The "linear scrapyard" revisited

I wish to hell I could argue any of your points, Tom. Pity I can't.

In terms of cataloguing what's kicking around and where, we're very fortunate the subject is of sufficient interest for some dedicated folks to have created and populated the VCT database. Thus, we've at least a starting point.

I lack the appropriate expertise to so much as define categories, but am acutely aware of past examples, where what was (quite reasonably at the time) adjudged completely past restoration and accordingly lost to us. A case I've cited before is IoW carriage 6986, rebuilt as DS70008. As a regular performer on "The Tourist" and the preferred management inspection saloon, this unique LBSC vehicle truly deserved preservation, but due to what seemed unarguable logic at the time, went to scrap.

I appreciate a significant difference between a complete, if badly degraded carriage and what could be described as breeding colonies of fungi and microscopic burrowing creatures, devoid of mainframes and running gear and in those cases, perhaps the best which could be achieved before complete structural collapse supervenes is to accurately record as many of the individual artefacts as possible .... itself no mean task. To put it bluntly, the alternative would effectively be comparable with the decisions leading to the demise of the last surviving Spooner single Fairlie, Moel Tryfan. As much as we might reluctantly understand the 1954 decision of the fledgling FR revivalists, especially given the over-riding need for hard cash, does anyone seriously feel that, had it survived, even if not restored, it wouldn't enjoy at least the same status as Princess?

 

If there aren't enforceable agreements it can.

Whether it should is another matter.

A better approach is to say "if you're going to stay it must be covered by an appropriate agreement". That needs to include responsibility for insurance, compliance with railway's safety management system , clarification as to who controls any work and an occupation licence or lease.. There can be inherent conflict between the railway's need to control and supervise activities on its premises, for which it will be primarily responsible, and the desire of some owners to retain their independent ability to control and supervise their own work. The cost of taking out their own insurance in order to keep that freedom may be beyond the capacity of some.

 

I will share the experience at the railway where I am a Trustee. We have long had a policy that enforceable agreements must be in place for all privately owned rolling stock (and other items). Despite this, we still have issues. Try as you might, you just cannot cater for the person who has moved house and cannot be contacted, the person who has died without a will, the person who just wants to ignore the massive liability which they have created for themselves (the ostrich impersonator).

It is a very difficult area.

 

Unfortunately this is not a new problem nor is it confined to the preservation of railway artifacts. I'm sure we can all think of cases where a loco, carriage or bus has been purchased (relatively cheaply), ripped apart in an initial burst of enthusiasm but then abandoned as the enthusiasm and cash ran out. I don't think anyone would disagree that 'watertight' agreements are vital but, unfortunately, as mentioned earlier, many of these deteriorating relics date arrived several decades ago when verbal agreements may have been thought adequate.
As Tom says the problem is obvious the solution is less easy. With seemingly abandoned property would it be sufficient to send a registered letter to the last known contact address with, perhaps, an announcement in the railway press? If, after a suitable time interval, could the host railway/organization dispose of an abandoned item and keep any proceeds (less costs) 'in escrow' for the 'owners' should they ever re-appear. Perhaps a member of the legal profession could advise?
Ray.

 

The measures I would suggest are taken are:
1) A signed for letter sent to the last known address of the owner.
2) A notice attached to the "asset"
3) A notice in the "society" magazine / newsletter
4) A notice on the society website
5) A notice on the societies social media channels
6) A notice in the main heritage railway press
7) A notice on online forums such as this.
8) A notice in the Gazette
9) If the railway is holding an agm or other form of meeting the issue should be brought to the attention of all attendees.
10) Notices could be displayed on railway notice boards / sign on points / railway shop / railway booking halls.

The notice should clearly identify the asset, advise the action proposed to be taken and what choices are available to the owner (eg. settle rent arrears, remove item, relinquish ownership of item etc etc). Deadlines must be explicitly stated.

If no response is forthcoming the appropriate action should be taken. As suggested by Marshall5 Any moneys raised from a sale or disposal should be held (less costs) "in escrow" should the owner ever come forward.

It is crucial that all actions / steps taken to locate the owner are fully documented especially any "leads" that may come up. Obviously the more actions taken the greater chance of the owner coming forward (having been made aware) and equally the actions of the railway subsequently viewed as being reasonable in the event of a dispute.

An owner may well be aggrieved if post event they discover their property has been disposed of however taking reasonable steps to trace the owner do provide a form of defence in the event of legal action being taken. It would be advisable to get an independent valuation of the asset to justify any sale price and defeat claims of an inflated valuation by the owner.

If the railway has multiple assets it wishes to resolve this type of issue with it makes sense to list all assets in one go as this reduces the cost per asset of adverts in publications.

Ultimately it is up to the railway involved to decide how much they wish this asset to be removed.

I would caution against promises of "I will make progress with the restoration" as past performance is a good guide of what will happen in the future. Likewise transfer of ownership to a new owner of unknown track record may simply just allow the problem to be perpetuated.

 

My father dealt with wills and probate for a living.

He always found his beneficiary.

I also had to do some work on my late mothers best friends will, which had names only for many beneficiaries but The Solicitor found them all ].

It can be done!

My fathers technique was to try everything at once rather than drip dripping at it.

The Salvation Army have a tracing service - I believe they have access to the DWP database, could they help?

 

The issue there may be purpose - there's a difference between tracing the beneficiary of a will, and working on a commercial dispute between landlord and tenant. Even if the ICO would allow it, I can imagine DWP and Salvation Army both being reluctant to grant access for these purposes.

 

Everywhere above you have said "owner" - I think in many cases it can be "owners". Everything can be done, but shared ownership (or suspected shared ownership) just increases the complexity. Now imagine doing all that for numerous items as you start to audit what you have dotted around the site.

The other grey area can be precisely what each party thinks they were doing, or contributing to. Just imagine a rare example of a vintage carriage from the Much Snoring and Little Meddling Railway comes up for sale from Port of Meddling Authority (where it had ended up as a service vehicle after withdrawal from BR). Following an urgent appeal for help in the society newsletter (roneo'd after work by the chairman's wife who works in a school and distributed to the 35 members by hand) to rescue what might be the last chance to get an article of genuine MS&LMR rolling stock, four members of the MS&LM Perseveration Society put up fifty quid each to buy it and transport it to Little Snoring station, where the nascent MS&LMPS is hoping to expand out, for use on the railway. Forty years later - what was that agreement? Was it "for use on the railway"? Or did they agree "for use by the railway"? Or was it "acquired for the railway?" Can anyone remember? Sadly the photo in the subsequent newsletter showing the handing over ceremony didn't make it clear, and the documents - if they ever existed - can't now be found. Meanwhile, the by now very successful Snoring Line (which had a corporate restructure 25 years ago and is now a legally separate entity from the original MS&LMPS) has been looking round its back sidings and is starting to get concerned about whether or not the steam heating equipment in the decaying chicken shed may or may not have asbestos contamination ...

Tom

 

Shared ownership may increase the complexity but of course it also increases the chances of tracing (at least one of the) owners.

An agreement that outlines the responsibilities and obligations of both parties may provide insight but doesnt alter the fact that one of the parties wishes to contact the other parties with the intention of varying or rescinding the agreement or possibly enforcing a specific obligation or clause in the agreement. Indeed it may even provide the process to be followed in the event that one of the parties can not be contacted or one party has not met their laid down responsibilities or obligations. The same process I have outlined above could still be followed.

Given the owner(s) has / have demonstrated an interest in heritage railways and specifically that line, it seems unlikely that if one or more of them are still living that at least one of them would not see a notice placed using the channels I suggested earlier. Other means of tracing could involve the electoral roll or database of directors.

Ultimately though it depends on whether the railways directors wish to resolve the issue of the asset. If they do not wish to resolve the issue then so be it. If they do wish to resolve it then they may wish to follow the steps outlined.

Subject to any specific condition in the agreement, If the asset has remained untouched for a reasonable period of time, that provable reasonable efforts have been made to trace the owners, then the financial risk to the railway in disposing of the asset is minimal.

The railway may wish to consider the relative risk of a trespasser injured by the asset and suing under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. The cost of defending that (or indeed the potential for increased insurance premiums) may be more than the cost of a potential claim by (an) owner(s) for an asset disposed of.

As ever it is for the Directors to decide the course of action they wish to take.

 

Back at the start of this discussion, mention was made of one "group ownership", where any gentlemens' agreement was held less meaningful in law than the name on the cheque involved in the transaction.

Believe me when I say I find any element of compulsion distasteful, as it does grate against the communal voluntary enterprise we (well, us oldsters at least) have always held near sacrosanct .... but ..... the situation specifically concerns those cases where the "gentlemanly" approach has borne no fruit.

 

The approach I suggested was specifically where there has been no contact / activity for a considerable period of time, that contact by normal means has not been established and potentially there is an imperative to resolve the issue.

Disposing of an asset goes against the grain but even the NRM have discovered there can come a moment in time when difficult decisions have to be taken and an asset disposed of because demands far exceed resources.

 

A point which I (thought I'd) made when I lit the blue touch paper! I'm in 100% agreement that we're speaking of a last, not first resort and only then, under those specific type of circumstances you've outlined.

Of course, it's completely in accordance with the long established rules of NP thread drift that we've already begun addressing issues relating to the state of much of the kind of stock involved ..... sort of goes without saying, but that's a parallel discussion, as much affecting kit where ownership issues aren't yet one more problem.

 

One thing that would have helped in many cases would a proper collection and preservation policy. How many railways have such a policy? Very few, I venture to suggest. Some lines now have a "one in, one out" policy to limit numbers but I believe that there would be more enthusiasm show towards some of the more disreputable examples if they were shown to have real historic value in the first place.

 

Agreed. However, there are places struggling to develop an active volunteer base, where so much as surveying unrestored stock on hand (bare description, let alone condition), with the best will in the world, is going to be beyond them. The VCT database is a magnificent achievement, but (obviously) can only be as complete and current as the information supplied.

 

I think that ties in to what @61624 said - in order to make decisions about disposals, you first need a collections policy.

On the Bluebell, we have the Long Term Plan (and it is backed by more detailed rolling stock strategies). I did a check and reckoned that all but five vintage carriages on the railway (excluding Mark 1s and sleeping carriages) fitted that strategy: three have been put up for disposal, one was sold last year, and in one case a carriage was dismantled. Which caused some anguish but it is clearly working through the constraints of the policy. More interestingly, I’m aware of vehicles (grounded bodies) being offered which were reluctantly declined, on the grounds that we couldn’t take on any more and the railway has all the vehicles it needs to cover the strategy.

(It is a bit self referential I think in that the first draft of the strategy probably came from the vehicles in stock; but there have been some additions in the last decade or so, especially of ex SER / LCDR vehicles to plug holes; but that has been done in a targeted way).

Another interesting Bluebell example was the locomotive Stamford, which was sold last year to Rocks by Rail (where it had been on loan for many years). It would never have fitted our collection policy, and was absolutely right for theirs; however, the reason it took until last year to conclude the sale was I believe primarily about ensuring the ownership was absolutely nailed down.

Tom

 

The Bluebell isn't unique, but is relatively exceptional in the possibilities offered by a future Ardingly extension – does the long-term plan go so far as to consider the rolling stock implications (if any) of that change?

Looking at the three carriages listed for disposal, one is described as having the potential to convert into accessible / wheelchair accommodation, which feels like a relatively scarce resource amongst the historic collection on the Bluebell… so I was a bit surprised that they'd consider moving it on (though maybe there are other reasons it doesn't 'fit').

My mental model for the Ardingly branch (probably entirely incorrect) would be a branch line operation for the small engines and shorter train lengths, but which would still require some additional stock to fulfil*.

Simon

* once everyone has stopped banging on about the 4VEP being used with batteries/solar/windmill and a new third rail installation, none of which seems very likely to happen.

 

I also have that image in my mind of the Ardingly branch offering a place for the smaller engines and shorter trains, but I don't think you need to look further than Horsted Keynes for the extra carriages - there are some eminently suitable items awaiting restoration! And there is no shortage of locos either.

Unfortunately such dreams are easy, finding resources (money, materials, space, and the oh so important people) is not so easy. And if it also involves the rebuilding of several miles of railway in order to provide a place for them to flourish...

Steve B

 

I think the real problem for most carriage groups is attaining a critical mass. Getting a group of like-minded individuals together with adequate funds so that progress is not limited by having to fundraise for materials, and getting one or two vehicles finished, gradually draws in more and more people and more funding, and the effects start to snowball. The LNER Coach Association is good example of this happening and anyone who visits it website (recently updated -
http://www.lnerca.org
) will see this in effect, although it has to be said that the current position has taken many years to come about, but the LNERCA, the VCT, the LMSCA an the Bluebell C & W (and others) are all shining examples that it can be done!

 

I think it is recognised that the Bluebell's LTP is more akin to a set of aspirations, rather than a strategy of how to deliver them. So it defines lots of carriages that we (being the membership, who vote for the plan) wish to have running, but doesn't say anything about how that gets delivered, nor what resources would be needed to maintain that fleet, nor whether having so many carriages would actually even be operationally useful. The LTP has no costs, and relatively little prioritisation. That's not necessarily a bad thing: it does at least set some limits and prevents a completely random approach to aquisition. But the limits are essentially of the nature "if the opportunity arose, we wouldn't be averse" rather than "that is a realistic proposition within our resources". For example, the LTP doesn't rule out a southern extension, but as a practical proposition, it is vanishingly remote.

That may change in the relatively near future, with a desire to have a closer alignment between what the plan says we want, and how that might be delivered or linked to operational requirements.

Ardingly fits the same pattern: the membership (expressing their view by voting for the LTP) say they want it, the difficulty now is see how it can become viable and not a financial millstone. I think there probably is a viable business case for it, but that perhaps doesn't include regular operation in routine service. But that's just my view.

Disabled carriages: AFAIK, there is at least an outline proposal of which vehicles are most suited to wheelchair conversion within each set in the LTP, with the exception of the Mets. I had a look at Car 54 - the wheelchair accessible Pullman, scheduled to enter traffic this year, only the other day.

Tom