Mid Hants Railway Operational Matters

Re:34105
Does the bill of sale receipt that Mr Dai Woodham would have handed over to the railways representative still exist to this day? It is well documented from other locomotive group transactions from the era that he would have handed over a simple receipt of purchase.

Of course even If it does exist it would surely say 34105 light Pacific group as the purchasing party. However that wouldn't detail the exact shareholder breakdown of the said group so I can see why things are messy.
Let's hope someday the issue can be resolved one way or another.

 

The original receipt from Woodmans may or may not still exist. And any subsequent changes of ownership share(s) may or may not have been properly recorded.

To resolve the 34105 ownership issue would need someone similar to a forensic accountant, to take a cold, objective view of the situation; ignoring emotion and subjective views.

I don’t think MHR should lead the investigation into ownership of 34105. It should be someone independent, approved by everyone concerned - which sounds impossible because nobody knows who all the members are!

 

Further discussion about how to resolve the 34105 situation here is unlikely to elicit any further information or provide a useful strategy to move forward as what is known will not be disclosed for what I hope are obvious reasons. May I suggest that what has been said is sufficient?

 

Agreed. Suggest this discussion is parked. MHR has much more urgent priorities in getting other locos back in steam to address the current issues.

 

They certainly do have very real more pressing issues to attend to.
34105 discussion can be parked up in the Nat Pres headshunt.

 

For once Dear Reader, Muggin's 'Ere was AWOL atop the hill yesterday........ he was away Oop North!

There were some in attendance, but I've no idea what they got up to........

However, as it's gala time, Muggin's did spend Friday ballast yomping with @Hampshire Unit, and boy, did we cover some ballast....... more by accident than design! To say the trains were busy, was an understatement, especially for a Friday!

Soooo........ the first few of pics taken on the Friday.....

https://www.flickr.com/photos/duty_druid/54479951513/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/duty_druid/54478829547/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/duty_druid/54480027045/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/duty_druid/54479951443/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/duty_druid/54478833452/in/dateposted-public/

 

Well, as trains on the MHR are only 5 coaches long (in my experience, though I haven't visited for a while) I'm not sure that the extra coach makes it much more worthwhile - and the Ivatt tank seems to handle those quite adequately it seems like overkill!

 

An extra mk1 coach is over 30 tons lets not forget! Six coach trains do happen although not as often. Then add that with the fact longer trains probably means the trains would also be busier.
A merchant navy is still overkill in most scenarios, handled the 8 coach train today with ease!

 

What a brilliant day. Point of interest, fully fitted train yet the brake van has tail lamp and side lamps. Why?

 

8 coaches on 1 in 60 would be OK with a Class 4 so anything bigger is overkill. It doesn’t mean to say they shouldn’t be used, though. As I’ve said before, locos are at their most economical when not being overworked.

 

The latest YouTube video is now available to watch.

 

Why do we always get "You mustn't talk about xyz" in railway chatroom forums? Why not? What is it about railways that makes enthusiasts think they are all in posession of state secrets? We can talk about it as much as we want, just as we can talk about any newspaper headline on any subject. Our opinions prejudice nothing. If anyone thinks anything we say in a forum could possibly influence any kind of subsequent jury litigation they clearly have never had to dig their hands into their pockets to pay for such a fatuous case. it would be akin to Jarndyce v Jarndyce! What I want to add regarding 34105 is that a legal or even a forensic accounting investigation into ownership will resolve nothing, because without co-operation from all parties it will yield constestible or ambiguous answers that would be immediately challenged, and in no time all the money that should have been spent restoring it will be spent keeping the plush offices of Sue, Grabbit & Runne LLP in plush carpets. What is needed is Goodwill from all parties, not legal challengesm and there is no reason to suppose that this will not happen in the future. It certainly won't happen while people keep referring to the shadowy past as though it still lingers like a bad smell - I don't believe it does. By the way I worked on the railway (and on 34105) at the time 34105 was first restored and ran, and I knew some of the players at that time. They weren't ogres, they were nice people, and who knows they may even read this thread with a smile. Talk away. Speculate away. Otherwise what is the point of having a chatroom?

 

Certainly, a person I knew who lived in Upwey had contributed to the fund (not a poor man) to restore said loco and physically worked on it.
I have no idea of his whereabouts or his interest in said locomotive now.
That is the issue with this project.

 

Like you, I knew these same people, and what you say is true, but then we weren't party to the various deals that went on, but as you say most people have moved on life's too short,

 

Yes, but tough if you have to maintain 25mph in all weather, and heat the train. I got stopped one November night at the Medstead up home with a heavy 7 (big brake and griddle in the formation). Full gear and full regulator required to restart - and that was a std 5.

I am genuinely unsure if 76017 could have got the train away, though I think that a GW mogul would and so would the U boat too. I suspect “Dave” would restart the train, but never get to 25mph, the std 4 would similarly struggled to keep time (even the way I drive before anyone else says it for me), but the U would keep time.

I totally agree with you that a bigger engine working within its capacity would likely be better, and both the Bulleid and Jarvis light and heavy pacifics do the job well. My personal preference (bigger than a 4) would be an S15, a 9F, Std 5, Lord Nelson, Hall, or black 5, all of which would do the job with ease and are a lot less fuss than the pacifics and less likely to slip.

If a smaller engine, the U and the GW mogul are awesome, a std 4 tank would be pretty good I suspect, and I give it a go with a 45xx, but maybe the water would get tight?

 

Talk all you like offline, but remember that this forum is more like publishing a letter or writing a magazine article than a chat in a pub when it comes to matters which are sensitive. Whilst a chat among acquaintances in that pub can cover many subjects and the context can be properly explained, that gets difficult online. Things are misconstrued and speculation grows with people with little or no actual knowledge having more import given to their words than is warranted. I have personally experienced uninformed, and no doubt well intentioned speculation on this very forum cause a real world issue. This is not a subject that will be in any way assisted by discussion in a public forum.

 

Agreed. There are threads - WSR, L&B, NYMR - where issues at railways have been played out. They bring internal issues to the foreground and facilitate discussions of big ticket items that go beyond just quiet chats.

However, there are other matters (and I strongly suspect this is one) where informed members, amongst them people who have participated in other "contentious" threads, have commented clearly that this foregrounding of discussion will not only not help fix the issue, but may actually push the resolution further away. While I draw my lines in a different place from @Big Al, I respect the view - doubly so when it comes to contention over the fine detail of thing like ownership where wider discussions of strategy aren't relevant.

And, yes, I would also like to see 34105 running again.

 

I think everyone would like to see 34105 running again, the sad thing about all this is the people now running the MHR, are not the same people as when the bad blood started, I think it might be , in the best interests of everyone if the MHR were to gift their shares in it to SLL. That would remove one blockage, and the owners, would then have to talk terms with SLL, over the engine, part of the deal could be that SLL, base an engine on the MHR, it just won't be Swanage, I would imagine that 34105, could then be relocated to Selinge , or herston, Iwould imagine that 34105, could then operate on the line that its named after.

 

And who said that SLL have the appetite or capacity for such an extra project...?

This is precisely the sort of unblocking that is best handled quietly in the background, so that if deals are to be done, those who need to be consulted can be consulted before being told "here's the outcome". As it is, a 3rd party (SLL) have been dragged into a discussion that as far as we know they're not part of, and been given a role they may not want or be able to do.