LMS Patriot Project Updates

Obviously a company needs to meet its contractual obligations but I can understand the frustration of buying an engineering company to support your own fleet of loco's only to find your own loco's stuck in a queue behind lots of work for other people.

How many engines (and coaches now) has Mr Hosking got that need work - off the top of my head there's 70000, 60019, 60532, 35027, 45321 and 5029 at least. I don't think Mr Hoskings needs LNWR to make a profit - he just wants to keep his fleet operational and I find that hard to hold against him.

 

To be fair there was a bit more notice on not doing 71000 things like the move to Crewe Diesel Depot were on at the same time, not sticking up for LNWR but the circumstances were slightly different.

 

I think 71000 was also being drip funded which does not sit well with some organisations.


Keith

 

Hardly surprising, given the circumstances, no apologies required IMO.

 

Full order books/capacity elsewhere may well be a problem.

I recall the 82045 AGM at the SVR in April. The new SVR Bridgnorth works manager was an invited speaker, and he discussed how he is trying to get the boiler shop workflow into a better order, and he commented that currently he had (circa) nine boilers in the works, and that his aim was to have no more than five for work at any one time in the future.

46118

 

Let's be sensible. EU procurement rules will never apply to a society wanting someone to supply one boiler now .....and possibly one more in a few years.

 

I think, as others have said, that this is a terrible thing to happen to the Patriot Project - As it is for anyone.
I'm obviously not privy to the wording of the boiler contract, but it certainly doesn't put LNWR in a good light in terms not only of contract work, but also in terms of goodwill. It just beggars belief to have this dropped on the Patriot Group at such short notice, part-way through the build contract. I'm sure LNWR will suffer in the long-run, things like this ingrain themselves in people's memories for a long time. One day the boot may very well end up firmly on the other foot, and it will serve LNWR right.

Richard.

 

To be honest, I cannot see Mr. Jeremy Hosking wanting to be branded 'Unpatriotic' which he surely will, especially if the tabloid press get hold of this, maybe the Royal British Legion could bring pressure to bear on LNWR Crewe and their management also...

 

True enough, but Hoskings fleet didn't spring up overnight, If capacity was going to be an issue then why agree to the work in the first place ?.

 

We don't know LNWR's side of the story, or the terms of the contract. They may have behaved poorly, but I was impressed by the dignity of the Patriot press release. They deserve a reward from the dignified way they've dealt with this setback.

 

We need a volunteer from somewhere in Cheshire to nip over to Crewe and impress on Mr Hoskins the need to keep these sort of engineering capabilities in the UK so we don't have to outsource in the rest of the EU. He's bound to be receptive to such a plea.

 

I know just the man...! Can he borrow your bike, I hear he's good on one.

 

Agree - if this work has been taken on since Mr Hosking took over and all terms and conditions have been met by both parties then on the face of it (and we still don't know LNWR side of the story) this is out of order.

 

I think he lives in Kent, doubt if he spends much time in Crewe. Without knowing the other side of the story, it would be better to suspend judgement. It does lead one to muse quite what a contract to build a boiler would look like. (plenty of boiler plate no doubt )

 

I may be wrong, so apologies if I am, but I remember reading in the railway press several years ago a statement from Mr Waterman to the effect that the Patriot boiler would be manufactured in the UK by LNWR. So I think it's likely that whatever agreements were in place were there when Mr Hosking took over LNWR. However, I still think it's wrong to cut them adrift at this late stage.

 

I suspect this is not wholly unrelated to the fact that several boiler-smiths have left LNWR in the recent past, which can't have helped with progressing Mr Hoskin's fleet up the queue.

 

All that presupposes there was short notice, there was a contract in place etc etc etc.
Supposing the work was being done on an ad hoc, when we have some money and its convenient basis, and supposing LNWR had been agitating for a proper signed contract and a proper schedule for years, and they had never had any joy from the Patriot Group? Supposing LNWR had simply run out of patience with what seemed to them permanent disorganisation and delays, had given umpteen friendly warnings that things really can't go on like this, and had finally decided they had no choice but to cut the knot? Would you then regard them as being so unreasonable?
I have absolutely no idea what was really going on, the above is 100% pure fiction, intended solely to suggest that its unwise to condemn when you've only heard half -(well probably not even a fraction of a half) of the story.

 

From what I understand, and this is by no means an official statement etc etc, but LNWR have lost a number of boilersmiths very recently who have moved to pastures new. LNWR also were expecting this boiler to be completed by January this year but due to the throat plate not being delivered when they expected it last May, and even now it's not yet in one piece, the assembly has hit a complete stand still for months. So my personal guess is they have come to this decision on the basis of both parts and thought that they can't keep doing contract work. Apart from Clan line which was well funded at the time LNWR have refused any contract work for a while on locomotives. It has only been the boiler side where contract work has been ongoing and that was due to Richard Watkins pushing as hard as possible to keep that going. I can see both sides of the story as I completely understand that if I had spent millions on buying 13 steam locomotives, an engineering company, restoration of the diesel Depot, buying a tour company, coaching stock, and also going down the route of creating a train operating company (I'm sure I have missed other things) and I bought the engineering to work on my own locos and never wanted contract work in the first place and jobs were on going and every time I visited the site I saw the same boiler parts not moved and asked why and was told "were waiting on parts" and then lost more skilled staff.... I can understand.
But of course im completely devastated that the boiler is now going elsewhere. For years on the sales stand I have always said we're having a Crewe built boiler. The same as the originals. And most probably being put at the back of the queue also doesn't help where ever we go as that will effect the 2018 plans.

Oh well, back to work tomorrow for another long day where no doubt I'll be thinking about it!

Does anyone know of any locations in Crewe that we could assemble the boiler and pay skilled people to work on it direct!! Haha. If only it were that simple

 

Thanks for the insight Gav, if it's not a state secret, have we the funding 'in place' to complete the boiler, as I am sure that if this is the case, there will be a significantly better chance of securing the services of a boiler maker than any ad hoc arrangement would, if not, are we looking to give an extra push to the boiler funding PDQ, If so, now is the time to ask...
Andy