Tornado

Not in my experience... It more often led to poor service and a supplier who, rather than wishing to maintain a quality service (that's quality in the dictionary sense, not the ISO9000 sense) was simply concentrating on finding exceptions/weasel words/get outs in the contract so that they wouldn't have to pay out on penalty clauses. People often seem to have a gloriously optimistic, even fairy dusted view of what competition can deliver which isn't always shared by those of us who've had to pick up the pieces.

 

No that's correct. Apologies to JohnB if my clumsy post gave that impression

Dave

 

Oh what you mean is that a: Historically Government was poor in helping developing ISO9000 standards, (it didn't just appear from space) b: was very poor at setting out requirements in said contracts c: tried to pin the blame on contractor when they got found out and d: had absolutely no idea about the commercial value of services in said contract.

 

Redacted

 

To make it clear as to what I meant. From the client side the standard was empty the bins on the set days etc., they did that to avoid penalties/get paid but paid the transferred staff less, encouraged them to cut corners by running over lawns, took no care whatsoever of the vehicle fleet as that was some other firm's maintenance contract, any dropped waste was left for the street sweeping contractor (separate) to do etc. As for any extras as I also said, day rates at best, or no do at all as the other poster subsequently added. Over time the wording of contracts changed to fill loopholes but as stated they'll do what they have to do to fulfill the contact (front of house) and cut corners everywhere else to get their profits up!

If you want a current railway example - South West Trains, more seats, more stops, less labour from modern electric traction as the contract obviously expects but you could get from Bournemouth to Waterloo in around the same 2-hours time with steam, in seats with leg room and a proper food service in the restaurant car! As I also said lipstick on a pig. I don't notice that much difference going up to Waterloo now in terms of getting a seat on the return journey or in overall journey time speed terms than when I went up and back as a kid behind steam in the '60s.

 

For many years the Bournemouth "fasts" did Bomo - Waterloo in 1:39. REPs&TCs.
One stop at Southampton Central.

 

Rememember them well, lurched a bit through Micheldever but the best combo BR ran. The whole REP/TC & 73 or 33 thing was a genius idea, would have solved so many issues too for diversions and off juice running nationally if they had done a 25kv equiv


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

And not as a privatised service either


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Smokestack's post is a lot more accurate than you may like to think Ralph.

 

A1 Trust Statement

This is the official line on the Trust's website.

 

Official line on what pray? Nothing to do with re-boring the cylinders.

 

My apologies, I thought the point of contention was that the dispute was about the contractor? Which that press release actually does go into some detail about. I agree it does not go into the specifics of the cylinder boring itself.

 

That's OK.
The boiler work was carried out in Germany by DBM who built the boiler. As far as I was aware WCRC had no issue with that.
The issue WCRC had was that A1SLT allegedly used a contractor to rebore the cylinders who , they claimed, was not on their approved list, despite the fact that the use of said contractor was approved by WCRC in advance of the work being carried out. The original contractor booked to do the job advised that the work could not be done at the last minute due to staff illness.

 

Either way, probably both parties are equally to blame..two sides to every argument and all that..

..but it all seems a little pointless given that there is clearly nothing wrong with the A1!

 

Given some strange decisions by WCRC over the years I think I will back the A1 Trust. Ditching this loco, one of the most reliable on the mainline while running a bag of bolts like Tangmere was not perhaps one of their best decisions.

 

I was a party to the actual facts which you ,Ralph, were not , as far as I know, and thus your response to Smokestack Lightning was not justified.

 

true enough...

 

A quick question. Looking at Didcot's YouTube channel this morning they have posted a video of Tornado working over Easter. I noticed in the text under the video that it says 60163 will be based at Didcot for a couple of months to work Railtours in the South. I thought she was kept in London to operate the Belmond Pullmans? Are there access problems with Stewarts Lane?

Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk