Tornado

That's the way I read the statement, with reference made to 8 additional trips having been undertaken, compared to what was on the original schedule.
There are 4 locos in the shed at Carnforth with valid boiler tickets, which would normally be sharing the burden of the workload, which due to individual choices can not be used. 45212 and 60163 have been up and down the country with barely any pause for breathe. 34067 is now being stripped for overhaul and 45212 has failed several times in the past couple of weeks. If 60163 is being asked to pick up more and more, I would suggest it's fairly responsible for (the owner) to say hang on, we want time for maintenance before it breaks?
I will happily agree that the best outcome is for both parties to work this out and come to an agreement, the trust statement leaves an olive branch.

 

DB turned down the contract for the Britannic Explorer. Regular, repetitive work, yet the higher ups didn't want it, not part of their core business. Yet Belmond is acceptable, and the Royal Train was as well. Would they have turned down BE if they knew the RT was going to finish shortly?

 

Admittedly, when the A1SLT signed up to the deal, Tangmere was still in the game. That appears to have dropped off the radar, so perhaps the share of tours for that Southern Pacific being re-allocated to the remaining two engines (Tornado and 45212) fell foul of the A1SLT's timetable of maintenance?

 

Can I ask what the response would have been on here had Tornado failed recently? There would have been allegations of poor workmanship and maintenance undoubtedly!

 

I've had the email, too, and was pleased that A1SLT have made an effort to keep covenantors in the loop promptly. Definitely an improvement on recent practice. I think their message is as much as could be expected at this stage, given the need to avoid affecting future relationship(s).

 

I reckon if the 4 with boiler tickets were operable Tornado wouldn’t have got any work anyway so I think those can be discounted.

To me coming out and saying “Oh WCR weren’t doing things our way” is just begging the question of who is the operator, and ultimately the boss?

I’m still not convinced the A1 group didn’t know what they were taking on. One only had to look at 44871 last year to realise how much work was available. It wouldn’t surprise me if they’ve under estimated the task at hand, suddenly realised that how they did it largely pre-Covid is very much different, and now they’ve looked for a way out.

But again I could be looking at this completely
Wrong. I just don’t think much of the fault will be at WCRs door here, if any at all.

 

Some months ago I attended a talk given by a member of the A1SLT and I did say to them that they had really dropped the ball on their comms and they needed to do much better, which the speaker agreed with.

It seems they've learned that in an always-on world, that silence will get filled with speculation.

 

We have only got one version of events, so can only comment on the statement from the trust. We also do not know the contents of the contract. Despite some assertions on here, I doubt the contract was 'use our loco as much as you like' and there is an element of needing to resource the work too.
With 8 additional trips completed amounting to over 2000 extra miles since just spring, as well as as the previously agreed work, I don't think West Coast can complain that Tornado hasn't been made available or been flexible - but there has to be a limit to what both human and loco can do. It is a loco fresh from overhaul and you would expect a responsible loco owner to want to keep a close eye on it. You can argue they know their machine best and would want to keep to their maintenance regime.
Perhaps DS was expecting another Ian Riley situation - well I think we can all agree their locos and ability to resource are pretty exceptional and have been built up over a number of years - but 45212 may have just shown even that limit has been reached. Riley International Rescue shouldn't be 'every day normality'.
The devil will be in the detail of the contract and whatever break clauses are in it - having signed a multi year agreement there won't be an easy route out without very good reason and money changing hands. Hopefully common sense will prevail and those clauses won't need testing.

 

Was Tornado due some down time for maintenance and West coast wanted the engine to operate instead, if so, you might ask how balanced was the agreement,?My guess is that the A1 Trust were seen as being very much a junior party .

 

Didn’t 60163 go from doing a ruck load of tours covering for other machines in about 2012 to doing something in 2014 like about 3 or 4?
The quote from Mr Bunker in one of the mags was ‘The tail was starting to wag the dog’
I wonder if there may be some from around that time that have maybe thought ‘not again’

 

What seems strange to be is this, West coast so far appear to not be inclined to air brake any of the 4 engines that have in ticket , or to fit CDL to their vac braked stock, to help the situation,
So that must raise the question, does west coast actually just view the engines it hires, as just hired in help, Rileys engines regularly get knocked to bits on the highland line, and riley international resue, often is the fall back option, when Tangmere breaks, yet west coasts own engines, very rarely operated on the Jacobite, once the 5's were availible, Part of me wonders what would happen if at any time Ian Riley, had to pull an engine , because of damage, or an overdue maintence issue, would there be the same response, ? I suspect no, because its a longstanding arrangement, and Riley holds the aces, I get the feeling that Carnforth expected the A1 trust to cave in,

 

I’m just catching up here. The statement a few pages back from the A1SLT trust was, as far as I am aware, the first official statement reported on this thread by either side on this - so everything prior was hearsay?

What we don’t know is what the contract between the A1 and West Coast said. For example, if the agreement was “the loco will be available for x days per month” and WCR are using it for more, then I think the A1SLT have a genuine right to feel aggrieved. If on the other hand the agreement was more along the lines of a payment per use but with no limits (or no upper limits) then how that squared with their own maintenance process is something they should have considered before entering into the contract.

As I read it, unless we know what the detailed contract actually said about usage limits, no-one here is in a good position to see where the rights and wrongs are. It does feel that, in the way they phrased the statement, the A1SLT at least are keen not to burn their bridges.

Tom

 

According to UK steam it did 25 trips in 2012, nearly all for Steam Dreams, plus a couple on the royal train. It did two in 2014, its last year before overhaul.

 

The press release is a masterpiece of it's kind, 2 bars of positive music, slide in the wrong note, chuck in a (to me) preposterous reason as to why the damage to the coach happened, then follow up with a load of how much they were looking forward to working with WCRC.

I look forward to the real story coming out (see my comments on the annual report above...)

Does anyone know how plausible the "big leaf did it and ran away" story is? I've not heard of brakes being set off by lineside vegetation before.

There's been quite a bit of discussion about lineside vegetation of late, but I've not seen that.

Would the RAIB be informed about an "uncalled for" brake application? What is their de minimis threshold?

 

Didn't a 'similar' thing happen with the train that 7029 was hauling over the South Devon banks earlier this year?

 

I suspect this is why the winter overhaul program that IR runs is the way it is. Engines go back to the shop, seem to often get a boiler lift, and at a minimum an interim overhaul, before they go back out for the season. The 5's that they run are clearly kept up to a very high standard.


For Tornado, it seems questionable to this observer that they would be turning down work, having looked at their books, and knowing that income has been low, and expenses very high, for at least 2 years now.

Surely, they are keen to get some money in the door.....?

 

Just catching up with this. Unfortunately the link doesn’t work for me, but two things strike me ….

Firstly what, if any, are the liabilities regarding the three boilers (repairs to the original and the two new builds @c£1m ea)?

Secondly, it’s no great achievement to have cash in the bank when you’ve made virtually zero progress on your key flagship project to recreate a P2, at one time touted as the star attraction of the S&D 200 celebrations.

 

Well, they are only liabilities if you have signed off on paying in full on completion etc etc. What are the terms of the contract? Pay as you go? An option to take a kit of parts at any time if you change tack?

Having some cash in the bank is absolutley essential. Burning £450k in one year and practically halving the cash resource is not something that can be repeated this year without a major crunch in the future.