Tornado

Indeed! I’m part of the team restoring std 76077 and we wouldn’t be where we are currently without the support of our shareholders. The management team see it as of the highest importance that the shareholders and supporters are kept informed of developments. That also goes for bad news as like in recently finding that much more boiler work will be required and thus more costly. They are given news updates before anything is sent out as press releases and on social media.

 

On the contrary, is it not something they have been doing lightly and repeatedly for several years?

 

If all goes well with the mainline tests it does ease wcrc/rtc loco situation. 6 air braked locos will be on there books 45212, 45407, 44871, 34067, 34028 and 60163 plus the odd trip that 35028 does for rtc. This will probably free up all 3 5's to head to fort william for the summer.

 

Well that's my interest in Tornado finally knocked on the head. The loco is effectively going to be part of the West Coast fleet for the next 3 years and that's not something I want to be a Covenantor of.
The A1 Trust no longer seems to care about it's supporters but still keeps wanting us to put our hands in our pockets.
As @Sheff said, it's disgusting.

Dave B

 

I just hope they run some of their own tours from time to time.

Was hoping they would go back using vintage trains stock as per agreement from last year

 

I imagine that depends on the agreement they have with West Coast. I don't know how loco's they use are remunerated if they are not their own.

Dave B

 

It is, but I share the discomfort of @Groks212 and others about how Tornado has gone from a standalone locomotive owner able to hire to a range of operators, to effectively passing over their asset to another fleet operator. That's a major change.

If I were a covenantor or "club" member, I'd be pretty hacked off - this is fundamentally different to the prospect originally offered, and has been done with very limited transparency to those who've bankrolled the project.

 

So 60163 effectively becomes a WCRC loco (based at Carnforth?) for three years, which provides a revenue stream and frees up the A1 trust to get the P2 back on track. After which it presumably returns to Darlington to something akin to how it was previously operated, alongside its new stablemate? Have I got this right? Because to my mind that's not a bad way to resolve the mire the A1 Trust seem to have got themselves into. Win-win for WCRC and the trust, and while I can see that it might not be what those who support the loco financially had in mind, it does at least point to a way out and an eventual return to normality.

 

When is 45212 due in works ?

 

End of the season i think

 

I'm sorry, but this is now the economic reality of running steam on the mainline and should come as no surprise to anyone on here. Aside from Clan Line, no other single loco owning group can find the volume of work to make life viable without entering into a partnership with a TOC. It has been heading this way for a while. There has been much debate as to how (or even if) Tornado will return to the mainline - West Coast was the most likely option as the arrangement suits both parties. The A1st desperately need a high volume of work, West Coast are in urgent need of a powerful, air braked loco. Deal done, suits both parties. The loco will be back on the mainline and with RTC is likely to be seen all around the country at more budget prices - that is clearly a better option than it could have been. It will remain accessible to those who have contributed will it not?

Those who want to complain about 'selling out', need to suggest which other options were available and what they would have preferred. LSL - would be purely limited to Saphos trips at minimum £155. DB - limited to Belmond until another rolling stock provider comes on board and unable to resource a huge volume of trips currently. Vintage Trains has the stock, but not the volume of work and limited ability to resource additional trips around the country.

And as for the comment about Ukraine and USA, can we have some perspective please - this is steam locomotive, not a war where people are losing their lives. I think people are letting their emotions run away with them.

 

Some people are never satisfied

 

Agree. The options were very limited and the coaching stock situation was not of the A1 group's making.

I make the Saphos minimum fare £220 or £270 travelling solo. Also I don't think Bahamas is exclusively signed to any one TOC. But yes, the days of independents on the main line are almost over.

Just checking--- if Tornado is rostered for, say, the CME, will it be able to operate diesel-free?

 

The A1 Trust's agreement with WCRC to operate Tornado seems to have been Hobson's Choice, with no other TOC likely to be available, so fair enough.

However the announcement suggests that they are providing Tornado purely for use on WCRC's own railtours or those that they operate for other promoters such as RTC. There is no mention of the Trust's own railtours under the 21st Century Steam brand, and https://www.a1steam.com/a1-rail-tours/home now says only "New tours to be announced for trains in 2025 with Tornado", which rather suggests that none are planned.

Early in January I exchanged some emails with them with the subject line "Why should I continue to support you?" A month later I posted a summary here in post #8718. A further month has passed and I have still heard not a dickybird. Accordingly I have now cancelled my Standing Order.

 

I normally listen carefully to what you say, Iain, and I appreciate that as a disinterested bystander, I have no skin in the game, unlike many on this thread who have contributed significantly to the locomotive over the years.

However, in this particular case, (ignoring the hyperbolae about the USA and Ukraine, which is going too far) I wonder what other viable options there are? WCRC need air-braked motive power, and the A1 Trust need work, so on the surface at least there is a match to be made.

There is also the duty of the A1 Trust's Trustees, who are duty bound to work in the best interests of the Charity. That means using the charity's resources wisely so as to deliver the public benefit. The resources include a locomotive upon which a huge amount of money has been spent, but which is now, it seems, moving towards being fully operational: as such the duty of the trustees is to try to maximise the return on the money thus far expended. If that means reaching an agreement with an operator who will pay a fee, then so be it - at the very least, the Trustees are duty bound to weigh any such potential offer against what the alternatives might be. Those alternatives might include much less frequent work and / or work carried out at higher financial risk to the Trust. There is no absolutely right or wrong answer as you balance risk and reward, but the starting point has to be the Trustees deciding what is in the best financial interest of the Trust. It is right that such a decision should be made with due regard to the wishes of trust donors, but it can't be made simply to keep alive old sores.

Tom

 

Setting a very emotional comment aside, my response is not based on the recognition of economic realities - as @Jamessquared says, trustees have duties to their charity, and that may require difficult choices.

It is more the road that has been followed to get here, and the degree of communication that there has been with those who've invested large amounts. On that road, the Trust has spent large sums of money delivering less than expected, later than expected. That has compromised trust and goodwill. This deal may well be the best that is available now, for all the reasons that you cite. But the counter-factual is that this deal may well only have been necessary because of the overruns (and presumably overspends) on the overhaul, and the income foregone through not being able to run tours - doubly foregone as trust in the brand has been dented by repeated cancellations.

I am not a covenantor, and am commenting from my armchair. But the outcome of this is not just about Tornado, but the projects of the Trust as a whole. Based on what's happened, this is not a project that I would donate to - and that includes anything within it's span of control.

So I'll give the trustees credit for pulling something out of the fire, but that is scant mitigation for the fact that the Trust is in this situation in the first place.