Tornado

And others - myself included - are seeing an awful lot of fund raising going on into a project that seems quite unclear about where it's going.

Which takes us back to a starting point - donors are a customer of appeals, and if customers lose confidence, they will move away. That is a slow process, but can suddenly accelerate as a tipping point is reached, after which hindsight asks "how on earth didn't this look like it would fail".

Those commenting wish Tornado, and the A1SLT well; the frustration is that it seems impervious to change and is repeatedly undermining it's own credibility.

 

Nail. On. Head.

Something has been touched on upthread that seems to be getting ignored: that technical problems were appearing even with the 'preferred' team in place. I refer of course to the ill-fated "Ebor Flyer" and that ever since that incident, it has never been run at 90mph again despite the requirement for that being an apparent raison d'être for 60163. Which is a pity because until it shed its motion, it was running beautifully at that speed.

 

You're very good at criticising others on how they run their projects.

Whatever *you* do with their emails, I don't see Tornado or the Vulcan rusting away. I don't think they're wringing their hands at the prospect of trying to continue without your financial contributions.

You have every right to stop contributing to a project - but constantly criticising what they've done (in hindsight and without knowing all the facts, to which you have to right to know) doesn't look good.

Maybe find another project which you can support, which suits your particular requirements?

Sent from my SM-S911B using Tapatalk

 

I do - as a trustee, in two places (but not in heritage rail). I know whereof I talk, and I know these things are hard. I've been on the inside of failing projects, and their turnarounds - and seen both the paths to failure, and on from failure.

I am not demanding to know, or debating, precisely why A1SLT chose a specific design of boiler, or opted for ETCS, or whatever - those are choices and decisions that were made at the time.

My observation, in response to repeated pleas of "nothing to see here" or "you're delaying us seeing what we've come to see", is that the governance and communications are key. A sequence of decisions that come out poorly, and a repeated sequence of promises broken, suggest something is awry - and getting worse.

Unlike some, I'm not after blood, or wholesale change. I was active elsewhere in seeking to achieve change, and have gladly gone quiet as those elected to achieve change go about their work, the elections being I hope and trust enough to nudge the organisation towards a viable rather than unviable path.

 

All this pounding on about how inept and incompetent the A1 team are. I'd have thought the answer was quite simple. Sir Ralph wedgwood and Martin 1656 for Chairman and Operations Manager and it would be problem solved. It would be run to perfection, everyone would be happy and the money would come pouring in for the P2 project (not to mention the V4) and the problems with the boilers would be sorted overnight.

 

You forget The Green Howards for public relations officer too

 

Talking of the Vulcan, XH558 isn't rusting away just yet, but give it time. It's dumped at the far end of a disused airport next to a sewage works. They had enough money in the bank to build a basic hangar but wanted £4.6m to kit it out straight away as a super duper visitors centre, rather than simply getting the airframe under cover.

It's a good example of how not to run a charity. Their accounts make appalling reading - 2022 saw them spend more on advertising alone than all their income streams combined!

Then there's the Canberra they bought which was essentially airworthy, but now also sits abandoned next to a South Yorkshire sewage works.

 

As I’ve pointed out before the trustees are the only members of A1SLT and so even if I wanted to stand for chairman there isn’t a route to do so as the A1SLT is currently constituted.

 

There is I feel a pattern appearing in the heritage industry. That is that it expanded in the years when national lottery and other money was available fairly readily. Now that times have changed and the “donor” generation who had the emotional connections to support many of these projects are becoming older, and post covid maybe less likely to be involved, the industry has no longer the resources it expected/became used to. (And I don’t just mean money, skills and enthusiasm too). Some re-trenchment is inevitable I think.

 

So there is no annual election of officers?

 

Who would be the electorate for such an election?

As far as I can see, if you sign up as a covenanter to one or other of the various appeal funds, you get certain benefits, but you don't become a member of the company, and there are no formal democratic rights conferred, i.e. specifically, you don't get a vote at the company AGM. You aren't akin to a shareholder in a normal company.

That's hardly unusual. We frequently have discussions on here about electoral processes in various heritage organisations; and have argued long and hard about the ability of members to push an organisation in their preferred direction against the wishes of the board. But the frequency of those discussions shouldn't disguise the fact that many heritage organisations aren't even membership organisations in that way. Historically that has never been a problem provided the directors / trustees are widely perceived by their stakeholders to be leading the organisation in the right direction in an effective manner. But for an individual, if you lose that perception, you don't have much of a route to change except to walk away.

Tom

 

And, for an organisation, the risk is that the organisation has locked down the safety valves if there are issues coming from below.

 

I would not touch it with the proverbial pitchfork, because, I know my limits,
My view is this, It needs to be allowed to pan out for things to happen, if it leads to ruin, then some people will have been proved right, What I feel is troublesome is that those funding the trust, have no say in decisions being made, they have to hope that those tasked with running things make the right decisions, Covenanters can not influence a board that isn't listening, the only thing they can do is to stop their funding, and hope it creates a situation where those on the board start to ask, how did it come to this? but there is no guarantee they will. Hindsight is all very well, but we are where we are, there does come a point where all you can do is to turn away, and hope the collapse doesn't destroy everything, the inpact will effect the P2, because at the moment, there is no income, only expenditure, and no other income, other than what people give them, and the over spend on Tornado, will mean Prince of Wales will take longer by the time its done, George will be the one to name it,

 

Correct. The board appoint its own members. They also appoint the management committee (if that’s the right word) who run the operation.

This may explain to some extent why we are where we are.

I would like to see at least one Covenantor elected representative on the board. I imagine they would need to be of particular strong character to avoid being cowed by the current regime though.

 

Given that the Trust seems to be all at sea, the words seem quite appropriate.

 

Thanks for putting a smile on my face

 

Steam test passed....ready to go...

 

Fantastic news. I think we can assume this is the soonest a boiler inspector was available, so Nene Valley was always going to be difficult.

Let's hope for some trouble free mileage accumulation now which will start to lower blood pressures a little. Interesting to note she is heading to Tyseley for mainline tests and certification - definitely a clue for future train operations south of the border.
Doesn't solve the Aberdonian trips, where I think stock is more of an issue than operator. Nobody has responded to my query regarding suspected issues between 60163 and West Coast - is there actually evidence of this? There was no issues operating her prior to withdrawal so why should anything have changed? If she is still avaliable for West Coast there is a lot of work to be picked up with RTC, Pathfinder and West Coast themselves for a powerful air braked loco. It would be crazy for both parties for the loco to not be able to work with them.

 

And there's movement!

https://x.com/60163_Tornado/status/1826924659020832769

 

Good. I sincerely hope that the testing proves all has been put together well, and there is no snagging to undertake.