Rolling Stock Ownership:

Hi Folks:

Having made a recent visit to the excellent IOW Steam Railway, I was amazed to be informed that apart from one coach covered oner with a tarpaulin, everything else was owned by the Society.This means that there are no issues with who owns what, when it is going to,be restored, and most important who is going to pay for the restoration, all so simple on the IOW:

On other Railways though it is not so simple as owners, (who I am sure had the best intentions at one time), would rather see their little gems rot away to nothing rather than see others restore them , or transfer ownership to their Society so fund raising can be set in motion.

A prime example of this at one Railway I will mention is that a member brought a vehicle many years ago, and because he owned it, expected the Railway to pay for the restoration without any input from the owner physically or financially, and had the gall to say he would likely sell it when complete. Naturally the railway told him where to go, though I an led to believe this is certainly not an isolated incident.

If these owners are not prepared to do anything with their prized possessions, then in my opinion they should be charged storage fees of given a deadline to take it off the railway.

Do others have an opinion on this please?

Best regards
Chris:

 

Do any railways pay hire fees for rolling stock, in the same way as steaming fees for locomotives ?

 

I think there are merits to both systems of ownership.

I think that at the moment the society owned approach is best for the larger lines (when I say "larger" I mean the most developed really rather than physical size) but doesn't work so well for smaller outfits. There simply isn't the membership, passenger numbers, or profit to fund steam engine overhauls or major diesel restorations on these smaller lines. A lot of lines would have almost nothing if it were not for individuals funding (or at least subsidising) their own pet projects.

It is a sad fact, but for the less glamorous vehicles such as DMUs, many of the best examples are owned privately (or more likely private groups) and many raggy ones have been owned by railways. I'm not saying that is a rule, far from it, but it would seem that there's a balance to be struck.

I have seen a few loose agreements regarding private ownership go wrong over the years, and these stories always overshadow the other examples of privately owned vehicles which have operated happily on a railway for years and years. I think a necessity for any vehicle is to set out from the beginning a proper signed agreement, it is surprising how many vehicles out there don't have these!

With regard siding space, there is a policy which I always thought would be fair for privately owned stock. Many groups have vehicles "awaiting their turn", but I always thought they should be allowed this space on the railway provided they have a regular working presence on their "current project" whatever that may be. What I don't agree with are vehicles rotting away with owners who have not been working volunteers for a long time. So for example a diesel group should be allowed to have two rotting Class 20's on the railway provided that some of them come down each weekend to work on their class 37 they're doing up. However the rotting Class 26 which is owned by a guy who had an argument and hasn't been seen since 1994 should be moved on.

However looking in the longer term, provided the investment is there I think it is more secure for a vehicle to be society owned. I think the current mix of society vs private ownership is working quite well, in many cases we seem to be able to enjoy the advantages of both systems.

 

I think as Chris says there are benefits with both. At the NLR some vehilcles are owned by the railway however the majority are in private ownership. We do pay hire fees for coaches and wagons that are privatly owned.

 

Chris ,your comments and others are noted:

But what of those that never do anything with the item they have brought? Are these vehicles to be allowed to rot and rust away in a siding creating an eyesore for the traveling public? Or is now the time to take tough action and ask these people to either restore, allow others to restore, charge them storage fees , of ask them to remove their piles of rusting metal and rotting wood?

Regards
Chris:

 

Three years ago the Quad set returned to traffic, beautifully restored, an absolute gem. It had taken 5 years to restore after tarpaulined storage in a siding for 25 years. Very negative views were expressed about that during those 25 years but take one look at the finished product - yes, it was worth waiting for.:clap2:

On the same line there is a Great Eastern brake third coach that is now at last getting near the head of the queue for restoration after spending probably longer in an embarrassing condition.

Restoration (or getting a round tuit) takes as long as it takes, arbitrary deadlines and ultimatums are not going to make it go any faster. probably they just cheese people off and demoralise them. So if 25 years under tarpaulins in the sidings is a norm, what's wrong with that?

Being fair to preserved lines though, they don't want to end up being buried in toot.
If you had parked an old car on your mates driveway 25 years age with the intention of doing it up and it was still there now in the same condition, I would imagine that, from time to time, some form of (heated) dialogue would have ensued. The point is that, if there is dialogue and if both parties are then happy then all well and good: if there is neither, then effectively, it is an abandoned car.

The issue here is really about Heritage Lines providing long-term storage for rolling stock: I guess that's something they all do out of habit and tempus fugit rather than formally. I can't see a problem with something waiting 50 years or more for restoration - provided there is a written agreement for its storage and that it is preserved in a presentable condition. The actual problem is finding somewhere to put new arrivals.

 

Ultimately, I guess whether a railway is prepared to put up with lines of decaying rolling stock maybe owned by others is really a question for the railway concerned, and whether they consider having a long term "option" on a particular item is more important than the use of siding space or any potential eyesore.

That said, I think it flags three important issues:

1) Does your railway have a rolling stock policy? If you have a strategy that says "our long term aim is to put together sufficient carriages to represent a typical Great Noodling and Wayward Railway train as running in 1910" or whatever, that makes decisions on what should be welcome (for future restoration) and what should be disposed of or rejected easier to make. For example, to take the IoWSR, the policy is to run trains representative of those that ran on the Island, preferably using genuine Island stock. Straight away that means no post grouping carriages... The Bluebell policy (as set out in the long-term plan) is also fairly clear, though probably there are some gems of long standing that may not really fit that policy (such as the LNWR Observation Car), except in the catch-all "special saloons and other vehicles of special interest". But it is pretty clear that a BR Mk2 is never going to find a home at the Bluebell, whatever the preservation merits might be.

2) Once you have a policy, do you have a strategy to achieve the policy? That means ensuring you have, or are able to obtain, sufficient facilities, labour (whether paid or volunteer) and cash to restore and maintain what your policy says you need. Not much point saying your policy is to run two 10 coach rakes representative of the Great Noodling and Wayward Railway ca. 1910 if your C&W workforce consists of two men and a dog - or at least not unless you are prepared to wait 50 years to achieve it, and can in the meantime keep those vehicles you have restored in good condition.

3) Probably most important: can you store your carefully rescued Great Noodling and Wayward Railway bodies without further decomposition until such time as you have the wherewithal to restore them? We are after all preservation societies: no point finding that your pride and joy carefully set aside to be the showpiece of your railway is actually a pile of woodworm dung by time you pull back the tarpaulin. In practice, that means covered storage - lots of it. I'd go so far as to suggest that any railway serious about preservation that isn't thinking long and hard about undercover accommodation is at best throwing volunteer and paid labour down the drain; at worst its really not acting in the best interest of the vehicles in its care.

Tom

 

The greatest problem for most railways is siding space for vehicles awaiting restoration. The NYMR is no exception and is currently reviewing all the non-operational vehicles, so the LNERCA is looking nervously at its collection of teak carriages awaiting restoration, despite the fact that it has a good track record with six vehicles restored, running and earning money for the railway, and more well on the way to completion. With the best will in the world, it isn't possible to do everything at once and if the society is to continue to flourish it will need more vehicles for the future. At present the LNERCA raises the funds, restores the coaches and hands them to the NYMR free of charge, in return for the NYMR accepting liability for running maintenance. I on't therefore think that Mr. Coalwagon's apparent suggestion that any coaches that aren't currently being worked on should be kicked off the railway would be helpful to the LNERCA's cause!

 

Of course not 61624 Gresley and Thompson coaches are unique, and every Railway must be treated as a separate case.

What I am attempting to say though is there are certain individuals on all Railways, (including my own the Mid-Hants), who have brought rolling stock with the best of intentions at the time though they have no idea how to restore or indeed where the funding will come from.

Indeed I have met a few owners who expect the Railway to restore their vehicles just because they brought them in the first place, and have no intention of physically or financially helping though to be fair some may have passed away or moved on forgetting that they had brought them in the first place:

These are the individuals that I am suggesting should be asked to either do something with it or take it away.

best regards
Chris:

 

Good quality rolling stock is harder to come by than good quality locomotives.
Covered accommodation is even harder to spare.
I suspect many railways run decrepit Mark 1's because they are considered disposable, can be stored outside and are viewed more short term until a fairy god mother builds a shed and the toothfaires restore the antiques.
Sadly it's 20 years now since Mark 1's were £4k a pop from BR and were withdrawn by the dozen every month.

Next on the agenda is those declining supplies of class08's, it also looks to me, at least, One person is cornering the market in class20's, could this be for hs2 work in the future, taking some out of preservation again?

Preservation is about appreciating what you can save now for the future.

 

Interesting discussion and for a rare change I agree with Coalwagon. There are sidings full of rotting vans and wagons on many preserved railways that take up much space, look appalling and pay no rent. Indeed many of these vehicles have turned up so long ago and the owner died / moved away / lost interest / fallen out with the railway that even tracing who owns the damn thing is a project in itself. I think the time has come for many of the more established lines to thoroughly review what is lurking out the back siding and weed out the no-hopers, the never to be dones, beyond repairs and either charge storage at commercial rates, get them removed or scrap them. Preserved railways have to smarten their image up. It isn't any good having lines of half-painted, half rotten incomplete wrecks laying around for decades. Whilst unrestored stock is interesting to look at for some there is a mile of tat that is never going to get looked at and serves no purpose other than getting in the way. I remember back in the early 80s when the back siding was extended down the Ardingly at Horsted Keynes for all the tat one wooden frame open wagon actually split its solebar when moved and completely disintegrated on the track. Mr bonfire came to pay a visit...

 

In the 60s and 70s the standard approach was save first (usually at short notice) and sort the restoration and fund raising out (no lottery in those days) once you've acquired it. Unfortunately, it was only once it was stripped down, that an realistic estimate could be made of the tasks required, then it was down to who would do them and sourcing materials: then, the realisation the original funding estimates were on the optimistic side. With hindsight, this was messy, as a rule it worked but it was never 100% successful.

I suggest that if there is a problem with a moribund item of rolling stock, then a conciliatory exercise should be started - that is the owners and the line try and agree and publish a five year plan for it - maybe store it - maybe restore it - maybe make it available to someone else. If the owners are in hiding or have passed-on it's really the line's responsibility to take reasonable steps to trace them or their heirs.

On the same line as the Quad set, there was once a very moribund special saloon that had fallen from grace and become a store for diesel spares. A new home was found for it and last I heard. it was restored and serving as a very pleasant mobile cream tea shop.

These problems have often been resolved to the benefit of all, but then, yes, I agree, basket cases are a big problem and it's up to the line whether they want to store them in perpetuity or advertise them as available for someone else to take on.

 

I know of one particular incident where railway officials had been trying in vain to identify the owner of a vehicle for years , and even put a statement and deadline of a year inside the in house magazine.

Nobody came forward and just to be sure they gave it another six months. Work had only been in progress foe a couple of weeks when a Solicitors letter arrived from the owner,( who everyone thought was dead) saying do not touch my vehicle.

I rest my case, ):-

Regards
Chris:

 

What was the outcome - did the railway issue an ultimatum to get the vehicle removed from their line?

One problem dating back to the early years of railway preservation was that no contracts were signed (or very little exist) for items of rolling stock that were used (or perhaps not at all) and then mothballed. When the time has come to either remove the item or restore it, no-one can prove who owns it, on what agreement is came to the railway, where responsibility lies for restoration etc etc. Sadly it means that some items may not have much of a future.

 

The vehicle was placed back in the siding to rust and rot in peace, so sad when this sort of thing happens:

Regards
Chris:

 

It makes you wary of obtaining anything from another line without establishing, without doubt, proof of ownership. The last thing anyone would want is to complete a restoration and have someone turn up and claim the vehicle was his deceased dad's.:shocked:
Even if they had put the statement in a national railway magazine it would have been hit or miss if the owner or an acquaintance would have seen it.

 

There are legally enforcible avenues to go down to obtain ownership of a vehicle which appears to be abandoned on your land; I believe having made reasonable efforts to contact the owner at their last known address and publishing a notice in a particular London paper is deemed sufficient. I'm no lawyer so this is based purely on hearsay (so please seek legal guidance), but the fact is that a truly abandoned vehicle might actually be in a better situation than one with an uncooperative owner.

I don't really understand why anyone would buy a restoration project if they didn't have some vague idea that they might like to restore it one day, but I'm aware of vehicles for which this seems to be the case. Perhaps the owners believed they were doing the railway a favour by securing the vehicles when they became available - very probably at a time when there was a need for such vehicles but the host railway had no money - but by not ensuring sensible contracts in place before their arrival neither the owner nor the railway is in a very happy position really.

But, as well as 'bad owners' there are 'bad railways' and 'bad contracts' - it is a very dubious area to do too much poking around in. I'm aware of at least one derelict wreck which was in preservation service some 20+ years ago, the rumour being that it was brought to its present line under an agreement that it would be fully restored in exchange for its use. Now that it is abandoned and festering, full restoration would be very expensive and while the owner appears to have forgotten about it, it is probably in the railway's best interests to keep quiet as well. Sad though it is for the vehicle concerned.

I'm sure that many railways occasionally review these 'problem vehicles' and occasionally something gets done about them - hopefully to the satisfaction of all parties. But there is a finite amount of money available for restoration, perhaps more so amongst private owners and particularly in the present financial climate, so ultimatums and charging rent aren't necessarily the best ways to get problems solved and could easily be counter-productive. As with most things, dialogue and discussion are usually more fruitful.

I do agree with the earlier contributor to this thread that having a sound rolling stock policy is a good starting point. As well as guiding members as to what vehicles are worth pursuing it would help the host railway to say 'no' occasionally, and it might also help with determining the importance of particular vehicles when it came to applying for grants and so on.

Phil

 

I know of a railway not too many miles from here where a hard working member restored a goods wagon, doing the usual quality job. Shortly afterwards a low loader arrived with a loco being brought in on hire. The guy from the other railway then says that he might as well take his wagon to save sending the low loader back empty. It turned out that the guy had been given several wagons in settlement of a debt from many years earlier & the board member concerned had not bothered telling anybody he had done this. I think that all other wagons on the railway have now had their owners identified to prevent this from happening again.

Bob.

 

I think more railways are coming to respect their Mk 1's as historical items in their own right. Mk 1's were in use during most of the steam era of British Railways and they look superficially similar to earlier coaches used by the LMS and Southern. So they look right on heritage railways and can be authentically painted in at least different 6 liveries, probably more, without upsetting purists!

Wasn't there a case in the world of heritage aviation where a Supermarine Spitfire was restored by volunteers and then the owner sold it for a huge sum?

 

Wasn't there a case in the world of heritage aviation where a Supermarine Spitfire was restored by volunteers and then the owner sold it for a huge sum?[/QUOTE]

There was, and i know a certain person who did the same thing with a Loco and a carriage a few years ago.

Regards
Chris: