Boiler inspector conviction

Here Here !!

I know I for one wouldnt want to be "Surprised" by an unexpected boiler explosion as a result of it being passed by this bloke.

If there's safety information to be shared.. then share it.

If one person "unexpectedly" discovers that a test was done by him and decides to do a restest.. then thats one potentially major incident which has just been avoided.

Supression, secrets and hushing up gives everyone (including this forum) a bad name.. open discussion and promtion of resolution demonstrates a proactive and authoritative forum of responsible individuals.

I know where I'd rather sit.

 

I see no reason not to mention the subject, and as far as I can ascertain from the posts above me no-one has advocated the thread being closed. The main reason people are saying that there is no need to discuss specific boilers on the open forum though is specifically that; there is no need. All of those whose boilers have been inspected by him, will know they were. They will also (most likely) have been contacted as part of the investigation that led to the conviction. I suspect his client list will also have been subject to further examinations, particularly as part of the investigation process to assess whether this was an isolated incident or whether there was a wider issue.

The paper trails are such that to 'unexpectedly' discover an inspection/test was done by him will be nigh on impossible; if you don't have that piece of paper, you're not going anywhere anyway.

 

He inspected my engine, and passed the box fit for service, but was very slow to produce any paperwork, written scheme etc. When we changed iinspectors, we found severe wasting in the lower backhead which meant it had to be cut out and replaced!

 

I think there's nothing wrong with an open and frank discussion about the general issues, the actual prosecution and facts which have been shown to be true. Where it gets dodgy is when people start to surmise or "over egg the cake"; you could be getting into the field of libel or slander if you post anything which can subsequently be shown to be untrue. I would be careful about exactly what is said.

Notwithstanding that, what loco do you own 69621 and who did the firebox repairs?

John.

 

i would hope that every loco owner would have got their boilers re checked , but i would guess that some cash strapped owners might have not which gives rise to this question, in cases where the inspector has been found to have issued certificates that he shouldnt have, and passed as fit boilers that are clearly not, is the certificate and insurance then invalid? and should those engines then have to be fully re tested before they could steam again

 

Well, one thing that needs saying is that anybody who relies on the boiler inspector to decide whether their boilers are fit for purpose, shouldn't be. The onus in law is on ensuring that the boiler is fit lies with the owner/operator. The examination by the Competent Person is basically an overinspection to confirm what you already should know.

 

As far as HMRI is concerned, this document is law and they expect all locomotive boiler users to abide by it:-

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/RSP6-locoblrs.pdf

 

That document is only guidance and not law. Albeit, good guidance.

 

can't be slander, I've got the paperwork to prove it!

It's a traction engine, and i did the repairs myself in the end.

 

An HMRI inspector told me recently that they would take a very dim view of anyone who had been found not to have been following HSG 29 in the event of an investigation into an incident.

 

They couldn't really say anything different, could they?