GCR Black 5 No 45491

All a bit irrelevant to 45491 for the foreseeable future, though!

 

45491 really has been unlucky. First, while being worked on in the open at Fleetwood, the 'pikeys' cut a chunk out of the copper firebox tubeplate. After this had been repaired, a front new tubeplate fitted, tubed, and IIRC ready for hydro the tubeplate had to be scrapped due to a paperwork error. Now being asked to remove the loco from the GCR I can see how the owner is feeling pee'd off.
Ray.

 

Sale announced if anyone's still got Christmas shopping to do: https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2025/1...ounce-disposal-of-steam-locomotive-45491.html

 

Sale of uncollected goods?

 

That's the legislation being quoted AIUI. So potentially very controversial as the 'owner' , again AIUI, doesn't get a say in what happens.

 

So, in other words, anyone with a Christmas bonus burning a hole in their back pocket and wanting a Black 5 needs to think very carefully when they follow the instructions on the ad and get details from the GCR. And then add covering legal fees to the likely costs.

 

Its very well established legislation used all the time by the motor trade etc. So legal complications seem unlikely.

 

It's an interesting area of law, bailment. Assuming proper notice has been given, the purchaser has good title against the bailee (the original owner).

This of course has two issues (1) was notice served, and (2) was it served on the actual (as opposed to presumed) owner.

In real terms you'd either take a view or cover it with an indemnity or an insurance policy.

The interesting bit here is whether a steam locomotive is sufficiently fungible. Ie, could you buy an equivalent with the cash? Generally, the civl law prefers to compensate with money (ie if the real owner comes forward, their action is in damages).

I suspect in real terms this is a way to stop the presumed owners prevaricating. They need to either do something or admit defeat.

Hopefully a sensible agreement can be reached with minimal dissatisfaction on all sides.

 

Irrelevant but interesting (IMO), a subset of bailment is "mutuum", the usual example given is borrowing a cup of sugar from one's neighbour. The actual cupfull is not returned, thus it can only arise where the product is fungible.
So you are sort of loaning something in the sense that you are not alienating your ownership of a cup of sugar, but it's the right to a generic cup of sugar rather than the specific cupfull.
I can see that arising with things like drillbits and possibly even small tools.

 

Reading the fine print of the piece, which I suspect will be a regurgitation of the press release, I'd say yes - note the statement "The locomotive has been at the railway for 15 years, but the railway has had no role in the restoration." (my emphasis)

 

Reading back and then looking at the most recent developments this has all the traits of the railway resorting to a hard ball legal route after other approaches have failed.

 

That's the Occam's Razor reading of it, certainly.

 

Scrap price then!

 

I'm quite surprised that the GCR doesn't want it! 5231 was a great ambassador for them. 45491 would be an ideal fit for when 45305 is due out of service in the future (yes, I know 45305 is currently under overhaul!).

 

Who says they don't?
But it's not theirs, so they can't do anything with it.

As long as fair market price is offered for it, I *think* they can buy it under this route.

If it's sitting there unrestored (or restored to a standard they won't accept), it's useless to them anyway. This way the owning group either gets forced to put it's house in order, or take it away. If that doesn't happen, then it ends up either owned by a group able/willing to restore it (or take it away), or they end up owners themselves. All of which are presumably considered better than the current impasse.

 

Paging Ian Riley...

 

I get the impression that there's enough bad blood between the GCR and 45491's owner, and enough botched work on 45491 that'll need redoing, that they just want rid of it.