Tornado

Actions will speak louder than words so, if positive, by appearance on tours. If negative, I fear by a deafening silence - from 10A per usual practice, and from A1SLT in line with their recent approach to proactively engaging their supporters.

 

If it works tours it passed, if it is sent back it did not.

 

The current team have proved they are incompetent to manage an overhaul. What chance have they of building a new one of different design? If I were the client I'd be pulling the plug.

 

So it’s good news that you aren’t the client.

 

Who are you defining as the ‘client’? Essentially it’s the equivalent of DIY?

 

The "client" he, she or they being those who provide the money. In this case the covenanters, donors or whoever else provides their cash. If it were a genuine business they would be the shareholders. If the business is being run incompetently you stop throwing good money after bad. Sometimes railway enthusiasts need to take off the rose tinted specs.

 

Okay. Well I think my views are well known in that case!

 

The railway preservation movement as a whole only exists because of those rose tinted specs. If we applied hard economic fact to our volunteering, we’d pack up and go and do something else

 

Only one group is ever likely to complete a P2 so if you are desperate to see a P2, then I would suggest staying with the project, irrespective of ups and downs, is the best bet.

 

That's fair. But it also asks a would be donor to place their trust in an organisation that's exhibited very significant flaws in recent years, especially that those problems will be fixed, and allow delivery of the project as specified. The evidence from members is not encouraging.

 

And it will look lovely in BR Green

 

You forgot the '/s' from your post... I hope

 

Looking to the future, and especially to the P2, The trust needs to regain trust, and support, and I can only see this coming about by the chairman announcing an independent review of how the trust is being run, and an engineering review, with the appointment of an established engineer to oversee the Contruction of the P2 that is independent of the board, and that Mr Davies, announces he is standing down, and that in future the trust will be split, one side to run the works, including looking at how to market the works, attracting other engines etc, and engineering who's remit is the construction of the P2 an operational arm who oversees the operation of the a1, and P2, on both the mainline, working with a chosen TOC, and preserved railway use. and proper power given to the membership, by donations being turned into shares, and an elected board, that is answerable to the membership. funding and memberships to be overhauled, so those who support the trust, are given accountability of those who run the trust on their behalf.

 

The only way to answer that question would be to ask all of the donors not just the small handful who post on here

 

We can't know what the silent majority think, but why might they believe that all is rosy?

 

A new P2 would look lovely in any colour.
Tornado was/is a magnificent achievement.........and a P2 will be likewise.
Oh for David Elliot to still be with us and Mark Allatt working his magic.

 

After visiting DLW in January, we have to hope that David left plenty of drawings and thoughts on the Inside Valve gear details.
That is an engineering project all of its own.

 

From much experience of heritage charitable volunteer organisations (albeit from the regulatory/funding side looking in) a key problem I've witnessed time and time again is when its clear to the outsider that root and branch reform is needed to get things back on an even keel those at the top are rarely willing to give up their hard fought importance/control to allow such change.

 

Go ask them.