Llangollen Railway

And? What point are you making?

Tom

 

I understand the bottom end was in a far worse state than Llangollen realised when they bid for the overhaul.

 

That there were four seperate customers who were unhappy. (What else?)

 

It's the "somewhere else" I don't understand - what is it to do with Llangollen of there are people somewhere else unhappy with the work they have had done? I assumed you were making some general point about the state of contracting in the overhaul industry?

Tom

 

It would seem that there's been no contingency or flexibility included with overhaul contracts, so if any extra work has arisen Llangollen have had to carry it out and not bill for it, or it's not been done.

 

Plus if any work is undertaken away from the home base there are additional costs to take in to account.
You may also find that the job on a remote site takes longer than back at base. I have 'a couple of years' of experience of this!!

 

I wonder how much of the problems with the engineering side are a Llangollen problem and how much they are a function of the wider structure of heritage railway repairs. There are a lot of small cottage suppliers who perhaps are less able to deal with increases in demand or complexity, at the same time there is a relatively small skills base, although the costs of overhaul are high, wages are low (or at least my impression is that they are) so there is high staff turnover among a very small staff. Record keeping seems to be a reoccurring issue.

The precarious nature of the work and orders means companies maybe take on either too much work or work that is more complex than they understood it to be.

My reading of the Patriot case was that there was high staff turnover at Llangollen but also poor oversight from the Patriot team and Llangollen. You can look at any project and see the same situation appearing.

If established lines like the FR, SDR, WSR, can run into problems, or big projects like Flying Scotsman or professional organisations such as WCR can run into problems, it suggests that it is not one company, or one rogue bad apple.

Clearly even lines like Dartmoor where you have a professional companies alongside heritage organisations can run into problems showing that different ownership models can all run into problems if one arm of the organisation runs into problems.

However, I also suspect that there are no quick, easy or cheap solutions. Lines need the money from contract work, projects need the work done as fast as possible for as little as possible, (because locos need to be earning their keep) wages need to be kept down, unrealistic deadlines need to be met so work is hurried/botched, lack of strong project management means when problems are found it is often late in the day.

 

It's only my impression, but impressions matter.
The story from Patriot newsletters suggests that their specs were not being followed. Also some suggestion of poor workmanship. Sadly, not unique to Llangollen. Add to that my impressions from my visit described above ( #116), imagine that others have felt the same 'bad vibe' and customers will melt away.
Pat

 

Can I ask that discussion regarding Morayshire please be kept to a minimum given the sensitive nature of the subject; the SRPS will release a public statement in due course - one has just been circulated to members - once arrangements are clear.

Andrew Fowler
Director
The Scottish Railway Preservation Society

 

I can't think of any of the mainstream railways entering into a formal insolvency process. Of course most railways would be insolvent if they relied purely on the commercial operations, which is why they need effective cash raising supporting bodies, but as I noted in #67 above, the Trust (the membership body) ran out of unrestricted cash last year. IMHO, having the membership body structured as a charity is also a disadvantage as a charity is restricted in its ability to make grants, whereas a non-charity can simply hand over the cash.

Another oddity of the Trust's appeal this time is that they are offering a free return ticket for each £50 donated, which means potentially 1,800 tickets to raise £90k. Now as the PLC operates the trains, this presumably can only be done if the PLC has agreed to it, and the other creditors may be wondering why the PLC needs to offer anything at all to the Trust to be repaid a sum due to it.

 

I am afraid you are being ever so slightly obtuse. "Somewhere else" refers either to the commissioning organisation rectifying the problem itself or getting someone else to do it,

 

We have not entered into a CVA. People really do need to get their facts right and not take notice of some of the drivel posted on here.

Bob.

 

I think that part of your quote does a great disservice to the professionals who do a hell of a decent a job at places like Bridgnorth, Crewe, Bury, Carnforth and Grosmont to name a few that do a bloody great job looking after machines that are not exactly cutting edge and slightly different.

 

So did the Trust have no basis to send the letter to members stating "It [the PLC] is having to enter into a company voluntary arrangement....", on the basis of which it was making an urgent appeal for funds, or did it jump the gun, and funding has appeared from one or more benefactors?

 

Hi. I’m not questioning the professionalism of any one. I think you are quoting me out of context. I was talking about the industry as a whole. There are a lot of small suppliers, there are often problems which delay projects and they seem to be to be an inherent problem of the sector and not a few bad apples. This was one of the key takeaways from the report into Flying Scotsman as I recall, so I am hardly making a new or bold statement here.

No one would doubt the engineering ability at Boston Lodge or their professionalism but if even they run into problems then it shows that no one is too big to fail. Likewise, the professionalism at Carnforth didn’t stop WCR running into problems.

In some cases, it is not the engineering side that is the problem but the management side, whether that is record keeping or project management.

My point is that every line is vulnerable because of the nature of heritage railways. Elderly locomotives and rolling stock are costly to maintain, limited pool of suppliers and skilled staff can cause delays, dependent on the vagueries of tourism, beautiful scenery can also mean a PWay nightmare. An overhaul taking long than expected and a couple of loco failures and all of a sudden you have a motive power crisis, heavy rains causes floods meaning extra costs and a delayed opening, all of a sudden a profit becomes a loss...

Even the SVR about 5 or so years back had a loco crisis and I believe had no steam locomotives for a few days and had to hurriedly hire in a loco from Didcot. This isn’t to accuse Bridgnorth of being unprofessional but to acknowledge that this is the reality. Even the SVR can have a loco crisis, even the FR can have a near miss, and even an established line could go under because of the way in which the whole industry resembles at times a very fragile deck of cards.

 

Perhaps you need to update some of us on the facts...

 

I think 'Perhaps you could update some of us on the facts' is a tad friendlier, no?

Noel

 

Indeed, although dismissing an apparently well sourced claim as drivel without any further explanation is not terribly helpful either...