-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
47798 Controversial Use
- Thread starter ECML180
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
thegrimeater
Member
EWS donated it to the NRM, West Coast used it on charter work. They are rivals in charter market. EWS cheesed off about that.
fgwrich
Established Member
Whilst ironically DBs charter work continues to diminish. I find it rather odd that they jumped up and down and played the toys throwing card over the use of 798, yet could barely give a toss about 799 which largely became a part time carriage heater in Eastleigh before quietly being sold off.
The issue of museums and preservation groups biting the hand that feeds them is not one unique to Britain.
Here in Australia a number of so-called preservation groups have threatened the future prospects of working locos ever getting donated again by hiring out donated heritage locos to generate revenue on freight trains competing with the operator which "retired" them. The freight operators are now fighting back and have scrapped a number of locos (including a class leader recently) which would otherwise have been donated - and it's hurting non-operating museums as well as the cowboys who caused the mess in the first place.
EWS/DB could have worked around this by leasing the 47 to the museum so they could dictate terms.
Here in Australia a number of so-called preservation groups have threatened the future prospects of working locos ever getting donated again by hiring out donated heritage locos to generate revenue on freight trains competing with the operator which "retired" them. The freight operators are now fighting back and have scrapped a number of locos (including a class leader recently) which would otherwise have been donated - and it's hurting non-operating museums as well as the cowboys who caused the mess in the first place.
EWS/DB could have worked around this by leasing the 47 to the museum so they could dictate terms.
Items are claimed by the NRM not donated to them!
zn1
Member
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 435
NRM are given an asset that has plenty of engine hours, has plenty of time before overhaul is required are not going to be silly enough to allow the asset to sit idle, be silly not to sub lease it and make some money on it
798/9 are let us face it assets that were repainted,were permitted to have the royal crest and given royal names,used on duties that also included royal jobs...if they were so invaluable then the locos should have been kept at wolverton and used solely for royal train use...the same can be said for the royal 67's....but assets such as these have to earning revenue...no wheels moving....no money being made.....
798/9 are let us face it assets that were repainted,were permitted to have the royal crest and given royal names,used on duties that also included royal jobs...if they were so invaluable then the locos should have been kept at wolverton and used solely for royal train use...the same can be said for the royal 67's....but assets such as these have to earning revenue...no wheels moving....no money being made.....
A quick search seems to indicate that both take place, based on a report published by the NRM itself.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
It should be considered that once something is transferred to the museum it becomes their asset - DBS have no real grounds to complain! I can see how it might be galling for them mind!
Exactly why they should have loaned it to the museum rather than donating it
if they didn't want to see the museum hiring it out to one of their competitors.
You would expect they wouldn't make the same mistake next time around.
Monty
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 2,352
I was under impression that the grounds for their complaint was the mileage that WCR did with it was rather high compared to the 'odd railtour' and felt they were taking the p*ss slightly. DBS 'donated' the loco to the NRM in the spirit of preserving it for the nation, not for WCR to make a quick buck with it and saving them from using one of their own 47s in the process.
Last edited:
This was exactly the complaint that Pacific National had when the S Class they donated to SteamRail was then put on a long term lease to a competing freight operator instead of just running passenger trains for the museum - with which PN doesn't have any competition.
Since then PN has been scrapping or indefinitely storing locomotives made redundant by the purchase of new ones - including the A Class which would otherwise make a perfect loco for passenger charters.
Since then PN has been scrapping or indefinitely storing locomotives made redundant by the purchase of new ones - including the A Class which would otherwise make a perfect loco for passenger charters.
Even if they were, surely the argument would still stand because they would be making money from the use of it?
zn1
Member
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 435
what is the point being made here? a serviceable loco is handed to the NRM...NRM make use of it by hiring it out, everyone wins, the NRM, the hiring company and the gricers...
If DBS didnt want it used then could have happily disabled it....swapped the power unit for a duff one...
noone has lost...a nice looking loco got some more time on the mainline...
whats the problem.....its none our business, its between the NRM & DBS....end of story
If DBS didnt want it used then could have happily disabled it....swapped the power unit for a duff one...
noone has lost...a nice looking loco got some more time on the mainline...
whats the problem.....its none our business, its between the NRM & DBS....end of story
Monty
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 2,352
The NRM is a public body, so you could say it is our business.
Phil6219
Member
There wasn't an issue in that the loco was being used on railtours it was that it was being used on almost every railtour, I remember seeing it come through Wigan around once a week either on a tour or on it's way to/from Carnforth before or after a tour.
DB could have the same issue with 58050 or 60100 which are to join the national collection, what if they hired them out to a freight operator? Heck we've seen what EWS did with the 60s to keep them out of their competitors hands, at least DB are trying to put some back in service (whilst keeping them out of everyone's grasp).
While I have sod all interest in buses I know from a friend who is a big bus preservationist that when First sold a load of their old buses they stipulated that if it was used for anything other than preservation runs and the odd charter it was immediately defaulted back to First ownership, I believe Arriva do or did something similar.
Just imagine if EWS did that, all those 37s which are flying out of preservation and back into service or the 56s which some shrewd scrap merchant hung on to for a demand in decent locos...
Phil
DB could have the same issue with 58050 or 60100 which are to join the national collection, what if they hired them out to a freight operator? Heck we've seen what EWS did with the 60s to keep them out of their competitors hands, at least DB are trying to put some back in service (whilst keeping them out of everyone's grasp).
While I have sod all interest in buses I know from a friend who is a big bus preservationist that when First sold a load of their old buses they stipulated that if it was used for anything other than preservation runs and the odd charter it was immediately defaulted back to First ownership, I believe Arriva do or did something similar.
Just imagine if EWS did that, all those 37s which are flying out of preservation and back into service or the 56s which some shrewd scrap merchant hung on to for a demand in decent locos...
Phil
As 47798 was donated to the NRM for display (and the odd mainline movement) maybe DB should have run it into the ground so it had a practically knackered engine, main generator and nearly scrap wheelsets?
It would be suitable for the intended purpose but little else!
They would be well within their rights to do that so maybe 58050 being left in Spain in open storage is part of the plan?
It would be suitable for the intended purpose but little else!
They would be well within their rights to do that so maybe 58050 being left in Spain in open storage is part of the plan?
There wasn't an issue in that the loco was being used on railtours it was that it was being used on almost every railtour, I remember seeing it come through Wigan around once a week either on a tour or on it's way to/from Carnforth before or after a tour.
DB could have the same issue with 58050 or 60100 which are to join the national collection, what if they hired them out to a freight operator? Heck we've seen what EWS did with the 60s to keep them out of their competitors hands, at least DB are trying to put some back in service (whilst keeping them out of everyone's grasp).
While I have sod all interest in buses I know from a friend who is a big bus preservationist that when First sold a load of their old buses they stipulated that if it was used for anything other than preservation runs and the odd charter it was immediately defaulted back to First ownership, I believe Arriva do or did something similar.
Just imagine if EWS did that, all those 37s which are flying out of preservation and back into service or the 56s which some shrewd scrap merchant hung on to for a demand in decent locos...
Phil
Though EWS were abit bad in the early days of Wigan Springs Branch becoming the Component recover centre, they used to Store a loco, send it to Wigan, cut the bodysides off, then offer it for sale.
cjmillsnun
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 3,254
Did it cost us anything? Nope.
Have to say I doubt the clause that First/Arriva put in the sale of their busses is legally enforceable. Once sold, it is the new owners property, end of story. Had First/Arriva leased the busses then fair enough, but when they dispose of them, they generally sell them.
Like with 47798 it would annoy the previous owners that their old vehicle was used in competition with them, but it's basically tough titty.
Last edited:
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Restrictive covenants are legally enforceable.
DBS clearly screwed up by not putting a restrictive covenant into the transfer contracts. All the public posturing about it is to distract attention.
My house contract has restrictive covenants. My employment contract has restrictive covenants. It's not uncommon and it certainly is legally enforceable.
- Status