S&D Railway Trust

7821 belongs to the WSRA. As I understand it, they don't currently have the funds to put it through an overhaul, even if the WSR workshops had a free slot.
The WSRA are concentrating on 4561 at present.

Keith

 

I wonder if there will be a last minute technicality ? Place your bets....

 

How many days did the WSR run in 2019? That seems a lot.

Is this a normal level of use for the loco? Did the WSR suffer a loco shortage increasing dependence on it?

Didn't the PLC say it was an unpopular loco? I'd hate to see its usage if it were popular.

 

4110 is at the ESR undergoing overhaul as recorded here I believe part of the purchase deal with Dart Valley (DSR) was to allow running for a period (span not known by me) of 4110. Of course that rests upon there being an WSR to run on.

 

I believe it’s running at the ESR for 3 years as part of the overhaul deal.

I think the agreement to run it on the WSR was possibly for a gala appearance or something. Certainly very short term.

 

I understand that it is 4555 that will be at the ESR for three years.


Prairie locos, and derivatives, and pannier tanks were the bread and butter of the GWR.

 

Correct. However once that three years is up, 4110 will be finished. 4110 will then remain at the ESR for three years. Presumably as part payment for the overhaul.

 

Tom's cogent comments about various models of financial arrangements are all good and sensible, but in no way relate to what has gone on with regard to 88, simply because the WSR have explicitly stated they cannot overhaul it.

So clearly their one and only financial model was to set aside money year by year, and absent the necessary funds they see no alternative way to honour their contract.

 

But surely in the eyes of the law a contract is a contract? Having already spent the money elsewhere is not a valid reason for not honouring it.

I suppose it depends on the strength of the agreement, and what legal action the SDRT are prepared to take.

 

I'm no expert, but I think others have suggested that an intent to break the contract is not in itself a breach.

Might it be necessary to wait until the overhaul is due and not undertaken for the breach to have occurred?

 

If the PLC does not have any money, or assets in leu of money to settle any claim, then there is little point in the trust pursuing this, even though morally, I feel they should, it would not undo the harm done, best that they retain the high ground, and hopefully the more moral minded of us will support the trust first, in their relocation costs, then when they launch an appeal for help to overhaul 53808 , and hopefully karma will deliver its own justice on those people who did such harm.

 

It depends On the wording of the agreement, yes, I would assume, that the trust would have to wait until the overhaul is due, and officially, ask the WSR plc if they are intending to honour their agreement, if they reply, that they are not, then the trust might have grounds to take legal action, as then it would be a breach of contract .

 

In the eyes of the law, yes - but the law here is almost certainly not criminal law, and so the approach to enforcement will be different.

If the breach has already happened, the question is also what S&DRT think they can gain by enforcing the contract. Given the rickety state of WSR plc finances, and the costs of taking action, the trust may consider that the lesser evil is to act on the basis of the situation as it is, acknowledging there's little that can be done to fundamentally change it, rather than fighting back with the risks of losing or (perhaps worse) winning but without any realistic ability to enforce victory.

 

You got more chance of getting a ...kiss... from the pope.

 

If the suggestion is that the Plc used 53808 for 140 or so days last year in the knowledge that they intended to default on the contract that is at best unethical and at worst could be regarded as deliberate fraud or theft. Either way it does not show any of the Directors in a very favourable light. If you think that is a harsh judgement, consider that they were aware of their financial plight at the start of the season or sooner and must already have been discussing options. Imho, at the very least the S&D Trust should be suing thePlc for 140 days of steaming fees.

 

All this talk of suing is understandable, but the reality is that however much observers may wish to see the PLC's nose bloodied, litigation seldom results in a satisfactory outcome. It appears that the S&DRT have a clear-cut case, but by the time the lawyers have got their hand on it, things could be far less simple than they appear.
Who said and did what, who understood what, who agreed to what-all of these can be very difficult to prove.
My own, very bitter experience of attempting redress through the court left me with a belief that it is better to cut your losses

 

Well said . As my solicitor said when he advised against taking a tenant to court to recover unpaid rent. You could end up with a judgement in your favour against the tenant who claims to have no money, so you end up paying court and solicitors fees and getting nothing in return. Best to write it off to experience and don't trust people in future

 

Those last few words may turn out to be the most significant in this whole saga.

 

Sadly true


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk