Loco 76017

Maybe on the Cambrian Coast but no use on the Jacobite that operates all season with seven coach trains.

 

You obviously know a little more about this than most of us Martin
As an outsider I thought the line in the sand was drawn a few years ago with the transfer of 73096?

 

I must admit, that has me confused also, I thought that relationships had moved on, and that was borne out by john selling 73096 to the Trust, and things had settled down, JB was allowed back on site to carry out the FTR, om behalf of west coast, and whilst i wasn't there, and its only hearsay, things appeared to be ok, between him and the railway staff, he was even invited to drive his engine from Medstead, , it could very well be that there is no problem, between John Bunch and the railway now, and that it was known that the 76 would be leaving to go mainline, or to another site, A simple statement from the railway, would have cleared everything up,, or on the other hand the railway did not know, and the bomb dropped as soon as the 76 had reached the Bluebell, and if that is the case, it's very underhanded. and will leave many supporters of the railway, very angry. but given that the Bluebell gala publicity, gets printed weeks in advance, I would have to come to the opinion that, its likely that the MHR, most likely knew the engine would be leaving.

 

It may be that relations have improved, and there was no malicious intent from JB in purchasing 76017. Perhaps it just became available for purchase, he was interested, he had other plans for it other than keeping it at the MHR, and there was legally nothing to stop him removing it.

It all does seem to be shrouded in a veil of secrecy though, with no announcement from the MHR or JB about what is happening. Particularly as Martin says when any questions about it on MHR Facebook sites quickly get removed.

 

Quite frankly, in my opinion; Facebook is the last place to question and debate practically anything!

 

People forget that as current owners "reach the top of the ladder (of life)" action needs to be taken to protect the long term care of preserved locomotives given that they need major overhauls every 10 years. Much of this requires legal involvement especially regarding ownership as ownership of both LSL and WCRC traction fleets illustrate (e.g. owned by trusts rather than individuals) especially when operated on the main line. The early gung-ho "wild west" days are well past and ownership / operation is now constrained by legal agreements where breaches involve (expensive) legal action which IIRC the MHR is well aware of. More than one owner has found out that such breaches come both very dear and at the risk of threat to the safety and future of the locomotive(s) concerned hence current arrangements need to be reviewed to ensure the future of preserved locomotives.

 

There are also a number of enthusiasts who seem to think that they are entitled to know everything but have no right to this. There are privately-owned assets which have commercial operating agreements with heritage railways.

However much the enthusiasts *want* to know all the details, there are good reasons why these are not put into the public domain.

 

Indeed, if anyone 'should' be making an announcement its the MHR* to their volunteers (if they are interested), I don't see why JB has any need to say a dicky bird to anyone outside said company.

I am also a bit confused by the suggestions that JB has bought her, wasn't it suggested earlier than he was already quite a substantial shareholder anyway so just a consolidation of a position (likely entirely off market and with people he was already associated with). As it stands a little confused as to suggestion that anything nefarious has happened, bar a change of ownership.

*Albeit understand a wish for silence if there are ongoing legals involved?

 

I take your point. However MHR resources were put into overhauling this loco, which has now left the line with the new owner having the benefit of 4 years ticket at the expense of the MHR. You can’t blame MHR members for wanting to know what’s going on, especially when those resources could have been put into overhauling a MHR owned loco instead.

 

To the extent that anything "nefarious" has happened, it is the way that this locomotive has been extracted from the MHR and then not returned to it, despite general expectations. This appears to have caught MHR management by surprise, and has certainly caught all others by surprise.

If there has been a breach of contract between owners and MHR, that lies between them. Personally, my problem is more about the seemingly backhanded way that this has been done, and what it says about the owners' attitude to agreements.

 

Which would all possibly be valid if we had a clue about the contractual position between the owners and railway, what was known by the MHR hierarchy before or after the locomotive left, whether the MHR management were surprised, and why if they were not, that detail seems not to have been communicated beyond the management?

As it stands any suggestion that anything backhand has occurred is conjecture at best as is any accusations about the owners' attitude to agreements.

I have noted on several threads over the years, this forum is pretty lucky that more people in the preservation world are not litigious considering the accusations which get thrown around in writing on here.

 

AFAIK one of the characters in Absolutley Fabulous was based on a real life high profile person.

But were she to sue, then there would be no doubt at all that it was her rather than just a suspicion.

I notice another member in another thread recently has had to keep quite

 

Indeed, speculation is rife, and there is a fair bit of "2+2 = x" going on.

By the same token, I also note what there has not been - any kind of statement (here or elsewhere) confirming the change of base. On the other hand, there is a history of dispute between some of the principals in this matter, and a seemingly sudden change of plan for the locomotive. The lack of any comment affirming that the movement away from MHR was expected is, to me, revealing.

 

You make it sound as if someone has crept into Ropley late at night and stolen the loco away on the back of a low-loader. In fact, as is well known, it left in steam, towed by a mainline diesel - there was even a video of that happening, in daylight, posted on this thread. I'd suggest that none of that could have happened without the active participation of the operating staff on the MHR, if for no other reason than the logistics of the inbound and then outbound move at the Network Rail boundary will have a defined protocol.

I have no knowledge about who owns what, or the status of any agreements between various parties. But clearly to me, the outbound move must have happened with the active participation of the MHR, which presumably includes "the management".

Tom

 

Indeed there is no doubt in that. The question is did they know at the time it wasn’t going to return?

 

If that was how it sounded, I'm sorry - I'm well aware that it left Ropley with the MHR's blessing and assistance. As @Alan Kebby observes, the question was about the return - the surprise being the non-return.

 

Bearing in mind the circumstances of 2009 it would be astonishing if there were not solid contracts in place. However contracts can be terminated if all parties agree. To speculate wildly and on exactly no evidence at all, significant sums of money changing hands may facilitate contract termination negotiations. Interested MHR folk might like to scrutinise this year's accounts when they become available to them!

 

One has to take note of the relationship between said owner and the MHR which influences the manner in which they interact. Having spent time in the company of said owner I found him to be "a good friend but a bad enemy" which - I suspect - is what the MHR is now appreciating.