Flying Scotsman

I think perhaps the key message to come out of Bob's comprehensive report was the difficulty of a public sector organisation managing a multi-million pound project when dealing with contractors who operate more as a cottage industry which in some cases is reliant on the goodwill of volunteers and retired folk to get the work out on time etc.

This sort of set up is fine on heritage lines, and the reason many of us are involved, but can be fraught when deadlines have been fixed and made public. For this reason such major rebuilds (particularly those involving the public purse) may be better carried out on a more formal project-managed basis as they would be in the commercial world. However, to do this both parties need to have a professional engineering background in order to possess the 'tools' to work on a formalised basis. e.g. the customer needs to be able to prepare detailed and rigorous scope, specification, programme and T&C documents etc, and the contractors likewise have to understand and comply with these. Now as Bob says, the ability to execute this sort of relationship successfully is currently pretty difficult, as these skills are not widespread within the industry and that situation is unlikely to change in the future unless there is the will to do so and someone funds the necessary training.

So is this where the consultants come in, if the expertise does not exist in-house? Initially as a service to the NRM to help get the planning paperwork in order, but following on from that it would be nice to think the NRM (and maybe the HRA?) could take a lead in providing training in such 'best practice' techniques more widely - but then who's going to fund it all??

 

This is an argument that's going on elsewhere on NatPres and is a recurring theme. The NRM (and the public sector at large) cannot compete with private sector wages for permanent expertise of this type. If people are trained up within the NRM, why wouldn't they then leave for the private sector and double or treble their wages overnight? Consequently the expertise is out-sourced and brought in only when considered necessary. At great expense and without the benefit of knowledge retention.

Simon

 

Consultants invariably glean all the information from the clients, package it up in a neat document and always recommend further work that they are only too willing to undertake. All at substantial cost.
as regards the HRA taking a lead in 'best practice', they are already doing that with their series of Guidance Notes, generally freely available and endorsed by HMRI. See HRA Documents | Heritage Railway Association for a list of those produced so fat.

 

What I was trying to say was that as overhauls become more onerous (new boilers etc) and hence even more expensive, cost control becomes even more vital. As Bob pointed out in his report, the heritage industry is not well versed in modern project management processes, be it from the client side (eg NRM) or contractor side.

Now if in the light of the FS experience there is a will to move towards a more formal approach to major overhauls, then those 'white collar' skills have to come from somewhere, and unless the movement can attract sufficient retired professionals FOC then training will be required. Perhaps this could be made available via the NRM (for specific projects) or more widely via the HRA . I'm not suggesting that the NRM employ extra staff and train them only to lose them. You could envisage a situation where anyone wanting to tender for NRM work would need to show competence in project management, and would then pay for training on an NRM approved course, possibly along side their NRM equivalents.

Currently in heritage movement we are making big strides towards retaining and developing trade skills with the apprenticeship schemes run by various engineering centres, but we should also consider investing in project management skills too, if we want to avoid another 'Scotsman' in the future.

 

There seem to be 3 key issues (1) the engine was crocked when purchased and had been poorly repaired/maintained (2) the engineering set up at York in the early point of the overhaul was poor (negligent?) at progressing pro-actively the bottom end to the correct standard.........poorly organised, parts strewn everywhere and progress slow were words that spring to mind and (3) the NRM spends a bunch of resource managing contractors on the basis of a written document rather than by dealing effectively with people in the industry.

Its a shame its cost this much but it begs the question as to whether the NRM should fully out-source overhauls of locomotives. Sir Lamiel and Oliver Cromwell have been well looked after by 5305. Aside from that its well known that Tyseley and Bury and their operation of their own locos bears testimony that old machines can be economically repaired and viably operated- yet the list of poorly managed engines whose repairs have stalled/required revisiting can be counted on both hands...........one hopes some of the apprenticeships at Crewe, Ropley etc will supplant the skill base we need.- the report makes very sad reading .

 

In my view, future overhauls of NRM machines should be done by the heritage railway sector, with the railway getting the engine for a ten year loan spell once restored along the lines of Cheltenham, the railway raise the funds and control the work, Scotsmans problems were well known about with in the railway industry, people were saying that she wasnt being naintained correctly but were kept quite about , until purchased by the NRM, i can not believe that someone somewhere didnt ask who was leading the restoration when it first started to identify what state she was in , or did they and they were ignored?
why appoint advisors who will cost money why not just appoint someone such as Bob Meanley as restorations manager for future steam restorations, either at Tyseley, or at york , had This been done from the outset, the problems would have been found earlier and 4472 would have been up and running by now,

 

But isn't this just what happened with Scotsman? They put out a lot of the work to an external heritage railway sector organisation, based on a poor initial inspection. The costs then spiralled due to poor project management.

If the NRM did allow the heritage sector to restore more National Collection locos, they would still need to oversee the work and agree on (and supervise) the work that they carried out. That is their responsibility as the owner of the loco and as a national museum. I can't see them handing a loco to even a trusted/experienced railway and saying "There you go. Drop it back to us in 10 years' time."

As I understand it, Bob Meanley's report suggests that the NRM hasn't currently got the staff/experience/skills to do this at the moment. So what next? Do they stop restoring their fleet to operational standards or do they spend more tax-payers' money on technical know-how and staff?

Richard

 

The basic problem with "contract out" is that if you cant do the repair yourself you run the risk of those who can charging you more if problems are found vs the original ask/spec.....thats the clear moral hazard with outsourcing in any form of business.

Whereas if you ledn the engone for 10 years post overhaul its in the interest of the group who restore to do it properly and make a reasonable return for maintanence etc. Its worked on 777, Ollie, 3440........Not sure the same could be said for Lord Nelson. Fingers x'd its a ggod job been done on Cheltenham

 

If this is the report then I feel the expression "The mountain hath groaned and give forth a mouse" just about covers it.

 

No, Eightpot, that was just the press release unfortunately. Try this link, the full report comes as a PDF. http://www.nrm.org.uk/aboutus/~/media/Files/NRM/PDF/Scotsman.ashx

 

No Eightpot, that is not it though I did download my copy from the LNER forum.

The full report contains pretty much what was expected. Yes, the engine was in a poorer state than was thought but there just wasn't the time in the circumstances to get a thorough independent report commissioned.
In retrospect, the NRM should have put the engine on display rather than having tried to run it. Right decision to restore the A3 boiler ( they already have an A4 type on 4468) but nobody seems to have been managing the sub-contact until matters were out of hand. What were the workshop staff doing? Taking bits off the engine and then, well, losing them. The NRM did not report much in the way of progress. If you ever went to view the workshop activity you would not be too surprised. It owns, I believe optical alignment gear, and it was reported that the frames had been attended to. So why did the chassis turn up at Bury with so many defects?

Bob Meanley is right to identify a lack of skills and competence. This will not be resolved in the foreseeable future. Skilled people do not work for nothing and the museum is now in the hands of a "bean counter" who knows little or nothing about railways. This overhaul, if it is ever completed, will be the last carried out on behalf of the NRM for a long time. Any future work will not be carried out at the museum because of the need to save on the cost of employing skilled staff. It will be contracted out under the guidance of a "suitable" consultant. I would not be surprised if all engines on loan to the 5305LA and others were called back to the museum at the end of their current agreements. All assets accounted for and under low risk, low cost control.

 

I feel I must disagree with 242A1's pessimistic view of the outcome inasmuch as the revelation of the problems now offers a wider range of potential solutions. In fairnness the expertise is scattered through numerous "village" industries but whilst 242A1 sees the NRM as withdrawing from that community I venture to suggest that the best solution for the NRM is to co-ordinate these individual communities and encourage a greater degree of co-operation and skill between them.

This is the challenge emanating from the Flying Scotsman "fiasco" and the question is whether the NRM is up to / willing to resppond to the challenge this sets. In fairness the co-operation with the 5305 Group, with WCRC and Bill Parker at the Flour Mill suggests that the NRM is aware of the potential and may have been restricted in the past by bureaucratic procedures. If such is the case can Bob Meanley's report be the catalyst for change that will see the NRM become more involved WITH the Heritage Movement and adopt a role of co-ordination thast will benefit both the Movement and the Museum ?

The Challenge is there - will the NRM take up the mantle ?

 

I agree. There is a vast amount and range of skill out there in the Heritage Movement. If the NRM can draw upon this and co-ordinate it to its benefit then we could still see great things emanating from the National Collection.

 

My thanks to odd socks for direction to the report itself. However, one minor point from it puzzles me in that it is stated that the badly cracked right-hand was removed in June 2009 and replaced with a spare originating from 'Salmon Trout'. If that is indeed the case, how was I able on October 16th, 2007 to photograph a right-hand cylinder apparently being offered up to 'Flying Scotsman's' frames the best part of two years previously?

 

Part of the Problem highlighted is that there are a handfull of Bob Meanleys/ Ian Rileys etc out there and they are not exactly short of work. Its just to be hoped that each of these esteemed Gents can bring on a couple of able deputies ...

 

Latest news on Flying Scotsman

RailPictureLibrary | Blog

Following publication of an independent report last month, railway engineering consultancy firm First Class Partnerships is providing the National Railway Museum with advice regarding the completion of Flying Scotsman's overhaul.

During this consultation period some limited work is being carried out....................

 

Re: Latest news on Flying Scotsman

It so happens that I visited the NRM yesterday...I observed that 4472's front bogie, middle cylinder and left-hand smoke deflector have been removed. I would post a picture but unfortunately I've lost my camera cable!

 

Re: Latest news on Flying Scotsman

Front bogie has been out for some time and, I think, has been rebuilt.
Removal of middle cylinder. Is this something to do with fitting the new motion brackets? Sounds like another mess on this iconic loco.

 

Threads merged.

Before starting a new thread, please use the "Search" to check if there is any existing thread. It makes it much easier for everyone.

Richard

 

Re: Latest news on Flying Scotsman

How have they managed to remove the middle cylinder out with the boiler on ?.