Flying Scotsman

I’m not suggesting it is perfect, but probably better than “rambling old men on internet forum” at deciding capability!

Tom

 

Yes, I've seen cases where the winner produced the best answers to the exam questions. That doesn't necessarily mean they were best placed to actually do the job. There's sometimes a conflict between the procurement function and the people on the ground who are going to be doing the hard grind of running the project. The hard headed judgement element is crucial.

As an elderly man who knows nothing about this and has heard no rumours, it is better if this has fallen over six months in than two years.

 

My great grandad built its wheels. So they better look after 'em. Imagine my surprise finding his dad actually did drive the Stirling Single!

 

Are you calling me old?

 

The crucial thing about procurement in the public sector is the inflexibility. This has plusses and minuses; you can't bend it in favour of your mate as it goes along, but you can't bend it away from someone who is (objectively) a bad outcome.

The key is getting it absolutely right at the start. This has two problems

1) you need to have a clear view what "right" is - this is much harder for the public sector as there will be competing non-comparable objectives. Is it better that Flying Scotsman spends time on the road, or is more original? If the funds are based on education, is restoration or hands-on visiting more important? In the private sector it's what the business owners want (usually measured in profit), but less clear in the public sector, where both the decision and the decision-makers are less clear

2) you need to ask unpleasant questions and challenge weasel answers, neither of which are pleasant to do, especially in a small industry.

Net result is that old men shouting on the internet may (albeit not frequently) actually give a better answer than a procurement exercise, but for the wrong reasons

 

I understand that "originality" is why the V2 is now stuffed and mounted - because of its monobloc cylinder casting.

 

I suggest that there's a 3rd item in your spot on list - that there may not be an objectively "right" answer

 

This situation is becoming embarrassing. Flying Scotsman has not hauled a single railtour this year despite being in a fit to run condition. After the triumph of its centenary year last year this year has been an absolute disaster entirely of the museum's own making and a massive own goal. 2025 better see it running like it was in 2023 and not similar to this year.

 

The same could be said of other locos - a certain streamlined loco running on a glorified siding in Sussex rather than a main line, for example. Also, re: the NRM, what's the deal with 55 002?

I suspect that we're seeing what was a long-stated aim of the RM when it said it wasn't in the business of running locomotives. I suspect that rough shunt 60103 made may also have played a part.

 

Unless one is intimately aware of the contents of the initial tender documents, the full details of NSO's tender bid plus any subsequent negotiations and then the contract finally entered into between the two and the reasons for the present impasse, that's one hell of a sweeping hyperbolic statement to make.

 

Did it actually get to contract signature? Or just intent to award?

 

Trackside reported that the contract still hadn't been signed as at late September. The announcement was made in early June.

 

In which case, that suggests that there's a gap between what was offered in the tender, and what has been possible to sign up to in contract. It's hard to think what that might be in a contract like this - as an independent operator, the only thing that occurs is a rail connected base location if the NRM aren't happy with road moves.

 

There are so many reasons why a Procurement process can go wrong, and it may be at times that Procurement have little say in the end result they are left with making the best of.
These could include
Being forced by finance or financial constraints to accept the lowest price offer rather than total cost of ownership
Desire to try something new or develop a new supplier (maybe not the best choice on your high profile asset)
Badly written specification
"Pushed" by Engineering, although I admit I am unsure what "Engineering" would be in the context of the NRM

Of course in this country any course is likely to be a "safe one", elsewhere maybe not so.
Being a global airline we had contracts worldwide and Procurement staff based overseas as well. A resource to a new limo company at JFK ended after only a week when the new suppliers premises mysteriously burnt down and he asked if he could be released from the contract.
A colleague was once woken in his hotel at 3AM by a phone call during a negotiation phase with what was essentially a death threat (needless to say he was somewhat shaken by the experience).

So whatever this is or is not it is not going to be that difficult I suspect or potentially "the end of the world".

 

Who knows, very few beyond NRM and NSO I suspect know (or will ever know) the precise details of what's gone on, which hasn't stopped a general narrative that its all the fault of the NRM forming.....

 

I think the act of signature is known - for the rest, I certainly agree with you on the fine details

 

From the Public Procurement Policy website

"
Outcome based specifications
You should use outcome based specifications as much as possible. An output (or outcome) based specification focuses on the desired outputs of a service in business terms, rather than a detailed technical specification of how the service is to be provided. This allows providers scope to propose innovative solutions.

Once a requirement has been identified it is natural to try to imagine the solution. The problem with this is that you are limited by what is currently known or available to you. By specifying outcomes rather than a solution you allow room for innovation to create new and better options."

 

Rileys aren't rail connected. What's needed is a rail connected base where maintenance can be carried out, which could simply be an agreeable heritage railway.

 

Looking up the names of the NRM senior management team and cross-referencing with LinkedIn is an "interesting" exercise.