Mid Hants Railway Operational Matters

Schools Alres, Ivatt Alton up to Friday.

weekend yet to be confirmed.

 

Thanks

 

I wasn't there and I heard something as well. I guess we have wait for something official.

 

I just hope it's nothing major but it's strange that she worked ok during the gala, but so far, there's no sign of any transport to return her, my concern is that a certain former loco superintendant and others, were heavily involved with the standard 4 group, i just hope that there are no ownership issues. with 30925, coming out of traffic, and 50808's future being unclear, the MHR, could be facing a motive power shortage next year.

 

From what I been told, just as a rumour mind you, and completely unofficial, it is nothing to do with the mechanical condition of the engine and indeed might be about what you said involving the former CME. But it could prove to be Bulls##t yet.

 

This all sounds rather worrying after the problems encountered with the ownership of 34105 as well. Not heard the rumours about 76017 but have the Watercress Line lost another loco?

Sent from my XQ-BT52 using Tapatalk

 

There appears to be a news blackout over this, so i would imagine lawyers are involved, I don't know how long she has left on the boiler certificate, but she was overhauled by the previous management, who I can only smise thought they had everything tied down ownership wise, similar to Swanage.

 

If you are right, then 'Least said, soonest mended'.
Pat

 

Ownership issues there may be, but why does that mean the loco cannot be returned to the Mid-Hants in the meantime?

 

If you think you are the majority shareholder, and you anticipate a dispute with Line X, why put the engine back on Line X before starting the argument?

 

Until such time that there is an official announcement explaining what , the situation is,theres not much that can be said, none of us know what has happened,

 

It matches up with what I overheard at Giants of Steam. It seemed to come from someone with a connection to the MHR, but we'll have to see how much truth there is in it.

For what it's worth, although not rostered for the rest of the month, 76017 still appears on the Bluebell's Operational Locomotives page as a visiting locomotive.

 

Roster saying all three steam for 28th and I assume it will be the same for Sat and Sun

 

The loco returned to traffic in summer 2016 among with the Ivatt tank. So about 4 years left on her ticket AFAIK.

 

The running agreement would have been between the MHR, and the Standard 4 group, If the loco has changed hands, then any agreement would i imagine become void, as a new owner, of any loco would then normally agree their own running agreement, fees etc, with the railway, or refuse any agreement, and remove their engine, to another line, where they would have arranged for the engine to go to., that's quite straight forward, once ownership has been proved, What happens to any steaming fees, i am not sure, if they are already paid to the owning group, then there's nothing to be done, but if the railway held the hire fees, steaming fees, in an account to be used for the eventual overhaul, then, i would imagine, the railway could rightly keep those fees, as any liability would be between the former owners, not any new owner, I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong on this, Looking forward, if the loco is now lost to the railway, that's going to create problems, because with only 3 working engines, one of which, the 7f, is getting very tired, the overhauls of the 75 and Can pac, have to be finished now ASAP either that or accept less steam, and more diesel use, If 925 can get an extension on its ticket, to give it 1 more year, that might give some breathing space, it might be worth looking at 73096, to see how much work the boiler needs, if its in sound condition, fast track it, just do enough mechanical work to get it in an usable condition, and do a full mechanical later.

 

I'm not going to comment on 76017, but on the point I have quoted - that is rarely a sound idea in my view. The difference in cost between a full overhaul and doing the least possible is often not that great, given the large fixed costs in an overhaul. (*) So the risk of doing the smallest amount possible is you just bake in the risk that you have lots of niggling reliability problems which become very costly to fix by being done in isolation.

I wouldn't like to claim any of this is easy, but in general I'm an advocate of "if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well".

(*) If you stripped a loco down, did nothing and then built it back up again, you've already spent a lot of money, while achieving nothing in absolute terms. So you want to do that as rarely as possible, which in turn means doing as much as you can every time you do have to strip a loco down - in my view.

Tom

 

Indeed, and is it a huge coincidence that these issues have arisen in the few days that the loco has been away from the MHR? Or was this deliberate timing?

 

You got there before I did. I know mid-ticket mechanical overhauls are more common now than ever, its always better to do it right first time than half ass the whole thing to bump along for a couple of years.

 

Contracts are strange things, and without knowing specifically what’s in one, speculation is pointless. However, when they need to be enforced, cost will be a major factor - and the saying that “possession is 9 tenths of the law” carries an important truth.

If, as speculation hints, there is a dispute lurking in the background, the trust that preservation relies on to be effective will fray further. We should all be concerned if so.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

925 is already in an extension. Originally due to expire last year.