Loco 76017

I suspect too many variables such as whose is the ultimate responsibility for operating locomotives, who is allowed to drive / maintain the locomotive, what "qualifications / experience must permitted drivers have, what are the financial arrangements re-hiring fees and expenditure on maintenance, insurance and (any) certifications needed and what restrictions apply to the use and operation of the locomotive. I suspect the use of "gentleman's agreement" to avoid such legal matters was the root cause of the MHR problems when one party to the agreement disagreed to some of the terms when voted into an administrative position and sought to change the agreement.

 

I would have thought it would be possible to create a boiler plate contract that covers the items that should be covered on every type of agreement between a loco owner and a Heritage Line. Of course there will be many variables but then there are in every industry that uses boilerplate contracts as a starting point.

 

Agreed. The exercise of standardising those terms would also be useful in balancing expectations for both owners and hirers, and helping work towards averting disputes.

Tangentially related, I've recently come across an initiative called "One NDA", which is a cross industry attempt to standardise non-disclosure agreements. By creating standard patterns, the amount of time wasted trying to negotiate from scratch every time will be reduced, as will the focus on all of the special pleading that makes them harder to agree.

 

The HRA do provide a Guidance Note for Rolling Stock Hire Agreements (ref HGR-P0110, published in 2013). You'll need to login to the members area to access it.

 

The difficulty come with 'opaque' ownership arrangements. Who signs on behalf of the owners, and do they have the backing of co-owners?
Pat

 

But what happens if the loco is sold to someone else during that time, who takes it elsewhere. There is no longer a contract?

 

We should have a better idea of what's happening after the 8th of December, I'm not going to say it's for 76017, because no one knows yet, but it's pathed for 60MPH, so it's not an ECS move, it might be for 44871, but if it is, it could also be used to move 76017 in the same movement,

 

I would imagine the railway would hope to get any new owner to sign a new agreement, to allow the engine to remain on the host railway, but of course a new owner won't be tied by any contract with the former owner. In this case though, given who it is thought the owner is, he will have his own plans for his engine.

 

Not true, unless the railway have been imprudent enough to sign a contract that expires upon sale of the locomotive. The contract will exist between owner and railway, and if the loco is sold, there are three basic options:
1. The contract transfers with the locomotive; or
2. The loco owner and railway agree to terminate the contract; or
3. The loco owner breaches the contract by stepping away from it.

There's a fine line between (2) and (3), and arguably little choice for a railway given the time and cost that it would take to enforce action for a breach of contract.

Indeed. But in that situation, the railway should also do it's due diligence to ensure that whoever they sign the contract with have authority over the loco. If I were signing on behalf of an unicorporated owning consortium, I'd also want to be very sure that I weren't at risk of being left high and dry if my fellow owners made a change and left me on the hook for any legal consequences from the railway.

 

You would cover that sort of thing in the contract, either by an assignment or some financial recompense for having it moved elsewhere.
Edit had not noticed @35B had already answered.
Plus of course you need two parties to a contract, so there would have to be a loco owning party be that a group or an individual. And as was said if it is your name on the contract then you are the nominated person.

 

Easier said than done, what's the old saying about possession being 9/10 of the law, once an engine is no longer on your property, you have no way to enforce any agreement if the owner decides, to move the engine once 76017 left MHR property, they could hardly stop any owner from taking possession of their loco.

 

That is what the courts, or arbitration if that is an option in the contract is for.
That is how for example aircraft lease companies get their aircraft back from everywhere in the world (apart from Russia)

 

Which is why I was careful to suggest that the choice between my options 2 and 3 may well be very difficult in practice because, unlike the sort of large corporate that @Gladiator 5076 used to work for, and I do work for, most heritage railway organisations are run on very tight budgets without the spare people to follow up a dispute through legal processes. Although, having said that, when I hire something out to you, there are usually conditions limiting how quickly I can insist on having it back, and putting some process around how I can take it back.

But the point that matters is not that contracts are difficult to enforce, but that the use of good contracts will reduce the likelihood of disputes occurring in the first place, and then of those disputes going nasty if they do arise.

This whole discussion revolves around the basic questions of (a) who owns 76017 and (b) what basis they had for permanently removing that locomotive from the MHR. Even a contract that is in practice difficult to enforce would, if clearly written, have some value in framing what actions people might take.

 

I think the 15 year agreement mentioned refers to different locos (i.e those that left the railway in 2014) rather than 76017.

 

The new owner might not be obliged to make any details public, but the railway involved, the MHR might be. Some people will have contributed to the overhaul of a loco for the MHR, that half way through its ticket, has now left the railway. If I am a member of the railway, or donated money for this loco, I would expect some kind of explanation.

 

At the risk of further thread derailment, I did start a thread on this topic, which never really flew - perhaps a friendly mod might consider hiving off all the posts from #218 onwards to that thread?

https://www.national-preservation.c...hats-significant-and-what-is-at-risk.1421381/

Tom

 

There is a good argument for a statement of some sort. I will just comment that so far as I can recall there was not an appeal for funds to overhaul 76017.

This loco was not part of any 15 year agreement. I think that may be a confusion with another loco agreement of the past.

There is an assumption in this thread that there has been an issue. I have observed before that there is nothing in the public domain except speculation that this is the case. I believe that this is an amicable albeit private arrangement.

 

If the Mid-Hants has contributed money and/or volunteer time in maintaining the loco and in exchange has had the use of it for pulling trains, it may be that no-one owes anyone anything. But even then a statement from the Railway to that effect would provide much needed reassurance.