Guest Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 3 Classic 1920's Southern steam engines are to be heading to Swanage as part of a 25 year deal.1. U class 31806. Only surviving rebuild K-class2. N class 31874. Only Surviving N class. Complete, but in need of restoration. 3. U class 31625. In need of restoration. http://www.swanagerailway.co.uk/news/detail/swanage-railway-strenghtens-its-fleet-with-three-classic-1920s-southern-steam-locomotives Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted June 25, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 25, 2014 Part of the Mid Hants / John Bunch divorce settlement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted June 25, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 25, 2014 34016 has also left the MHR, now at Southall on way to Carnforth. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10203154957106489&substory_index=0&id=1584222049 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 34016 has also left the MHR, now at Southall on way to Carnforth. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10203154957106489&substory_index=0&id=1584222049 I did see a video about that on YouTube, great to see she's getting some attention! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianusa Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Interesting. Its a shame the U's and the N's languish. They would be a lot more useful to preservation than the later Bulleids of which there are sufficient to say the least. Brian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Are there any plans for the JB pacifics? Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulwell Hall Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Excellent news - there couldn't be a better, more appropriate place for them to go! Looks like a trip to Purbeck is on the cards during August! Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Part of the Mid Hants / John Bunch divorce settlement. They could equally have gone to the Bluebell, which would then have almost all of the surviving Maunsell Moguls.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valour Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 They could equally have gone to the Bluebell, which would then have almost all of the surviving Maunsell Moguls.... No doubt the Bluebell felt they could do without the accompanying baggage. Wise move. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bike2steam Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 'Valour' you are right, given the past history I'm very surprised, but those responsible at the top of Swanage Railway today are different to those 35 years ago. It'll be good to see the moguls on the 'branch', but am dubious about the 'baggage'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valour Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 'Valour' you are right, given the past history I'm very surprised, but those responsible at the top of Swanage Railway today are different to those 35 years ago. It'll be good to see the moguls on the 'branch', but am dubious about the 'baggage'. Don't know about 35 years ago, not around then but I suppose it's possible that Swanage management have become more gullible and welcomed a pig in a poke. Nice engines, pity about the crew. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 1, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 1, 2014 'Valour' you are right, given the past history I'm very surprised, but those responsible at the top of Swanage Railway today are different to those 35 years ago. It'll be good to see the moguls on the 'branch', but am dubious about the 'baggage'. Hopefully in this 'new' situation there will be some proper contracts involved and we will not get a re-run of the events on the MHR of some years ago. Having been involved (with a completely different concern) in the past in drafting hire agreements for locos and then seeing them put into place it was sometimes remarkable to note how people had failed to read iior understand what a contract said - and there was absolutely no small print at all, just a couple of pages of A4 paper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith George Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I have never been sure who were the culprits in that dispute, the MHR or John Bunce. What is the general consensus.? Keith. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 1, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 1, 2014 I have never been sure who were the culprits in that dispute, the MHR or John Bunce. What is the general consensus.? Keith. Without wishing to take sides (and I have no connection with either of them) I always had the impression that there was far too much in the way of 'verbal understandings', which meant different things to different people, and not enough in the way of clear written arrangements or contracts. And therein lies a common story throughout UK railway preservation - it was just that this one got a bit nasty and attracted a lot of media attention. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TomE Posted July 1, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 1, 2014 I have never been sure who were the culprits in that dispute, the MHR or John Bunce. What is the general consensus.? Keith. There are so many rumors and stories surrounding what went on in the JB period that it's difficult for the outsider to get a clear idea of the events that led to this point, and you probably won't find many people wanting to rake up old ground. What is obvious is that the Mid Hants have done alot to try and move on from the whole unfortunate affair, the departure of these locos being a final line drawn under it. Although I'm sad to see the U leave the MHR, they do seem to have an embarrasement of riches compared to most other lines when it comes to motive power, and with 76017 nearing the end of it's restoration the line won't be without a Mogul for long. Tom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Without wishing to take sides (and I have no connection with either of them) I always had the impression that there was far too much in the way of 'verbal understandings', which meant different things to different people, and not enough in the way of clear written arrangements or contracts. And therein lies a common story throughout UK railway preservation - it was just that this one got a bit nasty and attracted a lot of media attention. What was it that Sam Goldwyn said? 'A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on'? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted July 1, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 1, 2014 I have never been sure who were the culprits in that dispute, the MHR or John Bunce. What is the general consensus.? Keith. I'm not getting into a discussion over this, nor am I going to rake over old ground....but I'm going to say this - those that were there know what happened. We didn't read about it in the steam beano, we didn't hear about it third hand down the pub. Those who were there are pretty much to a man glad that the MHR and Mr. Bunch can now both move on down our separate paths. The end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Colin Posted July 1, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 1, 2014 So what's happening with Standard 5 73096? I thought that was a John Bunch loco - will it also be departing the MHR (shame if it does). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted July 1, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 1, 2014 Yep, that's on its way too...won't be staying in the south. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted July 1, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 1, 2014 I was informed the boiler certificate expires on this in August So perhaps they need to get some extra locos sorted. For me much as I like the loco the 66xx pulling green coaches is what I remember. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I was informed the boiler certificate expires on this in August You are correct Then 80104 in 2016, 30053 in 2017 and 34070 in 2018 Without the 3 newbie's coming down here, they'd have had 3 going out, and only one possibly coming in! (34072) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valour Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 You are correct Then 80104 in 2016, 30053 in 2017 and 34070 in 2018 Without the 3 newbie's coming down here, they'd have had 3 going out, and only one possibly coming in! (34072) Swanage management should have some cast iron "agreements" then as this looks like developing into a pretty heavy dependence on one supplier. Just the sort of situation which caused problems before, combined with a lot of wi***y waving. If those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it why be so coy about what went on anyway?. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 2, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 2, 2014 Swanage management should have some cast iron "agreements" then as this looks like developing into a pretty heavy dependence on one supplier. Just the sort of situation which caused problems before, combined with a lot of wi***y waving. If those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it why be so coy about what went on anyway?. To be honest there's no need whatsoever to rake over the past (as Phil has said) in today's presevation world. If a Railway is not cute enough to have its head firmly affixed and the numbers and the wording sorted before both parties sign upon their respective dotted line it's a minor miracle that they are still in business and it might be another one if they are still there in X years time. ' The days of sloppy verbal agreements., or a couple of notes on a piece of paper 'agreed between a railway and loco/stock etc owners should be long gone. Some of the procedures (e.g fitness to run, compliance etc) will be covered by their SMS, manning should be covered by their Rule Book and parts of their SMS and some aspects of workshop procedure and relevant compliances will also be covered by their SMS (assuming they have a decent one). The commercial and financial aspects of any contract should be dealt with by the appropriate officers or managers of the railway and they ought not to be in such a position if they don't know how to do loco use etc agreements. All these things are the lessons of the very diverse history of the heritage/leisure railway sector and the sum of them is far more important than events on a single railway over a decade ago. Edit to correct typos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith George Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 What about 34105 Swanage, I had thought this was a John Bunce loco as well.? Keith. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bike2steam Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 80104 is in the throws of being sold ( the deal may be done by now !). 34105 belongs to the MHR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.