P2 Locomotive Company and related matters

The trust doesn’t have the volunteers to do that. It’s always been a fundraising organisation with the vast majority of the engineering done by paid staff and contractors.

 

Approximately correct. The American pint is slightly more than a pound of water. The American gallon is based on the Queen Anne gallon, formerly used in English wine trade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_gallon

 

Thought the overhaul that was done at Wensleydale was by volunteers.
It is something i have never had time for to be honest, if a group came together to concentrate on the P2 Tender, and assembled the kit of parts, i would have a go....

 

There’s always been some volunteers supporting the paid labour but due to the nature of the work and deadlines it’s been mostly limited.

 

Are deadlines a thing? Reading this thread I got the distinct impression they were largely irrelevant.

 

Has the status of volunteers been eroded since the ebor incident, the RAIB was quite scathing????

 

Have you got a link for that report? I'd be interested to read that - I'm currently on a pub crawl...

 

I searched the RAIB database for 2018 and couldn't find anything. Since it was due to a failure and not an accident, would it be there anyway?

 

Thought as they were approached and it reported a document would have appeared, but hey ho.

‘Lubrication not speed’ caused 90mph Tornado’s failure | Heritage Railway Magazine

What happened? - October update on steam locomotive 60163 Tornado

 

I don't recall ever reading that report - do you have a link please? I think that if the RAIB had pronounced formally on the use of volunteers in railway engineering or operations, it would be a matter that would interest many on this forum.

Tom

 

Are you thinking of the report into the Flying Scotsman overhaul delay issues from 2012?

 

It was a very sad day and a turning point in fortunes, from dreams of regular 90mph dashes to hopes that it might be ready for some mainline work someday if and when that opportunity arises.

 

Indeed. It was stated very clearly that speed was not the cause of the failure, which would have happened even at lower speed, just somewhat later. Despite that, it gradually emerged that the original intention of 90 mph capability for better compatibility with the modern railway had been abandoned, though that was never explained.

 

There's the small issue of Mk. 1s only being cleared for 75mph with steam haulage - to go any faster would require more modern rolling stock. Can you imagine the whiners on here who bang on about "coffins" accepting that?

 

That's not insurmountable though. Bittern had Mk1s on its 90mph runs.

 

Actually with hindsight I'm pretty surprised that the RAIB didn't formally investigate and report considering that they did when 34067 had a similar failure (I don't recall where)....

 

I’m not making a comment on whether they should or shouldn’t have investigated. Rather - it was asserted that RAIB were scathing about volunteers, and I wanted to know where that had been documented. Answer came there none …

Tom

 

60163's failure was essentially self-contained with very little danger to other railway infrastructure, whereas 34067 was very lucky not to derail. If the stabiliser rail had been on the other side then the con rod would probably have dug into the sleepers and ballast.