Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by Gav106, Apr 10, 2011.
Appears to be for January - February, but not uploaded to the website until April 30th.
So far then its the con rods and valve gear motion bearings that are been checked to see if the dimensions have been machined correctly, Does this include the main driving wheel bearings also are going to have to be checked as well including the pony trucks wheelsets in the near future or has the examination of the driver axle bearings been checked already? Seen as though the engineering update from the L.M.S. patriot project was written sometime in late january early febuary 2019?
I really admire the Patriot team for their transparency on this, highly commendable.
I also really feel for them.
I’d encourage an open mind on reworking non-conforming parts.
Rework is an expensive activity. Making new can be just as cheap in some instances.
Yes, it hurts, but it pays off later.
Since the report mentioned above things are moving on fast. Most of the issues are being dealt with or are already done. The next warrior will be out in the next few weeks or so will tell of the big steps forward being made.
Thanks Nigel. Could you have a word with someone that dirty linen washing is highly counterproductive to fund raising etc etc.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I 100% agree with this comment.
As Nigel says, he and his group of volunteers are doing their best on the chassis down at Crewe, the guys down at Leaky Finders are working on the tender and HBSS are cracking on with the boiler. On their page they posted images of the dome being fitted this week.
The report was indeed the one that ends at the end of January/February. It was missed for some reason and not posted until April. The next one should go on at the start of June as its currently being written.
We are having an open weekend on the 8th of June at Crewe Heritage centre so if anyone is going to the LNWR/LSL open weekend on that same day, they can jump on the free bus and come and see progress on 5551, have a chat with us etc etc. The Crewe HC are also having a model railway show that weekend so there is plenty to see and do!
Disagree. As a (admittedly very minor) contributor to this project, I for one would like to know that any defects or issues that arise are being dealt with as best as possible and the only way to know that is to know they exist in the first place. Surely if the Patriot Project kept quiet, contributors would wonder why the project suddenly started buying two of everything and fundraising would dry up faster than a puddle on Mercury's day-side! The project's expenditure must be in the public domain for it to function. I really don't see another way.
I applaud the transparency and will be contributing as best I can to spite this setback. We're gonna get a bloomin' Patriot! Setbacks be damned!
P.s. if you read one of the posts #1238 earlier the costs are been recovered from llangollen engineering L.T.D. to pay for the new parts needed to be made again.
Actually it says "The costs involved will be recovered from Llangollen Engineering."
I think the key words are 'will be' i.e. Llangollen haven't actually agreed to refund costs and unfortunately it may yet result in legal action.
"recovered from" is also one of those phrases you tend to see more in the context of legal shenanigans than not.
I hope the Patriot folks are looking at this with great caution. Litigation can be very expensive and soon exceed what you're trying to recover. I wouldn't want my contributions to the project ending up lining the pockets of lawyers.
My thoughts exactly. This new build project is too important (my personal view only) to waste funds on litigation. I will do my best to continue to support it nonetheless.
It’s not the listing of defects and rectification work that people are criticising, it’s the public appropriation of blame and of recompense, both of which may be open to dispute and would be better settled in private.
That doesn't make sense to me. How can you have defects and rectification work being necessary without the manufacturer's responsibility being implicit.
As I have said it is at least a part-publicly-financed project so the finances must be made available which means the cost of rectification work must be made available which means the reason for the rectification work must be made available. Otherwise, I'm reasonably certain unjustified expenses would send up a red flag or two.
To not be seen to be dealing with this, to cover it up to protect the manufacturer's modesty for lack of a better way of putting it would lead to an irrevocable breakdown in trust in the project's finances that would be catastrophic for the project.
As for the threat of litigation, if the parts aren't fit for purpose, what litigation???
One final question, if you ordered a conservatory built that had a 6 inch gap and didn't actually mate up to your house, would you be happy with the work?
In answer to the first sentence, it all depends on what the contract says, as a "defect" is a subjective concept, and it depends heavily on what the contractor was asked to do. It would actually be quite difficult to draft a contract for say making a boiler, especially if your counterparty has limited financial resources e.g. how does one define completion of the boiler, what happens if it springs a major leak a couple of months later etc, and the same applies to some extent to a contract to white-metal a bearing. If you look at loco tendering specifications from the 1930s, you will generally find somewhere the expression "of very best workmanship" or similar,which I am sure was repeated in the contract, but the expression is in itself undefined and could lead to lengthy litigation if one was so inclined, no doubt relying on each side calling expert witnesses. How customers got round it in practice was to appoint a consulting engineer (or one of their own staff if the customer had the resources) to inspect all stages of manufacture, so if anything was going off piste, it could be dealt with immediately. The situation here suggests insufficient oversight.
Until such time that any defect liability, and ensuing rectification/recompense has been agreed between the two parties, it is inappropriate for either of them to sound off about the subject in public. Publishing intemperant comments certainly won't do you any favours if the matter were to go to arbitration.
It is entirely feasible for a manufacturer to produce a part that is later found to be unfit for purpose if he has been provided with incorrect information/measurements/drawings/materials by the party contracting out the works. I am not saying that this is the case with the Patriot group, but using it as an ilustration that things are not always so clear-cut as you imagine.
As I have said it is at least a part-publicly-financed project so the finances must be made available which means the cost of rectification work must be
One final question, if you ordered a conservatory built that had a 6 inch gap and didn't actually mate up to your house, would you be happy with the work?[/QUOTE]
But, whose at fault there?
The surveyor who did the measuring, the client who was told by the surveyor that the walls were out of true and didn't rectify it, the factory who built to the surveyors dimensions or the fitters who installed it.
What people are trying to say is that till all the ins and outs are looked into then the process should be dealt with discreetly, not in the public domain, there are always two sides to every dispute. No issue whatsoever in details being released to the people with vested interests in the group after it's all resolved.
Actually there are several ways. One might be incorrect or insufficient specification of the work to be done; another might be that the supplier requested a mid-stage sign off before proceeding, which the project didn't provide despite request.
I'm not saying those things did happen; simply suggesting that considering this is cut-and-dried case with all the fault clearly assigned is probably an assumption too far. So while I agree that trust between donor and project is paramount, I'm not convinced that that trust is necessarily won by a very public apportioning of blame. The project will no doubt be in earnest discussion with the contractor(s); and if you are a subscriber, raising issues of project controls and governance at annual meetings is within your rights; I'm just not convinced that having the discussion - particularly in a one sided way, with only one party commenting - is the right way to help foster that sense of donor / project trust.
Least said, soonest mended in my view: it's a small industry and you never know when you might wish to use that supplier again in the future.
Does anybody know whether the boiler stays specification is agreed or is there a hold-up on this element of the project also?
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Separate names with a comma.