Tornado

That makes a couple of assumptions. One is about whether the incident in question was cause; the other is about the quality of the underlying relationship.

My own experience is that disputes are rarely as simple as the proximate cause, and that the severity is heavily influenced by the nature of the response. Knowing no more than you have quoted, my hunch is also that there is more to this than meets the eye, and that the core issue is more psychological and emotional than legal or operational.

 

Okay, though you didn’t mention the Mk1 claim above.

 

Generally, most contract terminations I have been involved in are where the underlying transaction doesn't work for some reason, and the default ticks the box.
Given that boiler washouts are a routine and forseeable piece of loco-handling (do they count as maintenance?), it would be a poor draftsman who didn't set out who had to do it and how, and a collection of not-very-clever people to breach it accidentally.

Why and how it was breached will be interesting, as will the underlying reason.

If I were WCRC and had any doubts about the fitness of any part of the trust's operation, then any playing fast and loose with the boiler (given the boiler history and the overall undesirability of a boiler oopsie) by the trust would not be viewed sympathetically by me. At best it was poor communication, at worst, being casual about safety-critical matters.

JOOI, does a boiler washout usually formally count towards a boiler's inspection records?

 

Boiler washouts are obviously commonplace at most or all heritage operations, and nobody batted an eyelid back in the ‘good old days’. But I’m pretty sure that nowadays any operators SMS will include a list of those assessed as competent to sign off that the boiler is safe to pressurise again afterwards. Pressure vessel regs may also come into play too.
So if WCRC are the operators in this case then I imagine their competent person would need to be present?

 

Just makes me wonder what all the work and expense of the ETCS was for. I understood that the mission statement behind Tornado was to build and operate an A1 on the main line. I would have thought the ETCS would have needed regular usage and inspection to ensure it remains fit for operations.

 

Really not having much luck right now, are they?

North Yorkshire Moors Railway postpones steam locomotive 60163 Tornado services

 

I suspect we will never know the actual reason. I have heard two other versions to that from sources I would normally view to be reliable, maybe all three are not fact.
And no I have no intention of posting the other two, my name is not Hislop.

 

I'm on holiday in Grosmont from next Saturday, so there's a good chance it'll be raining after the bank holiday while we're there!

 

From what I was hearing at the weekend at Ropley about the A1 Trusts attitude to washing out when it was there I wonder if WCRC have heard the same stories.
Pat

 

Given the recent history of half truths and downright lies from the Trust I would treat this with some suspicion. Firstly heritage railway hires cannot be as lucrative as the mainline as vacuum only loco owners associated with West Coast could probably confirm. If they are ahead of budget why has the begging bowl been out more than I can remember in the past? They have blown £450k in the last business year and I can’t think that it was all part of the plan.
I may be wrong but I don’t know why a TOC would be involved in supervising a boiler washout any more than any other running maintenance item. Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought it just needed a competent person in charge and I would be surprised if one doesn’t exist within the Trust.
I do feel for the tour operators who have been badly let down by this and the general situation. I think Kelly Osborne is the eternal optimist but I suppose she has to be in her line of business

 

It may depend on the TOC's perception of the loco supplier's competence. I can imagine WCRC having no worries over Riley's Fives for instance, but a previous spat between the Trust and WCRC was (rightly or wrongly) over the particular contractor the Trust had employed to rebore the loco's cylinders. Playing Devil's Advocate here, it would only take one washout plug to blow in a public place ..... but then this is a remote possibility as the loco would already have undergone a FTR the previous day.

 

I don't know if we will ever know the full facts, those that do know are never going to say,
But I can't see it as being over something as mundane as a boiler wash out, there has to be more behind it, West Coast are short of air braked steam locos, and for them to suddenly decide they can no longer operate Tornado , It has to be something of far greater importance, Unless someone's, or several peoples egos, got in the way, and insults were exchanged, that blew open and shattered any agreed working relationship, like when a football player tells the manager, I'm bigger than this club, and then finds themself on the transfer market, or relegated to the reserves , then sold,

 

I know nothing about what has happened with Tornado but I do think that there is a misperception about boiler washouts on here. The primary requirement under a scheme of maintenance will be the need to open up the boiler for an internal examination after a specific number of steamings so that an internal examination can be carried out. This is usually 28 days of use following BR practice but needn’t be. This examination is usually carried out by a boiler smith or someone with good experience of boilers. In order to carry out this examination it is necessary to remove plugs, mud holes, etc and usual to carry out a washout to remove scale, etc. This can be carried out by people with little knowledge but who have been trained in so doing. If the boiler is simply washed out and then boxed up, however well done, it is unlikely to be in compliance with any scheme of maintenance and examination. The boxing up process whereby washout plugs, mud holes, fusible plugs, etc are refitted also needs to be done by competent people.

 

Exactly. I’ve not heard anything in relation to this, so it remains a mystery for now.

 

Would Washouts be hit by any proposed changes to Hosepipe use?
Mention has been made by some companies that commercial water use, such as by carwashes may be hit.

 

I’d be very surprised, it’s not like it’s a domestic hosepipe. It’s high pressure water fed from a tank via a pump. It’s more akin to watering a loco from a tower.
Filling carriage toilet head tanks is a hosepipe job, but again I can’t see that being affected, as it’s hygiene related?

 

The dry weather and lack of steam will have significantly affected a railways use of water, in any case. Far more than would happen with a hosepipe ban. The NYMR, for example, will be saving about 10000 gallons/day at the moment.

 

Yes, a few tender fills saved will easily exceed all other usages.

 

It's not the size of the hose that the ban relates to, it's whether it's for an essential purpose. Not watering your garden or washing your car with a hose saves a lot of water compared to a watering can or a bucket. Businesses are generally exempt if it means they can't do their job without it. Hence why car washes usually stay open, as the business will be unable to operate without water. Most modern automatical car washes recycle a lot of the water anyway.

On a preserved railway you'd be able to keep filling up the toilets, boiler washouts, etc., as they're essential for the safe running of the business. But start hosing down carriages to clean them or go around watering all the flower beds with a hosepipe and you could be in trouble.