Loco 76017

OTOH, not many railways running at all at the moment (and those that are seemingly have sufficient motive power for the limited service they are running). So maybe there isn't any work at the moment.

If it is still sitting unused after Easter, that would be more noteworthy, IMHO.

Tom

 

It might not be running but its not getting worn out either.........

 

But the clock is still ticking towards the end of the boiler certificate ..... As an aside was the boiler just fet after the final steaming or was it properly drained and stored?

Cheers, Neil

 

But as I understand it from here the loco is (or believed to be) owned by an individual. Surely it is up to them if it is used or not.

 

yes if you want an valuable asset sat idle , costing you money, through storage charges at Southall, then its entirely their own business, but its hardly a good business model, but as James pointed out less see what happens after Easter,

 

They have no need for any more locos. Especially with the T3 and M7 due in traffic relatively
soon, and them choosing to tear up their agreement with SLL for 34072.

76017 does seem to be going to waste at the moment , but I’m sure JB has a cunning plan which will become apparent before long.

 

Your evidence for this rather imflamatory statement is where? It is certainly not how SLL have described the situation to shareholders.

Peter

 

It’s simply a figure of speech where a contract has been cancelled. SR and SLL mutually agreed to ‘tear up’ the agreement for 34072. Is that not the case?

 

The language this shareholder has seen is much less emotive, talking of “withdrawal” and saving Swanage money. “Tear up” implies (to me at least) a unilateral decision by one party to a contract not to abide by it - which is not at all what I see having happened.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

That is my understanding of the situation. However your post implied that it was a one sided cancellation, suggesting that SR "tore up" the agreement with SLL rather than it being a mutually agreed change of plans. Perhaps better described as terminated rather than the more emotive term "torn up".

Peter

 

Ok well whatever language you prefer, my point remains the same. Having recently decided they do not need 34072, SR isn’t going to be be interested in taking on another loco (76017) as Martin suggested.

 

A lot will depend on what JB's ambitions for the loco are. If he wants to run it on the main line it will have to be equipped for the purpose. It may need maintenance. Both of these could be going on even as we speculate. I am sure that if he wats to run it on a heritage railway he will only have to ask for expressions of interest to receive a deluge of mail, but perhaps now is not the right time to be looking/asking. Lines hat may want it will surely be looking for something for the peak season and will be looking to conserve their cash till they have an impression of what the summer may be like, trafficwise.

 

In my work time contractual world "tear up" means someone walking away from their obligations not a mutually agreed termination or change.
Aeroflot for example tore up the contracts on all their lease aircraft when the war started, although some of that was beyond their control.