Tornado

".......This is a copy of the full group accounts that give the whole picture that doesn’t look bad. I’m surprised that covenanted income has increased quite substantially, a lot of contributors will be from older people so I would have thought that it would be a declining income stream by natural wastage"

We often read about this "declining number of steam enthusiasts" ie those teenage "spotters" from the 60's but this ignores the fact that there are more older people than ever before and many of the younger "oldies" have only known steam post '68 ie preserved steam. So it only takes a couple of "Legacy" sales of a house of a person, with no family, for the proceeds to dramatically increase the funds of a heritage railway or loco restoration/overhaul/creation.

 

I agree but I was looking at the income from regular Covenanters that has gone up substantially. Legacies and one off donations are shown separately

 

There are no paid directors, confirmed in the accounts (in the correct place) on page 20 in ‘Note 13 - Analysis of Staff Costs’ . One Director received fees as a contractor for work not relating his role as a director.

I assume the new director roles are voluntary, so not sure how anyone could describe is as ‘top heavy’!

 

That surely deserves some clear explanation.

 

I haven't studied the accounts at all nor am I that familiar with the corporate structure of the organisation, so treat the following as conceptual, not a description of the actual situation. But hypothetically, the "cost of fundraising" depends on how the relevant organisation is structured and how it describes its activities.

For example, suppose you had a normal company that operated rail tours but allowed an associated charity to put fundraisers on the train shaking buckets - the "cost of fundraising" for the charity would be very small. If on the other hand, the charity promoted the trains to provide a platform for it to shake the buckets in front of a captive audience of prospective donors, then the cost of operating those trains would be a "cost of fundraising" (but equally the ticket sales would count as charitable income).

To take a couple of real-world examples: The Bluebell Railway Trust has an annual "cost of fundraising" that is typically less than 1% of its income (typically a few £thousand). The Isle of Wight Steam Railway has a similar cost that is close to 50% - over £1m per year. The difference is that the structure of the two is very different: in the IoW case the charity operates trains and the surplus can be used to fund the charity's other activities. Somewhat co-incidentally, both charities show £1.27m expenditure on "Charitable activities" in their most recent sets of accounts, but have arrived there by very different routes - the Bluebell Railway Trust had £1.27m of charitable activity from £1.275m of income, but all the finances around operating trains are entirely separate to the charity; whereas the Isle of Wight had £1.27m of charitable activity from £2.37m of income but the costs of "running and maintaining the railway" and income from "ticket sales" are included in that.

Tom

 

Does building the new shed at Darlington come under charitable expenditure? It's ultimately a way of saving the trust money if they have their own, easily accessible building.

At least their last accounts show more money coming in than being spent. Same can't be said for Vulcan To The Sky Trust.

https://register-of-charities.chari...ch/-/charity-details/4004310/charity-overview

Far more spent on fundraising than actually raised!

 

Your link isn’t working for me?

 

The new building is owned by Darlington Borough Council, as is the former works at Hopetown Lane.

 

It doesn't work for me now. I think its time limited access. If you look up A1 Steam Trust on the Company House website go to filing history and its the PDF form

 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02636924/filing-history

 

Latest from The A1 Steam Locomotive Trust:

"As we reach the final stages of Tornado's overhaul, the locomotive has gone to the wheel lathe at Toton for tyre turning"

 

At last the pieces of the jigsaw are now slotting into place.

If we can backtrack for a moment to the posts above regarding the boiler not fitting by over an inch, here I firmly believe is the answer …..

Looking at the pics now coming out of Toton we can see that the lower throat plate cladding has been removed. This was most definitely in place and top coated in Darlington before deliver to LMS.



Likewise the new driving wheel tyres were turned to their final profile at the SDR before delivery to LMS.

Yet to fit the boiler at LMS the throatplate cladding has had to been removed and now the loco has been transported to Toton for additional tyre turning , explained away in the Trust’s own words today …… https://www.a1steam.com/tornado/news/tornado-details/tornado-tyre-turning-at-toton

“The locomotive has had new tyres fitted during this overhaul, and they are at maximum size. With Tornado’s boiler now fitted, we better understand the clearances needed and can turn the tyres to our exact requirement to minimise wastage”. [My bold]

Do the Trust really expect us to swallow this? There should be no need to turn the tyres further, and hence zero waste of metal or cash.

What are the costs incurred in transport and machining, and by exactly how much has the life of the drivers tyre been reduced?

 

Things are beginning to make a bit more sense, now. Were the clearances twixt boiler and wheels that close on the original A1’s?

 

Could it be that it’s as simple as someone saying “with the meat on these forging, we can turn on these tyres to 6’9”, why not get the extra wear allowance?” only to find that the tolerances all stacked up to make it not work?

 

Find it a little difficult to understand how it used to fit but does not now, unless ; what QLD says is right, or the new foundation ring is somewhat wider and the outer firebox has been made to fit. Don't see how the boiler barrel can have changed... the only other factor is that she is sitting lower on her springs than before...?

 

Steve, I honestly don’t know.

I’ve been through all my dozens of pics from when I’ve cleaned her and there’s not one of that interface unfortunately.

 

Interesting theory, though a novel one in my experience. Same boiler, frames and wheels. Been apart and back together before. Why would you fully dress and paint the boiler if you knew you it might not fit (frames or loading gauge)? Plus all the messages I got a few weeks back saying that they’ve found the boiler doesn’t fit.

 

This blog post gives a hint of what's been done to the boiler at this overhaul. If they have had the foundation ring off and possibly also had chunks cut out of the throatplate at the boiler corners, one can see that it wouldn't take much distortion/weld pull whilst putting it all back together for what look to be pretty a tight boiler/wheel clearance to have disappeared.

https://www.a1steam.com/tornado/news/tornado-details/forging-not-cutting-corners

The easy solution in the short term to this being to turn a chunk off the tyres would account for it's trip out to Toton. I think Sheff is along the right lines, and it does explain the flurry of posts about the boiler not fitting a few weeks ago.

 

Easy to say, not so easy to do with a huge lump of steel in one location and another huge lump of steel somewhere else. Despite careful measuring up it's only when you put the two together that you discover that there's clash of a few fractions of an inch (or a few millimeters as the case might be).