Total Destruction Order (TDO) Scrapping Process

[CStock04]

Can someone please explain to me the process of total destruction order agreements placed between ROSCOs and scrap companies?

Where would the contract start and finish? after the complete smelting and reforming of the metal, or once the shredding process of the rolling stock has been completed?

 

[158747]

I have heard of these so called total destruction orders before, is it even a real thing. What would be the point, the trains get destroyed in the scrapping process anyway and it’s not as if we are talking about the disposal of top secret military hardware or anything like that, just the disposal of redundant obsolete railway rolling stock.

 

[Sonik]

I have heard of these so called total destruction orders before, is it even a real thing. What would be the point, the trains get destroyed in the scrapping process anyway and it’s not as if we are talking about the disposal of top secret military hardware or anything like that, just the disposal of redundant obsolete railway rolling stock.

I would guess it's to contractually prohibit the stock (or parts thereof) being sold to be put back into service, which the ROSCO wishes to prevent for competitive reasons?

 

[bramling]

I would guess it's to contractually prohibit the stock (or parts thereof) being sold to be put back into service, which the ROSCO wishes to prevent for competitive reasons?

This can’t be the full reason, as TFL do it as well, and there isn’t really much likelihood of LU stock being used in competition.

I was always given to believe that in TFL’s case its out of concern of residual liability issues in case of any hazardous materials getting into the public domain, presumably mainly asbestos.

 

[Sonik]

This can’t be the full reason, as TFL do it as well, and there isn’t really much likelihood of LU stock being used in competition.

I was always given to believe that in TFL’s case its out of concern of residual liability issues in case of any hazardous materials getting into the public domain, presumably mainly asbestos.

Ah OK, thanks.

Either way it seems likely the main intention of the contract is to prohibit further re-use of the vehicles or parts, albeit motives for imposing this may vary.

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

I have a vague memory of Woodham Bros. charging a fee (payable to BR) on each sale of a steam loco to preservationists as the BR contract forbade them being resold as locomotives. If true, it means BR connived at (and benefited from) a breach of contract!
Maybe someone with a better memory than mine can give us the facts?
Pat

 

[RailWonderer]

This was used by Heathrow Airport for the class 332s when they were scrapped.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I have a vague memory of Woodham Bros. charging a fee (payable to BR) on each sale of a steam loco to preservationists as the BR contract forbade them being resold as locomotives. If true, it means BR connived at (and benefited from) a breach of contract!
Maybe someone with a better memory than mine can give us the facts?
Pat

I've no clue on the facts, but "breach of contract" whilst it may be technically true, is perhaps a bit strong. As described, the contract is between two parties (BR and Woodhams). If there's a clause in the contract preventing onward sale, BR charging a fee to "look the other way" and not enforce that clause is reasonable. It's also fair that Woodhams would pass that fee on to the purchaser. Sure, there's an argument that they (BR) could have done so without charging a fee, but overall it was a good thing for the preservation movement that they were at least open to allowing it. Unlike the current situation where vehicles are simply shredded within days of arriving at Newport: No Ifs, No Buts.

 

[Bob Price]

I remember one Swindon works open day you could pay a few shillings and help yourself to whatever you could get off a scrap Warship. People turning up with screwdriver and spanner sets.

I would guess TDOs are to ensure release from public liability issues.