Boiler inspector convicted

[alanstepney]

The following might be of general interest:

Competent person failed to properly inspect railway locomotive boiler
24 May 2010
ORR/14/10

A jury at Chichester Crown Court found Anthony Sidney Reen guilty of serious breaches of health and safety obligations following a successful prosecution brought by the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR).

Mr Reen who worked as a boiler inspector / competent person and traded as Steaming for Pleasure, has been fined £750 and ordered to pay £1500 costs.

ORR’s prosecution followed a complaint from the owner of a steam locomotive, who bought it to restore. During the restoration, it was given the guise of ‘Ivor the Engine’ from the children’s television series and was then made available for hire.

Mr Reen inspected the boiler between November 2006 and April 2007, as it needed to pass several safety checks before it could enter service. ORR’s investigation found that when Mr Reen inspected the boiler it was already in a dangerous condition and shouldn’t have been allowed to operate without suitable repairs being carried out, followed by certification by a competent person.

It was Mr Reen’s responsibility as the competent person to ensure a high standard of inspection and not to expose others to potential dangers. Mr Reen failed to discharge these duties.

Mr Reen has been found guilty of failing to comply with the duty under section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc 1974 Act.
Mr Reen has been fined £750 and ordered to pay £1500 costs.
The defendant was a self-employed boiler inspector and traded under the name Steaming for Pleasure. His specialist field was the examination of railway locomotive and traction engine boilers operating on heritage railways and in other heritage areas.
After his various inspections through November 2006 to April 2007, Mr Reen gave the boiler a clean bill of health, deeming it fit for service. In August 2007, after being used by several heritage railways, the locomotive failed an examination by one of the hiring heritage railways due to defects with the boiler which Mr Reen did not detect. Steaming for Pleasure subsequently made a further inspection and noted the defects but claimed they were caused by use of the locomotive from May through to August 2007.
Subsequent examination of the defective areas of the boiler revealed that the firebox inner copper doorplate, which Mr Reen stated was 11.2 to 12.4mm thick, was in fact as thin as 4.2mm in part. This is approximately a third of the thickness detailed on the inspection report given to the owner. Further, some of the copper stayheads on the firebox side had lost up to 80% of their ‘heads’. Grooving (erosion) at foundation ring level on the steel doorplate was approximately 50% and had not been reported upon. Finally, there was a failure to properly examine all of the boiler fixtures and fittings.

(SOURCE: www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.10096 )

The NTET, in their report on that topic state:

Since the conclusion of this court case however, it has come to light that this 'freedom to adopt the spirit of PSSR 2000 rather than have it enforced' may be dissolving as the HSE is now thought to be reviewing its stance on 'hobby steam' in whatever guise it appears.

(Source: ntet.co.uk/news.html#conviction_boiler_inspector )


If the NTET statement is correct, it may, repeat MAY, impinge on the model boiler rules. Until more is known, it is pointless to speculate.

[gwrfan]

Very interesting article, Alan.

And it's always the same. The so-called 'professionals' who spoil it for us amateurs. It's just the same as the 'cowboy builders'. Most of us could do the job better and more safely! When you depend on someone to certify a job as 'safe', then you expect just that. Very worrying.

[ettingtonliam]

Hmm.
Old Glory magazine this month seems to be supporting the boiler inspector. Without knowing all the details and seeing the boiler its hard to judge.

Richard

[alanstepney]

I've been watching this topic closely.
(As some here will know, boilers and the regulations and testing of them is an interest of mine.)

Whilst the court has ruled, and, one assumes, had the evidence to do so, many experienced people both engine owners and other professionals, still have confidence in Mr Reen and in his work, and have said so publicly.

Like many things, perhaps it is not as clear-cut as would be assumed by the headlines.

[Laurie_B]

The conviction was also reported upon in the Heritage Railway magazine.
The Office of Rail Regulation found that the boiler Mr.Reen had examined and deemed 'Satisfactory' was in fact in a "dangerous condition".As posted above,Mr.Reen had stated in his report that certain plate thicknesses were much greater than was subsequently found,apart from other failings.

It does bring,to my mind,the question of competancy of self-employed/independant boiler inspectors.The major insurance companies who carry out this sort of work,all have comprehensive quality assurance systems in place.This includes surveyor training,extensive technical standards,surveyor audit proceedures and so on.Plus these companies are backed up financially and legally in the rare event of things going wrong.

But,in comparison what quality assurance can independants offer?They simply do not have the resources.A lot of heritage railways and some model engineers too like to use these independants as of course they are much cheaper as they do not have the overheads of the big insurance companies,and this seems to have been accepted in the past without too many questions being asked.

Let's hope that the case of Mr.Reen was very much a one-off.