Tornado

What I mean Simon is that although the actual mechanical work may be satisfactory to the Trust, I cannot believe the current outcome of the work (ie the refusal to operate the locomotive from WCRC) is a suitable outcome to the Trust.

 

I dont think thats the case at all. As the past few years have shown, the Trust dont need WCRC, and being the owners of a very popular loco arguably have the upper hand - to the extent that Steam Dreams and other operators have taken some of their business to DBS just so they could use her, losing West Coast money.

...so quite why this has happened seems bizarre - a breakdown in relationships rather than engineering standards perhaps?

Chris

 

Ah I see, fair enough Neil.

Same here.

What I cannot fathom is the breakdown in communications that must have occurred here. Surely there is a point where groups should remember its business, and not personal? Neither set of statements - nor Ralph W's extra confirmation from WCR - show either group in a particularly favourable light.

I must have been so naive before joining Nat Pres (probably still naive!): I never thought that there was this extra level of politics between operating groups.

That is a very good question.

 

i think the breakdown in relations is excatly what has happened

 

My view is this. Any major manufacturing/engineering/electronics company these days has "supplier management" standards and processes (not only does have, but must have, governed by international ISO quality standards), and if you want to be a supplier to them you have to comply with their standards, and they'll inspect you to make sure you do. This would therefore define which companies are acceptable as providers of components/work/whatever, or as sub-contractors - on the basis that they have themselves audited these companies' work and standards, and can therefore accept them without having to individually inspect every component or job.

It seems to me that WCRC has this, as you'd expect. A1 Trust didn't comply with them, for whatever reason. Maybe they thought WCRC was desperate to get Tornado on their rosters.

There are then two separate views on the outcome:
- you chose not to comply with our mandatory standards, sorry, we can't accept your product
- we didn't meet the standards, but our product is just as good, which you could find out if you went to the trouble and expense of inspecting it

It seems to me that WCRC have both the business sense and the moral high ground here.

The A1 Trust's argument, that surely all WCRC has to do is inspect and approve the specific work, is not the way that industry works these days. It's no longer practical, cost-effective or time-effective. That's what quality standards are for.

 

I've been considering posting a one-liner that is perfect for the Tornado boiler trouble and even more so for the West Coast vs A1 stance.
I know it will get me into a lot of trouble on this forum, but it is entirely appropriate and only someone without a sense of humour would be at all offended, so here goes:-

Tornado has promimnent Yorkshiremen behind it and looking after it. Trouble is, "You can always tell a Yorkshireman - but you can't tell him much!"

I look forward to being banned for offending everyone on the planet....

 

twr12's comment is where a facebook style 'like' function would be useful

 

You can click on the star below the post to either like or dislike the post.

 

Of course, but surely Tornado has had work done to it for decades by all kinds of non-WCRC approved people - if they werent confident that the Trust could select the right suppliers and ensure quality standards were met in the past then they wouldnt even be considering the loco.

...which is why, according to Mark in the Railway Herald, West Coast approved the Trust's arrangements for supplier assurance in November, as well as seeing and approved this work themselves along with their Qualified Independent Engineer's.

So why the u-turn? They dont like being ignored? Understandable given they carry the operational risk, but the A1ST have done thing their own way so far and i cant see that changing.

Chris

 

I haven't read the quotes in Railway Herald but remember that the contractor changed according to the Trust. The first one, in the Trust's press release, was approved of by WCRC but the second wasn't.

 

Be careful what you wish for .....

 

I'm sure the full story is not in the public domain but I couldn't agree more with the above statement.

The way the trust lurches from one problem to another is quite surprising first it’s the boiler, now its this, what’s going on. The ineptitude of the trust appears staggering from an outsider like me – shouldn’t head's be rolling. . . .

 

Ineptitude of the Trust???????

Speaking as a complete outsider, I am amazed at what the trust has been able to achieve.

Laughed at when they first announced their plans to build a new A1 and sailing into completely new territory, they have acheived what was considered impossible and in the process brought considerable publicity to the steam preservation movement.

There have been problems with the boiler and now what seems a legalistic spat with WRC.

But if the trust can start with nothing, and produce Tornado, I'm sure they can overcome these problems. Bring on the P2.

If we all brought this level of "ineptitude" to everything we did in the preservation movement, there would be no stopping us.

 

While I wouldn't question any of the competencies of those who have built the engine or who arrange its operation, the media operation and handling by the Trust seems very questionable.

The preserved railway (and mainline) movement is not the national media - it knows where the holes are in arguments. I feel sometimes the Trust forget that there are plenty of people out there who know more than them about operating a mainline steam locomotive and won't be as forgiving or as free with their praise as the national media have been.

 

You've got to be kidding? Two problems in the course of three years running the engine? That's ineptitude?

Let's stop for a second and remember some of the problems the preservation movement has had over the last decade.

We've had Royal Scot's overhaul (ongoing), the media circus, litigation and then sale of 6024, a man volunteering on a well known preserved railway sent to jail for pedophilia, a guard break bones and a safety case on the Foxfield Railway recently, Groups and their engines "thrown out" by larger preserved lines, components stolen left, right, and centre, we've had people found to be stealing money, here, there, and everywhere from the railways they are volunteering for, the tender brake on Flying Scotsman found to have been cut as part of a previous overhaul (see 4472 thread, Yorkshire Post), and a huge amount of bad feeling and bitterness over paint schemes (see everywhere on Nat Pres)!

Get some perspective please. If this is the worst that happens to the Trust, that's not ineptitude by any means.

Two problems - neither of which, in light of the work done by the engine, and what has been achieved, particularly horrendous - over three years of running the engine is good going frankly.

Every time I come on here I see this group lambasted for things which in the great scheme of things, aren't the worst we've seen in preservation. Dare I say it - they are being blown out of all proportion deliberately?

And I am sure that it is not just the A1 Trust which can be "difficult" to deal with in terms of mainline steam working - in fact, I'd put money on it that every mainline locomotive has had some level of disagreement somewhere between operating companies at one time or another.

It seems that just because it's the new boys on the block, it's 100 times worse than anything else that has happened to other groups previously. I can accept things can be handled better, done differently, etc etc - but ineptitude? Please.

 

.

So I take it nobody read's steam railway.

 

I read Steam Railway! Now that thats out of the way...

Oh dear... You have to feel sorry for the A1 Steam Locomotive Trust, things have not been going well for them for the past few months. They have problems with the boiler, and now it seems everyone is questioning it's the engine's reliabilty, not to mention the organisational and enginereing skills of the trust, and now this...

I am a bit confused by this incident, the A1ST say that "The work has in addition been seen and passed inspections by WCR themselves and WCR appointed Qualified Independent Engineers. The Trust believes these inspections to be an appropriate action by WCR in carrying out its due diligence responsibilities. The work has also been inspected by the Trust’s independent Vehicle Acceptance Body. All parties were satisfied that the work had been carried out correctly and that the finish on the cylinder bores was to the required standard". This implies that the WCR were agreeable on the work that was done; But the WCR denies this... Somebody is wrong, but who?

I have always greatly admired, comended and supported the A1ST and their achievements, and I always will; But there is something that I am curious about...

When the A1ST designed the boiler, they simply changed the original design from a riveted boiler with a copper firebox, to a welded boiler with a steel firebox; The question is, is Pepercorn's original boiler design really lend itself as an welded boiler with a steel firebox type.

The rules, tensions, etc between a riveted boiler with a copper firebox, and a welded boiler with a steel firebox must a least a little different.

At the end of the day, they have said several times, they are learning as they go along; It's just that their having to, lately, learn the hard way.

Let's just hope they can get Tornado up running as soon as possible, and make up for lost time (and money); Afterall they need to get money coming in; They've got to pay their debts, finish the support coach, have enough money for the overhaul, and then of course there is that possible P2 on the horizon...

 

Wow!

I shan't feel at all bad next time, (and it will come before long, LOL!), when myself, buseng and a good few others get going, yet again, on the "boxes on steam specials" thread!

LOL!

 

I read the article but while 60163 has been worked hard since it came into mainline certification how many other mainline steam engines have been worked equally as hard since 1970 without suffering from similar problems?

 

Well tell me which engines have bee worked as hard in such a short period of time?.