Tornado

When the KWVR did a deal with Ian Riley for 45212, the terms of the agreement were not made public. I would suggest that only a few senior people on the KWVR know the details.
Loan/hire deals are agreed all the time for locos for varying lengths of time and with various conditions attached. None of these are made public.
It would therefore be highly unusual (and not best business practice) if the terms of the A1ST/WCR agreement were made public.

 

Then don't be surprised if funding dries up.

Does best business practice fit the works of the trust of late? The number of missed deadlines and promised then cancelled appearances would not be accepted in my industry, or many others IMO

 

Nor mine - in fact it'd be a fast track to never being employed again.

 

The point is not the terms of the deal - commercial confidentiality is entirely reasonable.

The issue is about how this deal fits in with the strategy of the A1SLT, and especially how this once admired organisation can get back on track after an appalling couple of years. And that is assuming a best case scenario that all of the hard work done at Wansford has fixed the issues well enough that, when given a full check at Carnforth, no faults are found that undermine the expected use under this deal.

 

"How the world works" isn't (in other places) that people give you free money with no financial reward or return (or expectation therof). I would say if our business didn't keep it's funders fully informed I wouldn't be in business very long as I'd have no funding. See also our insurers. If the A1SLT choses to get it's funding from the general public, it needs to keep them informed.

I'd also point out it has neither (fully) maintained confidentiality, nor has it made full disclosure of circumstance.

This isn't "we demand to know every detail of the arrangement and we are objecting becuase we don't have it" its "we fear this is a poor bargain chosen for poor reasons following some unexplained issues that have not been explained fully and openly, and that those who fund the trust deserve better and to be given confidence the trust is following its self-proclaimed standards and goals".

Like all contracts, it lools great the day it's signed, but it won't be until some way in that the reality of the bargain will be known.

 

There are many times when there are good reasons why details of a deal or contract and/or the rational for the decision cannot be shared. At this point trust in the leadership is needed. Is it perhaps the case that the leadership has lost the trust and that that is really the issue?

 

I suspec ty that now Torndos at 10A, you won't hjwear anythibg about it

 

It is. And the real question is less "why've you done a deal with 10A" and more "how are you going to ensure that Tornado operates sustainably in future after the right hogsnorton* of the last overhaul?"

* - copyright G Fiennes, esq.

 

Any good PR person will know where it is worth spending their time and energy to respond to valid questions. Their job is to inform and persuade a wide audience of stakeholders and customers, not get into arguments with a handful of people who appear to have an axe to grind with the organisation.

I seriously wonder what the A1 Trust's PR person would need to say on here to get a reasonable response from others.

 

How many promised gala appearances did the Grange miss before it finally appeared? Doesn’t seem to have harmed the owning group as the loco is in demand and finding work, even from the railways that missed out initially.

 

Would you consider my question to the Trust "Why should I continue to support you?" (supported by quoting post #7178 from this thread) to be a valid one? After waiting two months for an answer, on Thursday I emailed them again to tell them that I had cancelled my monthly payments. Their reply came the next day, but I have only just seen it as I was away riding on trains over the weekend.

 

Not as many as Tornado?

 

So what?

 

So the Grange people have less to apologise for.

 

Funny that, isn't it?

 

Why do you think that makes a difference?

 

O would the opposite, that that is poor PR management. Saying what people want to hear will eventually catch you out - the response to @MellishR 's email shows a total lack of interest in anything other than his cash.
The PR of the trust to date has been a mixture of denial, distraction and silence.

 

But 'what is the deal' is exactly what Bikermike asked, hence my reply.

 

Now that you've actually cancelled your payments, it will be interesting to see if the Trust does contact you with any information to try to persuade you to restart your payments. I suspect not.

 

Where did I do that? (With apologies for self-quoting)
"This isn't "we demand to know every detail of the arrangement and we are objecting becuase we don't have it" its "we fear this is a poor bargain chosen for poor reasons following some unexplained issues that have not been explained fully and openly, and that those who fund the trust deserve better and to be given confidence the trust is following its self-proclaimed standards and goals"."