Mid Hants Railway Operational Matters

I think we all know this is just wild speculation, and no one seriously thinks it’s going to happen just because Martin suggested it. SLL haven’t been dragged into anything.

 

Until I see / hear of a signed, sealed and delivered proof of ownership of 34105 I don't want to hear any more about it.
Pat

 

Sorry, suggested this a year ago on another forum, reply being why should we give our locomotive away?' So, dare I say, John and his family feel confident that they have a majority investment in this locomotive. So , its up to MHPS to disprove otherwise. Hey, I've just won Euro millions, who do I write the cheque to?

 

For those that missed the Spring Gala, I've had an email from the MHR saying that 35005 and the T3 will be running services over this Bank Holiday Weekend.

 

You missed a treat if you wernt there for the Gala

 

Nothing is assisted by discssion in a public forum! My point, and I've made this before - is the peculiar way railway preservationists an enthhusiasts enjoy covering every subject in some cloak of secrecy to give it a veneer of importance that it does not have. Nowhere is the "Knowledge is Power" mantra more keenly observed than in railway preservation, where anyone is posession of what they regard as inside information sees it as aquiring status and self importance. The concept that somehow these discussions have some legal importance is laughable. A forum is a pub with no beer, no more , no less and attempts to elevate it to some kind of parliamentary debate by pointing out that some participants hold some minor roles with short term or immediate effect here and there doesn't change that. If a executive was on here talking about future policy that had a professional or corporate element would be different, but they aren't and the subject doesn't. We are just a bunch of blokes speculating our hobby. The important stuff does not go on here.

 

What is discussed here has real world consequences, whether you care to acknowledge that or not, it is a fact - I have examples, but I am not prepared to talk about them publicly for lots of reasons. I don’t believe I said legal, but it’s conceivable. What you write in a forum can constitute libel for example.

 

I'm just waiting for unrebuilt 34007 to be back in service, maybe in 2026?

Having 35005 and 34007 back together could possibly justify a special weekend of workings?

Bryan B

 

Am I right in saying 34007 is no longer going mainline?

 

AIUI, it's being done to mainline standards for future running, but once finished will stay at MHR to maintain an operational fleet (41312 due out next year, 9F or Wadebridge likely to be next due in, so will be needed there for a while I'd imagine.)
As ever, always subject to changing circumstances of course.

 

Yes of course it can, in theory, just as something you say in a pub about a footballer can also constitute slander or defamation but does it, actually? Ever in reality? No it doesn't. For a start it would be a civil case decided by a jury who are going to laugh it out of court anyway. To suggest that every informal discussion whether about football, politics or railway preservation should somehow mind its Ps and Qs in case of litigation is just proving my point. People are not in real life arrested for expressing opinions, beliefs and the kind of idle tittle tattle that we indulge in on fan forums such as this or to suggest forum members or an administrator are bound by this "careless talk costs lives" nonsense just illlustrates my point about this puffed up over importance which the railway community assumes for itself. I am not aware of any court cases past or present concerning the ownership of 34105 nor is it a criminal offence to speculate about any subject of interest, so why pretend there is?
By the way, 76017 and others in its class on occasion hauled our school train with 7 or 8 coaches regularly up Hinton Bank and even in wet weather it coped as well as the Bulleid light pacifics which slipped alarmingly. If it was dry and it got a good start I think it would make it to FOur Marks. The 4MTs definitely would.

 

Your lack of awareness is precisely why this particular conversation thread is unhelpful. As you are by your own admission not informed (and clearly so by this comment), I will just make one more appeal for you to drop it!

Once again I didn’t bring up court cases criminal or otherwise. Your point is well wide of the mark.

I think you need to re-read what I wrote. I referred to a standing start in poor weather on a 1:60, and said I wasn’t sure the loco would have got that train on that night away.

 

Because 21B likes to control dialogue I'll just say here that I am an administrator of a group - quite a large one with 12,000 members, and when subjects are discussed with opinions that I might personally disagree with and sometimes where I can add my own knowledge - I refrain because if I can't let others indulge freely without interfering, and controlling then I should not be an administrator. Threads run out of steam and wither and die naturally. It should not be down to you to demand that subjects are dropped if others want to discuss them.
And I made the point about Bulleids slipping in wet weather on the same line at the same place while Standards kept their feet. Real world information, that, from 1965.

 

Maybe @21B knows a bit more about this particular subject than you do? He has asked nicely...