Tornado

That's the way I read the statement, with reference made to 8 additional trips having been undertaken, compared to what was on the original schedule.
There are 4 locos in the shed at Carnforth with valid boiler tickets, which would normally be sharing the burden of the workload, which due to individual choices can not be used. 45212 and 60163 have been up and down the country with barely any pause for breathe. 34067 is now being stripped for overhaul and 45212 has failed several times in the past couple of weeks. If 60163 is being asked to pick up more and more, I would suggest it's fairly responsible for (the owner) to say hang on, we want time for maintenance before it breaks?
I will happily agree that the best outcome is for both parties to work this out and come to an agreement, the trust statement leaves an olive branch.

 

DB turned down the contract for the Britannic Explorer. Regular, repetitive work, yet the higher ups didn't want it, not part of their core business. Yet Belmond is acceptable, and the Royal Train was as well. Would they have turned down BE if they knew the RT was going to finish shortly?

 

Admittedly, when the A1SLT signed up to the deal, Tangmere was still in the game. That appears to have dropped off the radar, so perhaps the share of tours for that Southern Pacific being re-allocated to the remaining two engines (Tornado and 45212) fell foul of the A1SLT's timetable of maintenance?

 

Can I ask what the response would have been on here had Tornado failed recently? There would have been allegations of poor workmanship and maintenance undoubtedly!

 

I've had the email, too, and was pleased that A1SLT have made an effort to keep covenantors in the loop promptly. Definitely an improvement on recent practice. I think their message is as much as could be expected at this stage, given the need to avoid affecting future relationship(s).

 

I reckon if the 4 with boiler tickets were operable Tornado wouldn’t have got any work anyway so I think those can be discounted.

To me coming out and saying “Oh WCR weren’t doing things our way” is just begging the question of who is the operator, and ultimately the boss?

I’m still not convinced the A1 group didn’t know what they were taking on. One only had to look at 44871 last year to realise how much work was available. It wouldn’t surprise me if they’ve under estimated the task at hand, suddenly realised that how they did it largely pre-Covid is very much different, and now they’ve looked for a way out.

But again I could be looking at this completely
Wrong. I just don’t think much of the fault will be at WCRs door here, if any at all.

 

Some months ago I attended a talk given by a member of the A1SLT and I did say to them that they had really dropped the ball on their comms and they needed to do much better, which the speaker agreed with.

It seems they've learned that in an always-on world, that silence will get filled with speculation.

 

We have only got one version of events, so can only comment on the statement from the trust. We also do not know the contents of the contract. Despite some assertions on here, I doubt the contract was 'use our loco as much as you like' and there is an element of needing to resource the work too.
With 8 additional trips completed amounting to over 2000 extra miles since just spring, as well as as the previously agreed work, I don't think West Coast can complain that Tornado hasn't been made available or been flexible - but there has to be a limit to what both human and loco can do. It is a loco fresh from overhaul and you would expect a responsible loco owner to want to keep a close eye on it. You can argue they know their machine best and would want to keep to their maintenance regime.
Perhaps DS was expecting another Ian Riley situation - well I think we can all agree their locos and ability to resource are pretty exceptional and have been built up over a number of years - but 45212 may have just shown even that limit has been reached. Riley International Rescue shouldn't be 'every day normality'.
The devil will be in the detail of the contract and whatever break clauses are in it - having signed a multi year agreement there won't be an easy route out without very good reason and money changing hands. Hopefully common sense will prevail and those clauses won't need testing.

 

Was Tornado due some down time for maintenance and West coast wanted the engine to operate instead, if so, you might ask how balanced was the agreement,?My guess is that the A1 Trust were seen as being very much a junior party .

 

Didn’t 60163 go from doing a ruck load of tours covering for other machines in about 2012 to doing something in 2014 like about 3 or 4?
The quote from Mr Bunker in one of the mags was ‘The tail was starting to wag the dog’
I wonder if there may be some from around that time that have maybe thought ‘not again’

 

What seems strange to be is this, West coast so far appear to not be inclined to air brake any of the 4 engines that have in ticket , or to fit CDL to their vac braked stock, to help the situation,
So that must raise the question, does west coast actually just view the engines it hires, as just hired in help, Rileys engines regularly get knocked to bits on the highland line, and riley international resue, often is the fall back option, when Tangmere breaks, yet west coasts own engines, very rarely operated on the Jacobite, once the 5's were availible, Part of me wonders what would happen if at any time Ian Riley, had to pull an engine , because of damage, or an overdue maintence issue, would there be the same response, ? I suspect no, because its a longstanding arrangement, and Riley holds the aces, I get the feeling that Carnforth expected the A1 trust to cave in,