Tornado

Spot on Eightpot. It intrigues me as to why the A1SLT has decided to call 60163 a replica some three years after she was completed. Doesn't bother me in the slightest but I find it intriguing nonetheless.

 

IIRC a covenantor of advancing years has paid for 60163 to go into BR green while he is still alive to see it.

 

Not that I'm really bothered, but where have the A1 trust descibed the loco as replica? I can't find such a reference anywhere. Iain

 

It's just an excerpt from the Haynes manual - not exactly the "party line" with regards Tornado.

One small misquote, blown out of all proportion. Truly astounding to see how quickly words can be taken as canon with no confirmation!

 

That's what I understood from a post above. Hopefully we won't now have another 3 pages debating this non-change of policy

 

Well at least it will make a change from what was wrong with the boiler!

 

The refusal of WCRC to operate the engine is much more interesting than the discussion over whether it's a replica or not.

 

And to quantify this so that both sides get their say:

 

Sadly a longer wait for a Brunswick Green Tornado on the mainline then. Bit confused as to why they can't get a DB Schenker crew for those trips but the I don't have knowledge about tour and crew organisation. An interesting bit is that the A1 Trust Programme is that where the links are it says

''The following tour operators are running the trains listed above:''

It has links to the NYMR,ELR and RTC yet in the tour programme there are no dates for a visit to the NYMR or ELRand also no tours with RTC.

 

With a press release like that, I'd say the door has now been well and truly shut on any possibility of operation by WCR!

 

Sounds to me that someone got the hump over something, you dont spend that amount of time working towards an agreement for operating Tornado in the best interests of both parties for it to fall at the last hurdle.

Question is who upset who?

 

A sad state of affairs BUT, there are two sides to every story. There's more to this than meets the eye.

 

Has to be said, I don't understand why - given that they all seem to agree Tornado's rebored cylinders are fine - that no agreement has been met?

Don't know by any means the ins and outs of this one, but the "verbal comments expressed by WCR management" seems to stand out - why and to what extent did these "verbal comments" have any relevance to who bored out Tornado's cylinders?

In full agreement with the post above. I won't speculate further, perhaps more will be told by both/either group in due course anyway.

 

In that case I'm not intrigued at all now.

 

Out of interest has DBS ever refused to operate a steam locomotive ? (apart from being vaccuum braked, which isnt their core competency).
WCRC seems to have an ever growing list of relationships gone sour for whatever reason, fault or blame.
Speculating of course, but I wonder if this will lead to the rise of a new steam TOC ?, given Tornados links with a specific promoter, nothing against WCRC but I personally think the industry could do with even a smaller, number 3 steam TOC operator just to keep things balanced.

 

I put out the following statement, on behalf of WCR, earlier in the week:

'WCR was approached by the A1 Steam Locomotive Trust, with a view to No. 60163 'Tornado' being operated by WCR, in 2011, following on from the completion of winter repairs and maintenance. WCR was prepared to consider this, subject to full supplier audit, as required by WCR's Safety Management System, as part of its Safety Certificate requirements, as a licenced Transport Undertaking.

Unfortunately, the Trust failed to meet the requirements of the audit, specifically, by the use of unacceptable contractors, for the cylinder re-boring work, despite having been explicitly advised not to do so. However, should the Trust be willing to correct these defective actions, WCR would be prepared to re-consider its application.

It should be noted that the supplier audit requirements are specific to WCR and should not be confused with VAB/NoBo requirements, which benchmark against mandatory legislation and standards.'

ENDS

JS

 

Thanks for that James - good to have read both statements.

 

Given that the reboring has already happened, and that in the Trust's statement it seems all parties agreed the fixes were satisfactory, would you care to elaborate on the "defective actions", please? I do not understand how the reboring can be a "defective action" if the cylinders are, it is agreed, satisfactory for mainline running?

Would you mind clarifying exactly what the problem was? Are we saying that Tornado's cylinders did indeed comply with VAB/NoBo requirements, but not WCR's?

 

If I were rich enough, I would set up and run my own Special Train TOC. And do exactly what I wanted, within regulatory boundaries.

 

That's my interpretation of WCRC's statement.

It's unusual in the preserved/mainline steam railway world for disagreements to bubble over into the public sphere; plenty is known by word-of-mouth and rumour. The A1 Trust's statement is surprising and naive. The mainline steam industry is a small world - what if DBS decide to pull out next week? Where would that leave 60163?

Disagree in private and sort things out behind closed doors but going for the nuclear option and publicly criticising one of the most important companies involved in running mainline steam seems a strange decision.