73096

please can we not get into the whole John Bunch/ Mid Hants thing, its old news, there was bad things done and said on both sides ,that did nothing for either side its time to move on im sure that all parties realise that this was an accident pure and simple, engines are now working with parts that are well beyond what would have been expected to have been changed in br days castings weeken with time, and repairs that might have been done in br days are now over 50 years old how many engines out there are still running with patched repairs to parts that have never been changed since their last heavy BR overhaul

 

Not sure if JB is the the outright owner, but he certainly has a controlling interest in 73096, Bodmin and the Maunsell Moguls. I don't think he has an interest in either 34105 or 76017.

There was fault on both sides in that unfortune dispute, and I think both sides regret what was said and done. But that's in the past now...

I understand why you say that, but I think you are being far too gloomy. There's no suggestion that this was anything other than a very unfortunate accident, and one which has befallen several other well-maintained locos over the years. It will bring the parties together to discuss what should be done, where and when, and who pays for what. That should be a possitive thing. Remember that U class 31806 is in the works for overhaul at the moment, even though it will probably work on the MHR for only 4 - 5 years before the end of the current agreement. Now is the right time to be talking about what happens next with JB's locos. Who knows what may come out of the discussions?

 

I do so hope you are right.

 

There was fault on both sides in that unfortune dispute, and I think both sides regret what was said and done. But that's in the past now...

I understand why you say that, but I think you are being far too gloomy. There's no suggestion that this was anything other than a very unfortunate accident, and one which has befallen several other well-maintained locos over the years. It will bring the parties together to discuss what should be done, where and when, and who pays for what. That should be a possitive thing. Remember that U class 31806 is in the works for overhaul at the moment, even though it will probably work on the MHR for only 4 - 5 years before the end of the current agreement. Now is the right time to be talking about what happens next with JB's locos. Who knows what may come out of the discussions?[/quote:1x2ab4ak]

Discussions have been going on for sometime now - So if something long-term wasn't to happen then I can't see how the MHR would fund the cost of of the overhaul for 31806, if nothing was to not happen for the MHR to keep the locos? I think it is in JB's interest to keep the locos there and having nothing to do with them; rather than pay to put all these said locos that he owns outright and put them onto another railway..... Just my opinion anyway. <Going to run and hide now> 8-[

 

I followed this saga in the railway press, have no knowledge of the detail and no, not trying to stir.

However I cant see this guy letting the engines stay- he owns them- they were signed over for a time period- he has his name slung though the mud at vast expense (where a court found no case to answer) and is not allowed anywhere near his own engines for over a decade.

If I were in the guys shoes the low-loaders will be ready and waiting to get down to Hampshire- I can't see how you expect they will stay

 

Any suggestion where they go?

Regards
Chris

 

With the purchase of it's own locos, the interest in the company which owns 34007, the deals done with (apparently) the owners of 76017 and 34105, the agreement with the Urie group re the S15s, the tie up with JH's locos, and 41312, it's surely apparent that the MHR has come a long way to not being reliant on just one loco owner. 5 years down the line, and seeing the locos earmarked for restoration, if things keep progressing as they have been it's difficult to see why the MHR would have need of any of JB's locos.

Things aren't perfect, but I can't see us relying so heavily on one individual ever again.

 

If the agreement states that the locos should be handed back in five years time in similar condition to when they were received it makes sense for the MHR to repair/overhaul them when workshop capacity exists so that two or three years of use can still be made from them. They would not want to have the workshop full of JB's locos in four years time in a panic to get them in pristine condition for their return.

 

There are now some update photos of the cylinder on the MHR web site.
http://www.watercressline.co.uk/tw/index.htm

It's the first time I've seen close up photos of the offending cylinder.

 

That bent rod looks like it may have to come out - The MHR are doing a fabulous job in tidying up...

 

well to be honest its not as if theyre gonna leave it in there and cast the new cylinder round it, and i dont think its runnable with a piston rod bent at 45 degrees. just thought id point it out.

 

#-o ](*,)

 

Do you think they can make a new one or straighten it out?

 

new, won't reapir that with out weakening it further

 

Thankyou for the reply.

 

Out of interest, does anyone know if 096s cylinders have been bored out? If so to what?

Is the core plug discussion on previous pages just a theory or a confirmed cause? I do not claim to be an expert on this incident, but looking at the pictures, I can't help wondering if there might be another explanation. Was the core plug found to have been out of place? Is there anyway this could of been a symptom rather than a cause of the devastation?

 

no worries, but believe me, getting a new piston rod and head will be the easy bit.... 8-[