S&D Railway Trust

I think there’s a bit more to it than that Alan, isn’t there an educational display about the S&D at the Mid Hants?
There’s a lot more to the S&D trust than just 88 and a certain Peckett, there’s a lot of unsexy small artefacts in their care.

 

The original reason for it moving there was for it to fill a gap for a couple of years. Kilmersdon and lots of other artefacts have since also arrived, so the MHR and SDRT clearly have a good relationship. However that doesn’t necessarily mean the Mid Hants have a need for 53808 going forward and be willing to commit to overhauling it. I’m crossing my fingers it will stay though.

 

I have, on three occasions, acted as ‘honest broker’ between loco owning groups and railways who have got themselves into this sort of tangle, in each case leading to a successful conclusion. In each case I had no prior involvement with the railways or the groups concerned, so I doubt that I can help in Somerset. I charged nothing for my services and the many thousands of pounds in potential lawyers’ fees went into loco restoration or heritage railway coffers instead. Those negotiations must remain confidential but I will say that they were approached with goodwill and a desire to find a solution from both sides, a condition of my getting involved.

The WSR plc accounts show significant sums spent on servicing debt in recent times, which tends to show that the acknowledged liability for 53808’s overhaul is backed by what remains of unencumbered company assets rather than available cash. My comment is based on the published accounts rather than any special knowledge, although from personal observation I also see little in the way of heavy maintenance or renewals in Somerset recently.

My views on the WSR plc / S&DRT debacle are well known and it achieves nothing to repeat them. Like others, I watch with interest.

 

There is also links between the Urie group, and the S&D Trust, the chairman i believe of both organisations is the same person, the MHR i don't think will be concerned by ownership, because its well known, not hidden by shady goings on and my hope is that some agreement will be made between the Urie Loco society, and S&D Trust over offering help with the overhaul, in return for an understanding that there is some pooling of revenue between them, and marketing the three engines, 506, 499 and 88 ,

 

John

I agree with you in general terms about ‘run and repair’ agreements.

But ‘88 was in a very different place on the WSR and in Somerset. No-one would call me a loco-focussed enthusiast but the first bit of volunteering I did aged 14 was needle-gunnng the underside of ‘88’s running plates at Washford. (The photo is me standing alongside the same bit of running plate, 40 years later to the day in 2019 - the year I was RO for every weekend WSR event day throughout the year.) The S&D main line track-bed could be seen from my school. The loco has been intimately bound up with the WSR over nigh on half a century and I, for one, would have contributed to a call to raise funds for restoration of it were it to be running past the end of my garden on a normally-run heritage railway.

That valuable link has now been broken for reasons well explored here and elsewhere , and whilst I wish the S&D Trust well, my personal efforts will focus elsewhere, and I will treasure my memories of working with ‘88.

I doubt that I am alone.

 

I thought Sidmouth had never been restored, when was it used by the NYMR?
The SLL web entry says it was a restore and run, which is somewhat different to the situation with 53808

 

Talking of the 7F I finally uploaded some images I took back on the 4th: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ady77014/albums/72177720312629963

She might be worn out but she did sound good...

 

Repair and run is a very different kettle of fish but not without its own problems. The specific performance issue would still apply so there ‘s a risk that after the hirer has incurred the rebuild cost the owner decides to sell the Loco or just hire it elsewhere. Damages would be hard to calculate and subject to a duty to mitigate the extent of financial loss. Those challenges might be addressed by the hirer taking out a charge over the Loco but that would need to be agreed from the outset.

 

John

I would agree about the challenges of both ‘run and repair’ and ‘repair and run’ which both really stem from the complexity of dealing with all possible scenarios.

Is it your advice that there are only two really viable models:

(1) Running a locomotive owned directly by the relevant heritage railway, and / or

(2) period hire, paid for as it happens?

Robin

 

34010 was never restored at the NYMR, it was received at the railway in ex-Barry condition and was in the same condition when it was sold to SLL. An earlier management at the NYMR had verbally agreed for it to be restored at the railway's expense in return for its use and its then owner was holding them to that long after it was realised that it just wasn't feasible in any reasonable timescale. Eventually, the option of buying it from him was the of cutting the Gordian knot.

 

Not so. Two different people; the current S&DRT chairman was once connected with ULS.
Pat

 

I'd be pretty confident Robin that you and I would agree that trust and good faith will help make any arrangement work. There also has to be a realistic balance of benefits and liability between the parties. If either of them approaches he contract with the aim of screwing the maximum possible advantage out of the relationship then it's likely to fail.

Running a locomotive owned by an entity that is structurally part of the railway ( it won't necessarily be the operator of the railway) makes it easier to develop a medium to long term plan that marries overhaul capacity with funding resource and timetable requirements. Paid for hire as it happens reduces the capital liability of the railway but may leave it vulnerable to change of ownership of the locomotive. The ideal is probably a mix of both.

An element of value that sometimes seems to be ignored is the value of somewhere to keep a locomotive whether or not it's in service. Ideally that financial benefit should be reflected in the contractual terms which is perhaps why it's generally recognised that cumulative hire charges will not normally generate enough to fund an overhaul. What seems to work well is the model where the railway provides both locomotive storage and workshop facilities for the owners to do their own overhauls. That can provide the glue that keeps the locomotive stuck to the railway beyond its period of hire.

 

Without reaping over the same old coals would you say there’s not exactly been a lot exactly been a lot of trust and good faith from one side of the party that agreed to and put a signature to the one side of a piece of paper before deciding to screw it up?

 

I think it’s well known that I am a discrimination and employment lawyer rather than a commercial lawyer, but it is certainly true that we barristers particularly are kept in business by folks’ unerring tendency to ‘screw it up’!!!

 

I suspect that one party may not be in a position to meet its side of the deal for financial reasons

 

I’d also wager that the other has a lot of help and goodwill from the people’s court of opinion on its side too.
I watched this about 88 today
Much as I find 88 an annoying and frustrating piece of kit in that it it always seems to show up at galas I frequent, I’m more than happy to chuck a few quid towards its next overhaul.

 

I thought that was made clear at the time. Disclosing the WSR ‘s financial position in advance of the overhaul being necessary enabled the Trust to hire out the loco elsewhere and earn some funds towards overhaul costs.

 

A few more from the 7F charter......

https://www.flickr.com/photos/duty_druid/53327125039/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/duty_druid/53327123144/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/duty_druid/53327124444/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/duty_druid/53326780056/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/duty_druid/53326778151/in/dateposted-public/

 

I’m always biased regarding D8059 and 8188 but I do like that one of 188 Dave, thanks for sharing.