No 246 Morayshire

62700 for me, and a rake of maroon Gresleys… (I should probably only whisper it on this thread, but I wasn't a fan of Apple Green on the D49s…) ;-)

Simon

 

Thanks for that, interesting to know.

Simon

 

Perhaps in other cases, but in this instance it is the same boiler inspector who has inspected boiler at Llangollen that is now inspecting the boiler at Loughborough. This is the first opportunity they have had to assess the boiler since the flu tubes and sling stays were installed at Llangollen, hence why the need for rectification works are now only being identified.

 

Absolutely, but the fact remains that the work was apparently done incorrectly. It's hard to see how anything in the interaction of the two parties could have led to that.

Noel

 

Evening All.
Just come across your discussion.
Please may I just straighten this conversation some what.
Apologies in advance if I sound a bit harsh, just dislike to find incorrect discussions going on.

Firstly, guess work doesn't help anybody.
Secondly, please don't comment unless you have fact to base it on.
Thirdly @jnc , please take back your word "incorrectly", and replace with "lacking finish time".
Forthly @steam_mad afraid your details of overhaul contracts needs a major correcting.

Wish you all a pleasant evening ☺️

 

What have you straightened out?

 

As @steam_mad has pointed out, you haven't actually 'straightened out' anything.
Firstly and secondly, this is a discussion forum, you have no authority to tell people what they can or cannot discuss. If you have verifiable facts to contradict someones statements then please produce the facts/evidence.
Thirdly, the SRPS website states "The work on boiler was estimated to be about 90% complete when evicted from LRC. The boiler has now been surveyed by the boiler inspector and issues with some of the work carried out since his last inspection require rework."
If the work merely required more " finishing time" then it would not require rework, it would require completion.
Fourthly, as steam_mad appears to be very closely involved in the project I suspect he has a very good knowledge of the contract(s) involved.

Enjoy your evening

Keith

 

I disagree with you I'm afraid Keith.

Working backwards through your post, fourthly, @Christof appears to be as closely involved in the situation as @steam_mad and he clearly too has very good knowledge of the contract(s) involved, although apparently from the other side.

Thirdly, the SRPS statement makes one wonder why it took so long to realise that "rework" was required if adequate supervision and on going project management was taking place.

Firstly and secondly what is the point in discussing what is basically a contractual dispute between two parties, the details of which we no nothing about. There are probably faults, possibly quite complex, on both sides. Persuing this on here can only end up in a mud slinging match which will achieve nothing. Best to let the two parties sort this out between themselves and wait for the eventual return of this fine loco.

Peter

 

Trying my best not to get drawn into a debate, however:
1. Everyone is allowed their opinion, however the way you express it is important. I haven't made personal swipes at anyone the way Christof did.
2. Is it not a rather large assumption on your part that the SRPS had not been engaged with Llangollen around any issues for a considerable period of time before the loco's departure from Llangollen?

My last comments on the matter on this forum - looking forward to being able to share some updates imminently about work to get the loco back where she belongs!

Andrew

 

Heretic!

 

Only if there's a Q in the day, a Z in the month and the year is divisible by the square root of PI .............

 

Well, to retaliate to that.

You've asked people to not comment unless they can back it up with fact, then decided to attempt a correction of @jnc and @steam_mad without yourself providing any factual evidence to validate your points. So, ball is in your court there....

But, to tackle the "lacking finish time" in which you want JNC's statement to be corrected to. Steam Railway Issue 503, chairwoman Liz McGuiness is on record as saying :

"The Llangollen Railway and the SRPS entered into an agreement to carry out works on Morayshire some time ago. While both parties have worked hard to honour this agreement, it is clear that the work specification and associated costings did not accurately reflect the true extent of the overhaul required. Unfortunately, after a comprehensive review of the situation, we have concluded that it is impossible for us to meet the aspirations of the SRPS without causing significant financial harm to our organisation."
"As a result, we have had no choice but to request that the locomotive return to the SRPS".

Jim Verth, SRPS chairman, was quoted in the same article as saying (and bear in mind I am concentrating on the time issue you are implying):

"Last week [Early February] Llangollen said that, to avoid going into administration, they will return Morayshire to us in two weeks".

Nowhere in that information supplied by the chairwoman of the Llangollen Railway is it suggested that there was a time issue with the overhaul. Indeed, the only time issue appears to be the one Llangollen self inflicted by evicting the locomotive with a two week notice period. It's difficult for the party implementing a time issue to then cry time issue....

Secondly, taking out my own personal knowledge of Steam_mads involvement with the SRPS, he has at least come on here to back up any public claims made by the society (as far as he is allowed). He has stated his position within the society. Could you perhaps state your position in regards to Llangollen Railway, and more precisely the Morayshire overhaul, if you wish to correct him on his knowledge of the contract?

Lastly, I insert a paragraph from annual accounts provided to Companies House. This was submitted on 30th September 2020, for year ended December 2019. 'Strategic Report, Report of the Directors and Financial Statements':

“The year ended 31st December 2019 showed a similar picture to the previous year in that engineering again showed a substantial loss due to two contracts being massively underquoted. One of those contracts has been completed in the year and we will resolve the problem with the second contract in early 2020”

We can only speculate to which locomotive is Second Contract. However, given the timing of early 2020, that matches with the eviction of Morayshire instigated by Llangollen. This would also reaffirm Steam_Mad's account of the situation, where that Llangollen assessed the locomotive stripped down and provided a quote, and yet again gives doubt to your knowledge of the contract as no time considerations or issues are mentioned.

 

"Jim Verth, SRPS chairman, was quoted......."

Has there been a coup at Bo'ness??

 

I'm only writing what Steam Railway reported as his position, to keep the quotes totally relevant to the report.

 

And many of us here would want a second opinion if the Steam Beano reported that water was wet...........

 

Maybe so, but when representatives give statements you would believe that they are as said or those representatives would have called for a correction against those words, which so far hasn't been asked for 7 months since publication and therefore is unlikely to be incorrect. It is a damning charge against Llangollen to let be unchallenged if not true...

Those same statements were also used in other magazines, so you could hardly accuse it of inaccuracy on Steam Railway's part. Indeed, much of it is corroborated by a director of the SRPS on here, while I'm yet to see any official Llangollen representative come out and claim falsehoods against what both Liz McGuinness and Jim Verth provided.

Therefore, your water is wet and has been given evidence behind it. So point moot?

 

Speaking from experience many years ago. When dealing with the "media" you can say "black" and they'll print/report "white"............

 

I'm not disputing that, as I have had similar occasions of words put in my mouth that wasn't quite what I used. However, it was rather harmless apart from some micky taking in the bothy, so no point chasing it up.*

The claims made on both sides of the Shire overhaul are rather damning. With the Llangollen Railway's reputation being questioned over their handling of the overhaul, you would imagine they would attempt to correct it if the SRPS's claims were incorrect or the words printed by Steam Railway and other outlets incorrect to the statement the chairwoman made.

In this situation, there has been very little evidence to suggest what has been reported as being wrong. Only @Christof , in this thread, appears to attempt a hard defence against the claims but with little evidence to substantiate. A little rich when in the same posting, he urged others to not make comments unless there was evidence for their foundation.

*Edit - The article in question, if anybody is interested, was when I was involved in the conservation of the South African 15F at Nitshill when repatriated for display in Glasgow. If I recall, I'm quoted as saying "It'll look fabulous when finished". I don't believe I uttered the F word, but proceeded to be greeted rather flamboyantly each time I entered the bothy in my engineering work environment for the few weeks after....

 

Your post is fabulous!!!

Keith