S&D Railway Trust

For what it’s worth, Jamie reported on the comings and many goings of Peak Rail for a long while. I was one that initially backed the Board when we extended in to Matlock but I am happy to admit that I backed the wrong horse and Jamie was right in his assessment of the shambolic management of the railway (I must update you at some point on the most recent calamitous goings on).

It has previously been said that there are parallels with WSR & PR, albeit there is more at stake with WSR and the issues are being played out on a larger stage. As I see it the root cause is a small management team seemingly out of its depth and overwhelmed with issues but unwilling or unable to recognise its shortcomings, much less embrace real change and harness the skills and abilities of those outside of the clique that are so desperately needed.

I have no connection to Jamie, all I can say is that I always like to read his thought provoking postings, and all credit to him and his colleagues for championing the S&DRT!

 

(Download from a Facebook posting)

 

That statement is very welcome on a number of levels.

 

Indeed it certainly is and it is noticeable that the statement is forthright, quite a change.
I don't know what has been written elsewhere, but I believe, without any doubt, that comments on NP have had a large influence.

 

Agreed. And I hope the new formal agreement carries mkre weight than previous broken formal agreements.

Interesting and satisfying to see there now appears to be an acceptance by the plc that they have a liability for the next overhaul.

 

It would be nice to see it followed by an equally forthright statement withdrawing the Notice to Quit and welcoming the Trust to stay for the full period of their lease Is there still time for common sense and a modicum of decency to win through at a time when all parts of the 'one railway' family ought to be pulling together, not apart ???

I would not like to have to be any future WSR PR person trying to explain how it is that the railway is happily running the 7F through a station (Washford) devoid of its tenants who've been kicked out, yet just happen to be the loco's owners.....

 

I sense that, finally, the more recently appointed directors are managing to have some influence on the Chairman, and are persuading him to modify his previous approach and tone. Maybe the board is no longer effectively a one man band? I do hope this more reasoned approach continues. We now need a sensible and mutually agreed resolution to the S&DRT eviction issue.

Sent from my SM-T590 using Tapatalk

 

Something that I hadn't thought of before regarding the agreement: if the loco is due its overhaul in Nov 2022 and we assume that the money is found and that a contractor takes on the boiler and overhauls it in 1 year. The loco is then reassembled and works again circa Dec 2023. The agreement with the WSR doesn't expire until 2030 so that means the loco will run for approx 7 years on the WSR before being handed back to the SDRT. Does anyone else see the problem here or have I missed something? The loco will be handed back to the SDRT with nominally only 3 years left on its boiler and no overhaul fund. Not a good scenario.

Keith

 

I think you are not quite right there. The loco isn't "due an overhaul" in November 2022; rather, it is anticipated that it will come out of traffic by then. (i.e. expired boiler ticket). It isn't due an overhaul as aI understand until 2030, at which point the current agreement lapses and it has to be returned to the S&DRT in operational condition. (Obviously, a new agreement may or may not be in place by then).

I think 1 year is very quick to overhaul a loco of that size, though it does depend on how you spread certain work between volunteer, paid staff and contractor resources. But a feasible roadmap within the terms of the current agreement would be for the loco to sit unused for four or five years (probably while funds are raised and maybe some important, but largely unseen, work goes on to strip down and refurbish various small fittings ready for reuse when the loco is rebuilt) with an overhaul starting about 2027 - that would still allow a freshly restored loco to be produced at the termination of the agreement in 2030.

There's no absolute compulsion to start work on the loco the moment the last fire is dropped. In a normal situation, I would expect that to be a balance between on the one hand the desire of the S&DRT to see their loco running as much as possible (for the benefit of their members, who presumably broadly wish to see it in use); and on the other hand the operational need of the WSR to see an available motive power fleet that is broadly stable - you don't want peaks and troughs, but as far as possible try to stage overhauls to give you a steady fleet.

As an example from another railway, and the local arrangements would be different but the broad principal seems similar: From memory, "Camelot" on the Bluebell went out of traffic in 2005; and re-entered the workshop for overhaul about 2012 and returned to traffic in 2015. Not dissimilar to 53808 going out of traffic in 2022, going into the workshop in 2027 and returning in 2030. In those situations, you have to balance the desire of the loco owning group to see their loco operational as much as possible, with the railway which probably wants the smallest possible fleet that still enables it to run a reliable service; and both sides need to take account of the available resources of money, workshop space and manpower.

Tom

 

I might be wrong, but I thought the agreement requires 53808 to be handed back fully operational, rather than newly overhauled, in 2030. If that is indeed the case, would it not make sense to expedite the overhaul to gain maximum usage before 2030?

 

Possibly - but that has to be in the context of the plc's capacity both to overhaul the loco, and its motive power requirement. It seems that there is a continuum of options between "overhaul as rapidly as possible after 2022" which feels to me somewhat advantageous to the plc if they are then able to obtain several years of use; through to "overhaul so it is newly outshopped around 2030". Anywhere on that spectrum would still seem to meet the terms of the agreement.

Tom

 

I wonder if the WSR PLC have considered setting up a genuine, dedicated, ringfenced fund for the overhaul of 53808. I'm not sure how they might give sufficient assurance to potential donors, maybe putting the fund under the trusteeship of someone not too closely associated, but it seems, on here at least, there is support for keeping the locomotive operable and earning.
The PLC's press release comes as a ray of sunshine in this whole opaque and baffling situation.

 

I read the announcement as explicitly a statement that there will be a ring-fenced account. It reads as one of the most important parts of that statement, and a clear sign that discussions are moving in a positive direction.

 

Yes Tom, I understand what you mean and I agree that your scenario is the most likely for any given loco. What I was speculating on, was the possibility that under the terms of the agreement if it was possible for the WSR to effectively get 7 years free use of the loco and still stay within the letter of the agreement (if not staying within the ethics of the agreement!)
As I understand it, the bottom end of the loco is in good shape and it is the boiler that requires work, so it might just be possible to overhaul it within a year. Even if it took 2 years, that would still potentially give the WSR 6 years free use...

Keith

 

In the past agreement end date has been somewhat incidental, given that a new similar agreement has then followed. Clearly we are now in a different scenario, albeit one that might ultimately lead to an amicable conclusion. Let's hope so.

 

Indeed: I get a sense a lot of people are assuming that a new agreement is impossible - but ten years is a long way away. A smart move from the plc might be to aim to have the loco overhauled and in traffic some years in advance of 2030, which then somewhat helps them in aiming to conclude a new hire agreement (on similar or revised terms) in which the loco stays on the WSR.

I do wonder whether the very positive tone of the latest release has come about because someone has taken a long hard look at what the railway's medium term requirement for motive power will be, and where the possible sources of that motive power are. Which in turn leads to a realisation that 53808 is an almost ideal loco, being simultaneously powerful and low axle load, with a good reliability record to boot.

It is worth considering as well that a good loco agreement will recognise that it is not just about money, and that both parties have something to gain. Generally speaking, such agreements tend to be somewhat advantageous to the host railway in purely financial terms, i.e. the owning group ends up paying some degree of subsidy to the long-term costs of ownership. However, the railway has provided - well, in essence, a railway. So without it, the owning group may have a loco but be unable to see it run. Quite often, such discussions on fora are framed around the fact that an owning group may end up paying a five or six figure sum to a railway in additional subsidy at every overhaul, but ignoring that the railway has over the same period in effect had to pay for the infrastructure that the loco has used "for free". It is rarely as black and white in financial terms as is sometimes portrayed.

Tom

 

This builds on something that you talked about in the Bluebell discussion thread where the issue of the 9F came up. You indicated that there is on the Bluebell an understanding loco needs and where each loco 'fits' in terms of the need and so its priority for overhaul depends on that. That is to say, that the Bluebell has a very clear policy and how it intends to enact that policy. I am however, struggling to think of an articulation of the WSR's loco policy or how it intends to source its loco power. It thus far seems to have been a somewhat scattershot approach, two class 4 locos removed from the line, locos bought, locos sold, locos hired in.

The incentive to the WSR PLC is the quicker they overhaul the loco the more use they get out of it. To play devil's advocate about the overhaul of 53808. It would assume that in 2022 that there is money available to commence the overhaul immediately and to turn it around as quickly as possible, at the same time, the clock is ticking before it has to be returned. For example, there would be little benefit in returning it in say 2028 and only getting 2 years use out of it. If money were not available in say 2022-23 or the rate of progress were slow there must come a point where the costs of overhauling the loco can not be recouped/mitigated by the shorter period for which the WSR has the loco, which could incentivise the PLC to not invest in the overhaul (claiming penury, etc) and lead to the SDRT being handed back a loco in pieces or with minimal work having been done. (I think we've all seen enough restoration projects that have ground to a halt over money).

It would be useful for example to see proposals from the PLC as to how the overhaul will be funded but also who will do the work. Volunteers? Contract? In house?

 

Can we have another one of those please Mr. WSR PLC, this time rescinding the eviction notice you served on the S&DRT.

 

It's notable, I think, that the "Plc statements" with no name on them have tended to be the more incendiary ones, whilst statements issued by particular Plc directors (who aren't JJP) have been more emollient, and met with approval. Often they seek to defuse a situation arising from a previous "Plc statement" with no name. It would be nice if perhaps the nameless statements could cease, and there would also then be less of a need to put out subsequent statements too. It would save everyone a great deal of time, angst and loss of goodwill, which could perhaps be better spent on working out how to run the railway again.

 

Although he will certainly be reticent about the matter, it is possible that Mr Bailey has also been able to exert a beneficial influence behind the scenes.