Flying Scotsman

with a 180 psi boiler and short-travel valves?

 

Gonna need a new tender before the week’s out…

 

Looking at this article released today, there are a few questions answered....
https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2024/03/flying-scotsman-contract-details-emerge-as-tender-opens.html

1. 60103 is due for overhaul in 2029
2. The next custodian will be required to overhaul. So it is intended we will see her running into the mid 2030's at least.
3. Return to single chimney and livery change is an option on the table, but not at the moment

Positive proposals.

 

Thanks. I wonder what on earth a contract would look like, and why anyone should be motivated to go to the trouble of tendering competitively for it?

 

For the money and the glory…?

Only partly joking, but a) there's presumably an existing contract with Rileys, so I guess the contract will probably look a fair amount like that one, b) as much as I'm sure it's a joy to work on Scotsman, presumably they're also making some money on the deal, c) the deal is for 8 years… that's a nice chunk of work and will likely provide a degree of security to whichever organisations secures it, and d) it seems to me that there are other players in the market – probably of varying suitability – but it wouldn't be impossible to imagine Leaky Finders or Tyseley (OK, so not copper-topped, but you never know) or whoever putting a bid together.

No doubt the NRM also has to be seen to be exploring alternatives to the current arrangement to demonstrate public value for public money, and the tender process will achieve that.

Simon

 

Possibly. Though there's a little bit too much big organisation procurement thinking lurking in the background there, and I fear that the risk of using those practices in a craft industry could bite the NRM in the backside.

 

Well normally, in the real world, it would be the profit you think you could make out of it. Here there my some some kudos for the winner, but like many marketplaces I suspect the pool of real candidates is somewhat small, to me it is only Riley,WCRC, LSL or Tyseley, or maybe in true TOC style a combination of two of them.
Of course someone with loads of money may decide to underbid it.

 

Perhaps – do you think it would be worse if they direct-awarded to LSL… I expect you'd hear the explosion from space…

Simon

 

Exactly. Difficult to know from outside whether it's a charade or a genuine competition with several potential winners but you can't not do it.

 

No issue with tendering; it's the overhaul responsibility that makes me think "really".

 

Without wishing to cause offence and being a retired chartered professional engineer I question your description "craft industry"? There are some very top class, excellent engineering companies offering services to this heritage movement. I think the late David Elliott would take exception to your remarks. The use of modern finite element analysis is hardly "craft work" is it ?

 

The number of possible bidders for the contract is fairly limited I would have thought. LSL don’t take on contract work, West Coast possibly, Tyseley, Riley’s again and that’s about it. I assume as a public body the NRM are obliged to put it out to tender but given the history of the last contract surely Riley’s must be the favourite if they want it again

 

I think the term used in the Meanley report about the overhaul of Flying Scotsman was that the heritage business was a "cottage industry" rather than a "craft industry", but I think the meaning is similar. Using such terms is absolutely not to denigrate the skill of those engaged, nor the quality of what they produce, nor even the technical means and tools by which they do so. But rather it is a reference to the fragility of the (mostly small) companies involved; the heavy reliance on a few people with key skills, the difficulty of supply chains etc. Examples were given on the Tornado thread - if you need a complex casting and the right type of iron isn't in etc crucible of the handful of foundries left, you might be waiting weeks or months before they can cast your part. Wheel tyres above carriage size can only be sourced from one supplier in South Africa, and can only easily be turned by one other supplier in South Devon.

So I don't read the term as pejorative, but more a description of what type of organisations could tender for work. I'm somewhat familiar with public sector procurement, and I agree with @35B that the kind of situations it is designed for (getting the best mix of cost and quality in a market where there are multiple providers and clear deliverables can be written) is ill-suited to an overhaul contract. Realistically, for anyone taking it on, you need to think you are entering a strategic partnership, not tendering for a "one and done" job.

Tom

 

@Jamessquared answers better than I could. No offence or denigration is intended, but working for a large corporate, and with experience of working with government, I’ve a bad feeling about what’s being asked for against what is sustainable.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Fujitsu are probably bidding…

 

Have you got more information than me? You’re not definitely wrong, but the information in the public domain that I’ve seen doesn’t make me confident you’re right either.

All I can see is this page which doesn’t really tell us much about anything.

https://in-tendhost.co.uk/sciencemuseumgroup/aspx/ProjectManage/1354

Simon

 

I spent a lot of my working career buying the interiors of aircraft. Skilled work, CAD design work, strict testing & certification requirements. Hand building on the premium end of the market. But a small supplier base that could not meet the needed capacity. Barriers to entry hence high. We referred to that as a Cottage Industry.

 

The problem to many is the word PROFIT equates to MONEY whereas in the real world the actual profit could be NETWORKING thus giving access to facilities / persons able to give access to those who makes the rules regarding access to the network. It will be interesting to see who becomes the ultimate winner and the rationale behind the choice.

 

Contracts are there to protect both parties. Flying Scotsman is the most famous locomotive in the world and is the figurehead of the national collection - it is quite correct that the museum takes great care in selecting the next custodian. The tender process will ensure the bidder is fully aware of what is expected and most importantly, they also have the skills and ability to deliver. There are not many museums that would allow a third party full control and operation of their star exhibit.
Whilst public sector tenders can be complicated (& costly), there is a huge amount to gain for the bidder though. Whilst Riley's already had an exceptional reputation, being able to say they were the custodian of the Flying Scotsman would do no organisation any harm at all. It would indicate a high level of trust and competency because of that tender process. The bidder knows they have guaranteed income for the duration, they have security of knowing exactly who is responsible for what and there shouldn't be any grey areas. Companies I work with would say a level of guaranteed work, on time payments and transparency are worth their wait in gold - getting a public service contract is worth the effort.
Lastly, the overhaul element was also in the last contract was it not? Riley's were responsible for preparing the loco for its centenary year. I also see this as a positive development following months of scare mongering about the locos future. The NRM are committing to a working future for the loco.

 

Whichever business gets the contract will indeed get some useful income and much kudos but also some risk. Any loco could develop an expensive new fault at any time, and the older the loco (or rather its various components) the greater the risk. On the other hand, we are told that very little of FS is actually a hundred years old. The name, certainly. The nameplates? Anything else?