If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

80078

Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by Steve1015, Oct 25, 2012.

  1. Shaggy

    Shaggy Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,476
    Likes Received:
    2,319
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    72B
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Totally agree and should have probably worded it slightly better. Not mentioning 92212, 34007 or 45379 is the reason I used the term "which includes" although in hindsight I should have mentioned the Black 5 for its usefulness (not suggesting in any way that the 9F and Wadebridge as not useful).

    Personally I will miss the Moguls but as I stated earlier, time, people and locos move on. I have no doubt that they are all safe and won't become razor blades. Wherever they turn up, if/when they are made operable, they will all be an asset.
     
  2. twr12

    twr12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,516
    Likes Received:
    671
    Now that SLL have allegedly broken the "Gentlemen's Agreement", in the opinion of certain people anyway, about 80078 AND 80104 staying at Swanage "in perpetuity", what do members of this forum should do:-
    Ignore it, its their engine with what to do what they want?
    Try to negotiate with SLL to ensure 80104 isn't sold?
    Get rid of SLL and their locos?
    Any other ideas?
     
  3. Stormforce

    Stormforce New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    One of the problems with SLL is that they have had the support of the volunteers of Swanage Railway and their labours have added to the capital assets to the company. It it hadn't have been for the Swanage Railway they would have still been in a field in Kent. SLL policy should be to serve Swanage and respect the wishes of the Railway. The Railway cannot support more than 2 Bulieds and would like to be able to have a variety of Southern Locomotives and therefore as Bullieds are all that SLL interested in then I suggest they change their name to Bullied Locomotives Ltd and move on.
     
  4. Pugwash

    Pugwash New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    8
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Move on or Move out?

    Exercise Shareholder power. Call an EGM with an appropriate motion to either protect 104 or whatever else it is that Swanage want. I believe that Swanage have a significant shareholding (which ironically i think was acquired to protect 78) and there are probably other Swanage Loyal SSL share holders that could amount to a majority if the motion were appropriate.

    :flypig:perhaps a motion to sell 104 to Swanage at a figure similar to the one that Swanage sold 78 to SSL for adjusted for inflation of course. That might suitably repay old debts. :flypig:
     
  5. Pugwash

    Pugwash New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    8
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Not just the support of Swanage volunteers. A significant investment by Swanage Railway Co. in improving the locomotives, not just maintaining them. I'm told, Eight years worth of fetteling Eddystone, Overhauling 104, the recent repairs & improvements to Manston all at Swanage Railway's cost. Thanks to the excellent engineering of the Swanage fitters & despite working in the open from a shipping container some of the locomotives will probably be finishing their ticket in better condition than when they started.

    The previously referred to messages being sent between Swanage and SSL?

    Swanage to SSL by refusing SKP "look we are not Bournemouth MPD, we do not want a continuous stream of Bullieds. Please use the engineering facility we provide you with to restore something we do need"

    SSL to Swanage by selling 78 under their nose "F888 you, we do what we want!"
     
  6. D1039

    D1039 Guest

    It's something for SLL and SR to address or not, as they see fit

    Patrick
     
  7. D1039

    D1039 Guest

    SLL directors are required by law to serve their shareholders. If the shareholders wish the board to follow a policy, they should vote through motions at the AGM and/or change the memorandum and articles of association of the company

    Patrick
     
  8. Jimc

    Jimc Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    4,518
    Occupation:
    Once computers, now part time writer I suppose.
    Location:
    SE England
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Chaps, are you *really* sure all this mudslinging is advancing anyone's cause, much as it may relieve your feelings? And if an advocate for the other side were to appear, would the resultant flame war really make anything better?
     
  9. D1039

    D1039 Guest

    If an owner transfers a loco to someone and wants restrictions, they have the power to do so under a covenant. IIRC the Army Museum (?) transferred No. 600 to SVR (Holdings) with the proviso they can't sell it.

    If SR intend SLL should have obligations in return for a benefit from being entirely housed in an engineering facility provided by Swanage Railway, they can include it in the agreement. Whether the benefit is or is not currently reflected in the cost of the agreement to SR, I don't know.

    Patrick
     
  10. swanrail

    swanrail Guest

    I can understand what you are saying here, the fact is 78 is sold.

    What isn't and hasn't ever really been exposed is the relationship between the two parties and just how unhealthy it is to be so so close to your contractor that lines become blurred until it is too late.
    I too agree that SLL directorship expected SR to take 34053, lock, stock and barrel. But after 8 years of trying to get 34028 to finally settle down and constant repairs to 34070, the SR quite rightly had spent enough time and CONSIDERABLE expense at getting these two locomotives mechanically where they remain reliable.


    34053 was an unknown entity apart from what SR staff witnessed during its overhaul in the Swanage Railways (remember that its Swanage's) works. They knew the other three, so actually it makes sense. SVR will now know 34053 inside out so its better for that locomotive too.

    If I were a shareholder in SLL (which I never will be) then I would be demanding to know why this sale went through without consultation, why the money keeps disappearing and above all how the company is supposed to remain stable long term.
    For if the relationship were to disintegrate with Swanage and they have to pay a commercial rate of workshop rental, how long would they be able to survive before becoming something more akin to the more sustainable Bullied society.

    I would also be asking what it really means to be a shareholder in this organisation, because, apart from a nice print and the odd newsletter, it would seem the benefits of actually having some say on what goes on seem very slim.
    80104 needs to be safeguarded some how, but this is up to SLL and SR.
     
  11. cct man

    cct man Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,220
    Likes Received:
    49
    Occupation:
    CONSTRUCTION
    Location:
    LONDON
    Slightly off topic but in the same theme of things, another 264T has been sold to Jeremy Hosking for use on the MHR I am led to believe.

    Is this just a rumour??????????????

    Regards
    CW:
     
  12. david1984

    david1984 Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,910
    Likes Received:
    1,387
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Birmingham
    It's no secret Mr Hosking has desired a Standard Tank for a while, but the MHR part is new, when 80079 was being considered it was suggested as a main line runner and heritage line useage at other time.

    Should we read anything into the fact you've said 2-6-4T instead of Standard ?.
     
  13. Bulleid Pacific

    Bulleid Pacific Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,987
    Likes Received:
    1,039
    Occupation:
    A Thingy...
    I can't believe some of the vitriol emerging from this, and I feel moved to commenting on it. As an SLL shareholder, the board asked for my views in a poll that was posted last year regarding releasing a 4MT for sale; from what I remember, we also had a vote at the 2011 AGM enabling the board to act on the behalf of shareholders as regards the selling of assets if it meant safeguarding the core fleet, which was duly passed with a majority (I do stress, not unanimous) vote. It is therefore pretty much above board that 80078 has been sold.

    Whilst I agree that moral obligations are indeed a good thing, unless they are written into some form of legally binding agreement between the two parties, they merely form a consideration for not selling and nothing else. The SR has had plenty of opportunity to make an impromptu offer to SLL for 80078, and only £750 was raised in an appeal for funding towards its overhaul since the proverbial last hit the fan in 2011. Its therefore all very well arguing that its a 'family jewel', but this is like some bank account holder in Shanghai taking exception to someone in the UK having a mortgage despite having paid over 50% of it. I fear this argument will not get anywhere, as 'biting the hand they feed from' applies both ways in this case, and shows that for better or worse, SLL and SR are inextricably linked.
     
  14. cct man

    cct man Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,220
    Likes Received:
    49
    Occupation:
    CONSTRUCTION
    Location:
    LONDON
    Oops sorry , I meant standard.
    Conformed about 80079 too from the same source.

    Regards
    Chris
     
  15. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    11,726
    Likes Received:
    9,717
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Can't see this happening now, though.
     
  16. I. Cooper

    I. Cooper Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    666
    Location:
    Salop
    I seem to recall the talk at the time was that if 80079 was to be sold, it was on the understanding that it would be restored for mainline use, but remain based on the SVR.
     
  17. jurassic

    jurassic New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Dorset
    Mmmm, Option 3 looks a bit tasty! ;-)
     
  18. Stormforce

    Stormforce New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  19. Pugwash

    Pugwash New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    8
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I agree SSL probably have more to lose from parting company than Swanage. Not least of which is the roof over their heads. Although I wouldn't agree with the statement

    If anyone can direct us to such a building or even a plot of land that we can A). Afford, B). get planing permission on and C). doesn't require enormous amounts of work to make suitable please let us know. And before anyone says Furzebrook, that currently looks like it will fall short on B & C. A lot of work has been done over the years looking to solve this problem and it is naive to think that you can just look on Google Earth, pick a field, buy it and build the depot of your dreams.

    Its probably easier to rail connect what we have at Herston.
     
  20. Andy2857

    Andy2857 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2011
    Messages:
    600
    Likes Received:
    232
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wolverhampton/Sheffield
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Correct. That agreement has now fallen through, but may proceed at a later date.
     

Share This Page