptly named @Swan Age, will there ever be an update about 34105 or is destined to sit in Ropley headshunt forever?

 

I would be very surprised if the issues surrounding 34105 are ever sorted, It's the last problem dating back to the previous regime, when loco ownership was deliberately kept vague the truth is, no one really knows who owns what, as even though shares were purchased in the loco, there was no detailed accounting as to who the owners of the shares were, but whats clear is that, if the MHR were to continue with the overhaul, whilst ownership is unclear, it would not be a sound decision,
The Person, who claims they are the majority shareholder, is, or was insisting that he had an agreement that the Company would overhaul the engine, and the very real fear is that the engine, once overhauled will be claimed,as being in payment for previous use of the engine, and then leave the railway,
I think that it will remain in limbo, until the MHR through its legal representatives, put the majority owner under notice to proove their ownership, and remove the engine from the MHR, Or make a legal claim themselves for the loco, based on the shareholding they have, pluss the costs spent so far, plus storage fees,
What I think the plan was, that the railway overhauls the engine, then though a paper exercise of shares changing hands, one organisation, is shown to have a commanding majority, and they then use that majority to remove the newly overhauled engine to another location. So the MHR pays for the work, but then loses the engine,

 

I understand the issue is very complicated. It would be a shame if it was destined to be in limbo forever and nothing done

 

As others have said, it's extremely complicated, and there's a lack of trust the only way this will be resolved will be by legal means, to establish exactly who owns this engine, and what degree of share of that engine the involved parties hold, and for there to be cast iron proof that the person claiming to be the major shareholder isn't just a front for Someone else, given the close ties between certain people from those days, originally, it was the southern pacific group , I believed, that purchased 34105, and with in that group there were 3, or 4 people who between them held the majority of the shares , one, of these , who has now passed away, and its very likily that his shares would have been gifted to the remaining 3 , and of course, these same people had shares in other engines, 35018 for one, changed hands, and ownership, at some stage, its all a very mucky situation, not done out of spite, but possibly to save the engines, because at the time, no one could for see the situation that was unfolding, over the managership of the MHR , and unquiet over the fact that much of the steam fleet were in the ownership of the same gentlemen .

 

I am not sure that it is the long term plan to hold 35005 for galas and special events only. Whilst I would agree that it isn’t, and never was a suitable engine for ordinary service, needs must.

30506 we hope will be repaired and back in service soon. It depends on what is found. Watch the ULS website for updates.

34105 - it would be wrong to set out the full story in a public forum. The principal issue is that there is no clear ownership record. The railway was carrying out an overhaul and had spent a great deal doing so, but without clarity on ownership certain questions about the overhaul could not be answered. Efforts to address the ownership are complex and there has been a great passage of time since the loco was originally acquired for the railway that doesn’t help at all. Like all things it could be sorted out, but I cannot see that without a the help of the legal system and the expense that entails. It is then a question of priorities for now.

 

The official wording was 'used for select events and services' which for some reason people have extended to 'events only'.

I imagine the select services could be for heavier trains in the summer for example.

 

I would also imagine that was anticipated to be alongside a larger resident fleet - when it is one of only 2 operational resident engines, beggars can't be choosers and throwing an engine that's relatively expensive to run onto the front of a train is better than not putting a loco on at all!

 

I imagine the in between option of hauling the train with a diesel would most likely be employed.
On quieter days that would certainly be the cheaper option over steaming up a merchant navy for 3 or 4 coach trains.

 

You may see “Dave” + diesel a bit more. Indeed if the Alton set is 3+PMV which might be enough quite a bit of the time, then Dave could probably manage that on its own.

 

Unlike many locos did this not have a load of Heritage Lottery money spent on it? I guess they may have a view if it is not used very often and many do not get to see it.

 

It was National Lottery backed yes. If I recall correctly the main stipulation on use was about it having to operate in the Watercressline for a period before making visits.

 

I guess it depends on whether the Watercress line thinks the extra passengers they would attract by running a steam locomotive over a diesel will offset the increased cost of steaming up a Merchant Navy.
There's also the question about crew competency and training - if you suddenly start slashing the number of steam turns available because one of your engines is a bit hungry for coal and water, how negatively is that going to affect your ability to train and maintain competency on your crews?

 

It does seem somewhat ridiculous after all the fanfare around its return to service, that 35005 is being acknowledged as actually not being very suitable for the MHR’s needs.

In hindsight the sale of 35005 and using the funds to overhaul another of their locos instead may have been a better option. Maybe that other loco could have been included in the lottery application instead.

But hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

It isn’t hindsight. The relative unsuitability was well known before the decision. Albeit coal was cheaper when the decision was taken. The other thing that was not understood because of a now well understood (within the industry) failure of NDT was the extent of the firebox repairs that would be needed.