Tornado

It's the complete change in stance from the previous trustees that has annoyed people. It should be about give and take - we'll take your money and in return we'll give you information. There's very little of the latter. Have they even officially said the reason the loco is out of service is because the grate is knackered and the fire can't be dropped in an emergency?

Delay after delay, yet the begging letters still arrive. It's been three years since it was withdrawn for overhaul that was intended to last six months and there's still no entry into service on the horizon.

 

Non covenantor here, but someone who has changed his support of organisations because of governance issues.

Having watched Tornado as it approached completion, and kept a bit of an eye on the A1 Steam Trust since, I've noticed a significant falling off in the quality of communications - completely independently of posters here. The nadir of this was last year's "will it, won't it" about Tornado getting to the NVR when it was clear that reality and the Trust's communications were in danger of losing touch with each other.

What comes across here, and elsewhere, is complacency. People have risen to positions and, for whatever reason, aren't of the calibre of predecessors. Unfortunately, the reaction is to circle the wagons and say less, and share less, which is creating a vicious circle of falling trust. I've sympathy for those exposed in this way, but they need to respond by stepping up and engaging with the challenges, not flannelling.

If I saw the same about the 2857 Trust, I'd feel the same.

 

The Trust could make life much easier for itself if it issued regular new bulletins, as it used to. This requires infinitely less effort than replying to individual enquiries, made in the absence of requested information. It's the Trust that's making a rod for its own back.

 

I've put my money where my mouth is in the past, to the tune of a five-figure sum both personally and through my business. Look at my signature, which doesn't even mention the items I've 'bought' so to speak if you don't believe me. Mandy Grant was bl**dy brilliant at twisting my arm at the old Allatt-led roadshows, as was Gemma. I could be swanning around in a nice motor car instead but no, I donated the money freely to a project I had great faith and belief in.

My patience has finally worn out, hence my putting my money elsewhere.

 

There's a word for that in the social media world...

 

With respect I don’t think the A1 Trust can be directly compared with other locomotive owning groups. In addition to the Trust I’m a contributing member of three other Societies, their constitutions are as charitable societies where members can attend an AGM and vote for the Committee or trustees who are all volunteers. The A1 Trust has no members, we are all contributing supporters, there are no powers to vote out any of the Trustees so we have to accept the decisions taken and social media is the only way of bringing any pressure on the management of the Trust. The business plan was fine at the start and a lot of us put in four figure sums and covenanted regular contributions but it did rely on trust between those at the top and those putting in the money. There is a now clearly a breakdown of communication and that needs to be addressed quickly or the whole business plan will collapse, one only has to look at the annual salary bill to understand that. Currently there seems to be an unbelievable level of complacency at the top. It will be a long road to rebuilding trust that the likes of Mark Allatt generated by his infectious enthusiasm

 

Only 7 years? I’d hazard a guess that most of the complainants on here have, like me, been funding the Trust for 20 years or more. We’re not fair weather, fly-by-night trainspotters, rather we’re dedicated supporters who helped get this loco built, and some of us have also turned out to physically volunteer in roles including loco support, stewarding or sales etc. We were a tight-knit enthusiastic bunch with a deep love of the loco binding us together.

The bar was set high, but the professionalism of the Board back then saw us through to success, and we all hugely enjoyed those years. The last few years in contrast have been a total disaster, promises made, deadline after deadline missed, the loco being almost systematically degraded, meanwhile the public and hire customers were repeated being left disappointed and in some case out of pocket. This will have poisoned the market once the loco finally gets back on track (I’m optimistically assuming we’ll resolve all this before it goes bankrupt).

So the information vacuum continues, though I read in the press that Davies has plenty of time to act as a paid consultant to Darlington Council for the Rail 200 event. Perhaps he needs to take a long hard look at his portfolio and decide if he can really manage both his company and the Trust competently (never mind his additional distraction of the regular Trust & armed forces related photo ops - which he isn’t so reticent to publish).

I’m aware of a fundamental defect which appears to be the root cause of most of what’s gone awry since the repaired boiler was mated with the frames, but I’ve kept quiet in the vain hope that the Trust would finally enlighten us, but it looks like months on that’s never going to happen.

They used to post regularly on here, but that’s another avenue now closed to us too it seems.

I’ll sleep on this, give the Trust the opportunity to clear the air ……

 

“Only 7 years”….Well I’m sorry such a small contribution is such dissapointment. I can’t begin to wonder why it’s so difficult to get the younger end involved in things like this, when their small contribution is so meaningless!

 

I don't read it that way - but as comment from a very long standing contributor about the depth of his commitment, and what it takes to lose it. See also @The Green Howards and reference to the sums he has put in over time - giving that I suspect has been sacrificially generous.

These are loyalists, and they're leaving - that should worry the Trust.

 

Another non-covenanter here, but a regular observer of evasive answers at work. The story over the overhaul is so obviously missing bits as to ensure I would never wish to put any serious sums in their direction.

The advertised premise with Tornado has always been "we aren't like the other amateurs, we are the professionals and we will deliver. Trust us". Frankly I am preferring the amateurs.

Ad a learning point for the trustees (if you want one), I would pour a stiff drink and re-read the patriot thread, for (1) the signs it was going wrong, (2) for the honesty (even when it upset some people) and (3) for some of the "this would never happen to the Tornado project" hubris.

 

'Hubris'.

A word that describes the behaviour of the A1SLT to a tee.

 

Others have responded to the rest of that post, so I just focus on that sentence. In May last year I told the Trust that I was minded to stop my payments. Answer came there none. I contacted them again recently and had an immediate reply from the Office Manager "I will forward your email to the Council ( as I did your earlier one). I will request that a member of the Council contacts you directly". That was a week ago. I live in hope.

 

What sort of response were you hoping for?

What could they say which would make you change your mind?

Did you in fact stop your payments?

 

I am entirely open to whatever they may have to tell me. I will decide whether to continue or cease my payments in the light of what they tell me. If I hear nothing within a reasonable time I will cease.

 

Meanwhile... are we any closer to knowing if this Q&A session with Davies et al actually happened?

 

Probably one of those where you get prepared answers to carefully preworded questions, not the questions you actually had in mind to ask.

 

Political answers.

 

There seem to be statements taken well beyond "frowned upon"-indeed as though they authoritative - in connection with boilers.

The one that still takes me aback is being told about a small replica was that you absolutely could not use the boiler to provide any structural strength. Given that there is no difficulty in keeping running, or reboilering a traction engine, where there is simply no frame wether between any cylinders on top and the crankshaft or the wheels underneath at either end - AND if it is a ploughing engine a big sideways strain taken under the barrel from the winding drum pulling big furrows over on heavy soil - I was astonished and it echoes with me still.

Cured me of dogmatising largely about boilers and given me a lifelong interest in them ever since.

 

LMS were working on her yesterday but looks like they were on a lunch break when I took this.

 

Its a magic wand they require, i hear.....