Five volunteers SUSPENDED from NYMR

[sir douglas]

The little ex Kilmersden Hunslet at middleton continues to rust away with no prospect of restoration because it owned by a group of individuals, the railway cant touch it without their permission but apparently hasnt had any contact with any these owners for decades, dont have any way contacting them, dont know their names or contact or even if they are still alive

Edited November 22, 2023 by sir douglas

[Pete Haitch]

31 minutes ago, sir douglas said:

The little ex Kilmersden Hunslet at middleton continues to rust away with no prospect of restoration because it owned by a group of individuals, the railway cant touch it without their permission but apparently hasnt had any contact with any these owners for decades, dont have any way contacting them, dont know their names or contact or even if they are still alive

 

Perhaps a case to take-over ownership in lieu of storage charges.

[jjb1970]

4 hours ago, Trestrol said:

The NYMR is not unusual in not keeping track of who owns what vehicles on its railway. Many items change hands privately without the knowledge of the parent Railway. Things that were acquired many decades ago and came to a railway with scant paper records kept. Why wouldn't a railway use a well respected volunteers stock list? 

 

I'm guessing lawyers would hit the roof given liabilities if there was an incident. They can agree to let vehicles owned by others operate on their railway, but the NYMR still has responsibility for compliance and safe operation. If they don't know who owns vehicles and there are no real records of ownership it would raise a few significant questions about their management of the railway.

[Wheatley]

9 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

 If they don't know who owns vehicles and there are no real records of ownership it would raise a few significant questions about their management of the railway.

Only if they let it out of whatever siding it's in and ran it in traffic without going through their laid down fitness to run regime. Ownership only becomes an issue if it causes damage to something/someone via some means not covered by the FTR process or damage is caused to it. 

 

In this case there seems to be a dispute about ownership rather than the details being lost in the midsts of time. Whether something did or did not appear on a stock list on a website is not proof of ownership nor does it's appearance or non-appearance in that list indicate some sort of corporate neglect, it merely indicates that the public-facing website put there for the entertainment of enthusiasts is a bit out of date, or that the volunteer writing it was misinformed. The lists where accuracy is important are things like the ORR's list of vehicles permitted to run between Whitby and Grosmont, and lists of assets they're claiming tax relief or some other sort of charitable benefit on.  The stock list on the website has no more regulatory significance than the blackboard at Goathland telling you which loco is on which service today. 

[pete_mcfarlane]

Surely the ownership is easy to prove - you just look at the plate screwed to the vehicle solebar saying who owns it and what the asset number is......

[Bucoops]

2 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

Surely the ownership is easy to prove - you just look at the plate screwed to the vehicle solebar saying who owns it and what the asset number is......

 

Careful, we may see some real clunkers out of Kings Cross if they try that.

[Trestrol]

All rolling stock that came to the railway would need approval from the trust. So there will be a record of who applied to bring it to the railway. The trust do not operate the railway that's the PLC. As previously said this is different to operated rolling stock on the railway. These wagons never ventured out of the yard at Levisham. The group was obviously presenting a good front to management until they broke the law. Then on closer inspection other anomalies were found and their thiefdom was found out. Yes they did lots at Levisham to put it on the map as it needed all the help it could get. It's not near the village of the same name and doesn't have any other attractions around it. But there was some resentment amongst the wider members over its operation. Who remembers the Moors Line survey conducted by management on the look of the members magazine?. They got criticism over there entry in the Station groups section. It was too long winded and was taking over the whole section. Most stations provide a page worth of news, they ran to two+. A well organised and energetic group or out of control?

[RJS1977]

I know of at least one railway where a loco turned up unexpectedly (on a lorry) because a Board member invited it without consulting the rest of the Board, and left the railway before it arrived! It was several years before they found out who owned it....

[RJS1977]

19 hours ago, Pete Haitch said:

 

Perhaps a case to take-over ownership in lieu of storage charges.

 

Legally, I don't think they can do that without notifying the owner first.

[figworthy]

2 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Legally, I don't think they can do that without notifying the owner first.

 

I am not a lawyer.

 

30+ years ago, I had the dubious pleasure of having to track down owners of abandoned boats at a sailing club.  In some cases, they existed in the club records, and I was able to contact the last known owner (who invariably turned out to be the current owner, who had "forgotten" to pay for its storage), but in other cases, the trail went cold, letters were either returned unopened, or lost.  I spoke to the RYA's legal department, and they had some standard advice on what to do.  I can't remember what it was, but I suspect that it won't have changed much.  There are a few lawyers hereabouts, perhaps they can comment.

 

Adrian

[woodenhead]

Bye Bye Captain Fish

 

Bit of context - Captain Fish is probably banned now, the post has gone.

 

Turns out he hasn't yet, but he will be.....

Edited November 24, 2023 by woodenhead

[AY Mod]

19 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

but he will be

 

They think it's all over; it is now.

 

Pathetic specimen.

[Boris]

4 hours ago, AY Mod said:

 

They think it's all over; it is now.

 

Pathetic specimen.

I wish I could remove the smell of kippers from my kitchen as fast as you removed his smell from the forum!

[AY Mod]

6 minutes ago, Boris said:

I wish I could remove the smell of kippers from my kitchen as fast as you removed his smell from the forum!

 

I have a funny feeling you may know of the specimen?

[Boris]

32 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

I have a funny feeling you may know of the specimen?

Unlikely, I'm not involved with the Moors any more, family life and modelling!

[AY Mod]

3 minutes ago, Boris said:

Unlikely, I'm not involved with the Moors any more, family life and modelling!

 

Now I didn't actually say the idiot troll was connected to the railway or these militant separatists did I? 😲

 

Oops.

[woodenhead]

46 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Now I didn't actually say the idiot troll was connected to the railway or these militant separatists did I? 😲

 

Oops.

Given the troll's seeming love of hamsters, it could have been Jeremy Clarkson - it was Top Gear level trolling lol.

[Nick C]

On 22/11/2023 at 21:53, sir douglas said:

The little ex Kilmersden Hunslet at middleton continues to rust away with no prospect of restoration because it owned by a group of individuals, the railway cant touch it without their permission but apparently hasnt had any contact with any these owners for decades, dont have any way contacting them, dont know their names or contact or even if they are still alive

I believe (from what I've read on other fora) this type of situation is fairly common on quite a few railways - particularly if an item of stock is part owned by several people, you may find it easy to contact some, but others have moved on or passed away, possibly without their heirs even knowing about their share in the item - the paperwork set up in the 60s or 70s between a few mates wasn't always as robust as it needs to be nowadays...

[PhilH]

15 minutes ago, Nick C said:

the paperwork set up in the 60s or 70s between a few mates wasn't always as robust as it needs to be nowadays...

Paperwork? Try verbal agreement....

[Northmoor]

9 hours ago, PhilH said:

Paperwork? Try verbal agreement....

All too many preserved railways have an individual who is seemingly allowed to do what they like on the basis of verbal agreements, while everyone else wanting to, for example, change the livery on the vehicle they own, requires a written agreement.........

[jjb1970]

A lot of people forget that a verbal agreement can be a contract, it does not have to be in writing ( though the dangers of oral contracts are pretty obvious).

[adb968008]

On 25/11/2023 at 11:23, Nick C said:

I believe (from what I've read on other fora) this type of situation is fairly common on quite a few railways - particularly if an item of stock is part owned by several people, you may find it easy to contact some, but others have moved on or passed away, possibly without their heirs even knowing about their share in the item - the paperwork set up in the 60s or 70s between a few mates wasn't always as robust as it needs to be nowadays...

Not just rolling stock, some bigger locos too.

 

 

[Northmoor]

On 25/11/2023 at 11:23, Nick C said:

I believe (from what I've read on other fora) this type of situation is fairly common on quite a few railways - particularly if an item of stock is part owned by several people, you may find it easy to contact some, but others have moved on or passed away, possibly without their heirs even knowing about their share in the item - the paperwork set up in the 60s or 70s between a few mates wasn't always as robust as it needs to be nowadays...

In more than one instance, these groups of individuals, who were impossible to contact when the host railway was likely to be billing them for something, appeared out of the woodwork very quickly when there was the possibility of a claim against the railway for "damage" when the asset was moved without their permission.....

[009 micro modeller]

50 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

In more than one instance, these groups of individuals, who were impossible to contact when the host railway was likely to be billing them for something, appeared out of the woodwork very quickly when there was the possibility of a claim against the railway for "damage" when the asset was moved without their permission.....

Not sure if this was the reason for it, but didn’t the Ffestiniog at one time have a policy of the railway having to actually own locomotives that were staying there long term? Unless I’ve got the details wrong and it only applied to the main operating fleet. I read an article about the preservation and importing of the ALCO Mountaineer from France, written by one of those involved with the initial purchase of the loco, which mentioned this and the need to transfer ownership to the railway.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

2 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Not sure if this was the reason for it, but didn’t the Ffestiniog at one time have a policy of the railway having to actually own locomotives that were staying there long term? Unless I’ve got the details wrong and it only applied to the main operating fleet. I read an article about the preservation and importing of the ALCO Mountaineer from France, written by one of those involved with the initial purchase of the loco, which mentioned this and the need to transfer ownership to the railway.

I suspect the policy might have been that the locomotive needed to be in FR ownership to become part of the Ffestiniog Railway's operational fleet. When the ALCO arrived in 1967, the FR had at least two privately-owned locomotives on its premises, the Quarry Hunslet Britomart and the 20/28hp Simplex MR 8788/1943 (later to become The Colonel) but neither of these were used on FR trains. When its owner died in 1982, The Colonel became FR property and was used by FR civil engineers.

Edited November 27, 2023 by Jeremy Cumberland