Tornado

Ah right thanks.

 

Bloody good job we didn't have this sort of bureaurcratic thinking around best part of 200 years ago. George Stephenson and his contemporaries would have thrown their hands in the air, said "Sod it", and given up. Result - no railways.

 

This gets more and more curious...

... and neither side is covering themselves in glory over it.

Regards,

Dan

 

1. Perhaps WCR don't want to use Tornado.
2. DRS have been hinting at operating steam for ages.

 

Yes too true. When I was working, a part was engineered, drawn up and made. If it met the engineering standards that was good enough. When I first joined The Post Office Telecommunications Ltd in 1972, it had a list of recommended suppliers. All it did was push up the price! When BT was formed it did away with all that nonsense.

Regards

 

What a rediculous situation, and one that reflects really badly on WCRC in my opinion. If the work is being done correctly, why should WCRC decide who does and doesnt get to carry out work on mainline steam loco's? Given the organisations involved it sounds like a power struggle with the A1 Trust, but it risks suggestions that they are abusing their market position to favour one supplier over another.

Not impressed.

Chris

 

I think WCRC have explained their position very clearly. They have a safety management system in place in which they have to comply with. The work done on 60163 doesn't comply with their own standards and therefore they will not operate the locomotive in its current condition. I'm not sure why that reflect's badly on them, they're upholding their own management standards and compliance.

 

Having just had a look though UK steam for the tours that Tornado was due to haul, it now appears that Bittern has picked up the work instead - you can't argue that that isn't a half decent replacement & also means that i get to see 4492 much earlier than anticipated, another up shot may be that when myself & a mate go up to York next month for Scotsmans un veiling, tornado might just be there as well - result!

 

That's all I need to read. There is no point putting "media spin" on an issue like this.

 

Spot on.

There is far too much politics-type spin surrounding this loco and this is just the latest example. Just as any of us can choose whether we shop at Sainsbury's or ASDA, West Coast have a complete right to choose who they do or do not wish to use as a supplier and they are under no requirement to anybody, least of all participants on this web site, to explain themselves or their actions and decisions. It is quite clear that the A1Trust felt that they were above listening to guidance from WCR and carried on in their own merry way, and unfortunately they have apparently completely failed to comprehend how they should have conducted their negotiations and dealings with WCR. It is to be hoped that no-one shows the contents of this debate to David Smith, as I suspect that it will do little to improve their standing with West Coast. It is entirely unlikely that they will be able to spin their way out of this one, and indeed they have yet to come up with a story regarding the boiler which does not sound like spin. Speaking to many people in the industry who know about such things it seems that few if any believe the tales about cold starts, after all there are many ex BR engines out there which have done hundreds of cold starts (as the A1 Trust has christened them) without evidence of the sort of major problems experienced by this boiler. And before the spin doctors claim that it is being worked really hard, it has to be said that Tornado has never yet achieved an output of 60 ihp per square foot of grate, a figure that has been recently and significantly exceeded by ex BR 4-6-0's working in the north including 46115.

WCR are very wise to be treating this loco with extreme caution in my view. It is just a shame tht their critics appear not to have the faintest idea of the responsibilty carried by David Smith and his team at Carnforth. The moral should be if you don't know, don't criticise.

 

Perfect summery of the situation!

 

Absolutely - but by the same token, why is it that the A1 Trust's choice of sub-contractor is under scrutiny, IF the end results are favourable?

You cannot have it both ways. If we agree that neither group is under requirement to justify their actions and decisions, then why does the A1 Trust have to justify their choice of contractor regarding the cylinder reboring of their engine?

Ralph, you state that "If something does not conform to those rules you can't just say 'well it conforms to the spec so it must be OK', it's just not the same thing" - if something conforms to the specifications given, how can that not be okay? I must confess, I do not understand the problem. If we agree that that something is fit for purpose, then it is fit for purpose. Are we suggesting that the legitimacy of the sub-contractor is under scrutiny by West Coast Railways, and that is the problem with the work undertaken?

Now Mark Allatt's statement - and that of West Coast Railways, emphasized by Ralph W - contradict each other. WCR says they did not inspect or agree on the suitability of the repair work, Mark Allatt and the A1 Trust states they did. One or the other of the group is wrong.

Argus, forgive me - but what has been Tornado's output - and why is this relevant to the current topic?

Who is criticizing? People are asking why this state of affairs exists, no one is answering that question.

We have two contradicting statements from the two groups which is the cause of this "debate". Not enough information will undoubtedly lead to questions being asked. There seems to be on both sides a lot which has been not said, and that is where the discrepancies in both sets of statements lies.

As a covenator to the trust, I'm concerned at the nature of the A1 Trust's reply - and by the same token, WCR's brief statement seems to put all the onus on the trust.

We're not by any means entitled to know the ins and outs of West Coast Railways: but on this occasion it would help the understanding of the situation at hand, towards an informed opinion of that which has gone on.

 

I'm not sure I really understand this point Simon. At the moment the results of the cylinder re-boring are not suitable to either party - what are you suggesting from your comment?

I think it's obvious why the Trust's choice of engineering firm is under scrutiny because WCRC have made it public that they advised them not to use them as their contractor!

 

And lets be honest WCR collection of steam and diesel locos, never sit down on the mainline do they......

People in glass houses and all that....

 

I don't know the details of this situation, but from my experience: an approved contractor for one company may not be on another company's list of approved contractors. Each company may have their own reasons for approving them (or not) based on their experience/cost/references, but that doesn't mean that only one company is "right".

Richard

 

Er Neil - the Trust's statement clearly states that:

So at least one of the two parties believes the work is satisfactory. I underlined and bolded that part in a previous post.

Nothing was inferred from my comments other than one party is resolute in its statement in equal measure to the other party: and the reported facts do not match up.

That much we know as fact.

 

I find the way that our hobby/industry manages to shoot itself in the foot so often just totally depressing. Surely this relatively minor matter could have been resolved without recourse to public statements which have resulted in the mud-slinging on here, and no doubt on other forums too. It strikes me that there are some seriously inflated egos at large within the industry and it's their inability to compromise that leads to this sort of situation.

Was it not possible, for instance, for the A1 Trust to indemnify the WCRC against any failure in service resulting from the re-bore for the three tours in question?