Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by Eightpot, Oct 4, 2011.
HERE HERE !
From an outsider with little or no knowledge of what is going on, all this is a bit curious – I’ve read the piece on rail.co.uk and from what I read I could not disagree what is alleged and seams reasonable to me, yet a number of people have been very quick to rubbish this piece of reporting.
What is it in this piece that is ” such a biased and vindictive character assassination” – If a loco failed so quickly there has to be something wrong with the work done on the boiler, and as for blaming the crews - the words “grasping at straws” springs to mind.
I would be grateful for those so quick to defend the GWS if they would let us know what was so wrong in this article. If the facts are wrong, can you tell is why?
ACTUALLY, ITS OWNED BY GWP, NOT GWS!
THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT!
As far as I am aware that is basically a technicality?
Confirmation or denial of the report has been requested - the answer is?
It would be a tragedy if we were to lose the use of this loco so early in its restoration career.
My understanding was that in effect all the historic stock is owned by GWP (Great Western Preservations) as a legal device to protect it in the event that a financial catastrophe befell the GWS. As GWS controls GWP its a technical distinction!
I guess the priority is to get 6023 sorted, and also try to keep the volunteers on board. The next GWS newsletter is due out on Saturday which might shed some further light on this.
It is not grasping at straws at all. All footplate crew have a responsibility to work their engine properly to prvent premature failure- both of the boier and mechanically.
For example, working an engine with a hole in the fire will cause cold air to contact the firebox, cooling down the plates locally and the resulting differential expansion can cause tubes to leak, stays to fail etc etc.
Not having seen 6023 since her return to steam - I'm not in anyway suggesting that this is the cause of her woes.
Since Dennis Howells (named in the article) was with 6023 at the time of failure, yet has not had these problems with his own loco (Pannier 9466), I'd suggest that the above scenario sounds rather unlikely. Indeed, 9466 was running at Quainton today.
I must have forgotten all that I learnt when I drove and fired on a number of railways?, however not once did leaving a hole in the fire gave the "requirement to replace patch screws after some heads had fallen off" as stated in the rail.co.uk report. . . . . . a firebox will take a lot of abuse, it has to its the nature of harsh environment in there - however when on a relative flat railway @ 25mph its not likely to get too much serious harm however much missmangagement or not it recieved don't you think.
It's unfortunate that the published article comes via someone on one side of the argument. I for one, will be sitting tight until a full report from the independant inspector is available (if at all). There IS a lot more to this than meets the eye, so I hope no one pre judges by what has been published so far.
Lets hope what should be the GWS flagship loco, is soon up and running again.
I so want to write somones nickname ( Who was mentioned in the article ) on here but i wont.....
If I did it would say it all as to why this has happened
I can see no option but the boiler coming out, otherwise you will be forever caulking it up and this will not do for a Loco that will be going on the mainline
It will be one cancellation after another
Far better to get it right now than suffer in the long run
I agree that failure of pacth screws is unlikely to be due to bad management. Other failures (such as leaking tubes) could be, particularly depending on how the 25 MPH is reached!
Out of interest have there been any remotely similar problems with locos at Didcot that have had recent boiler overhauls?
The last loco overhauled before 6023 was 5322, which as far as I'm aware hasn't had any boiler problems. 3650 - Pannier Man's pet project was the one before that.
Pannier Man is right - some of the story here will be constrained by employee and contractual issues. Its relatively easy for disgruntled individuals to throw mud around - far harder for the organisation to make comments until it has the full facts - not least because hopefully they will be aware of the issues surrounding 6024 not so far back. The only people no-one wants to benefit from this scenario is the lawyers.
Tempting as it is to mount a desperate hunt for someone to throw to the wolves - waiting for proper factual information would be far better.
I would have thought that those who followed all the false trails laid when 60163 had boiler woes would hold their peace until someone in authority pronounces. It is clear from Tornado's current record that the loco's boiler is a lot happier with the mods carried out one has to consider the fact that 6023's is an OLD vessel newly returned to steam. Give everyone concerned the benefit of the doubt until some FACTS are available. Remember, commercial considerations often prevent the public revelation of details....
Nothing specifically to do with 6023 but just to keep the record straight, GWP is not controlled by GWS. GWP is independent and owns the stock as a safeguard not only if a financial catatrophe should overtake GWS but more specifically as a means of preventing a preditor from accessing the stock by taking over GWS.
Obviously everyone should be careful to avoid any possibility of defamation. The real issue is the number of large locomotives which have encountered serious boiler trouble and the implication this has for their future.
I think the 'media storm' following Tornados boiler problems was caused by the lacklustre (IMO) way in which it's trust presented the problem and the lack of FACTS presented. Let's hope those within the GWS learn from that, and realise keep it quiet and hope it goes away, way of dealing with a problem in the media doesen't work- it simply
Separate names with a comma.