Tornado

I don't disagree with the general thrust of that comment, but would just point out that the Trust did stop using UKRT as their tour promoter and set themselves up as 21st Century Steam, though I don't know how many tours they actually ran before the overhaul started.

 

Looking at the accounts, the item you highlight is the write off of a loan made by the charity to Tornado Steam Traction Ltd (which is the entity which operates the loco), a provision also having been made the previous year - see Note 3 on p.16. It appears in ( ) in Note 20 as it is a deduction from the Restricted Funds (as is the expenditure item above it).

Note 1.6 Fund Accounting is a bit enigmatic as it says in line 1 that "Restricted funds" are available to spend on any activities that further the purposes of the charity and then in line 3 that Restricted funds are donations which a donor has specified to be used for a particular purpose, which concepts appear to conflict. Then it has a concept of "Designated funds" which are "restricted funds" [sic, with a little "r"] which the trustees have decided at their discretion to use for a specific purpose - which could be read as overriding the donor's wishes. May be the Restricted funds in line 1 and line 3 of 1.6 are different concepts and perhaps they need another defined term?

I agree that the overall concept of having everything as restricted funds is a bit weird. Not all funds arise from donations for instance so apparently defining them as such cannot be correct (I suspect the language is wrong). The final sentence of Clause 20 is also puzzling, what the Chinese would call "horses' mouths don't match cows' heads" - it refers to reserves but the table largely refers to funds, but this is probably just sloppy drafting.

 

I’m sorry but they had my money because I wanted to see a P2 running, Tornado doesn’t really interest me, it’s just Blue Peter with big wheels. If they do can I have my money back?

 

I agree that note 1.6 is confusing, though I think it would make much more sense if the first word were "Unrestricted". (As in "Unrestricted funds are available to spend in activities that further any of the purposes of the charity. [...] Restricted funds are donations which the donor has specified are to be solely used for particular areas of the Trust's work or for specific projects."

I've always understood "Designated" funds in a charity to be unrestricted, but created to make the management of funds (rather than the accounting) easier on a day-to-day basis. As an example, suppose a charity has an unrestricted fund, and then wishes to carry out an activity for which it thinks an appeal would be successful, but it also wants to start on the activity at a particular date and is unsure if the appeal will be fully successful by that time. The Trustees might "designate" a sum sufficient for the project from their unrestricted fund; and then launch the appeal. As the restricted funds come in from the appeal, they release the designated funds back to the unrestricted (general) fund; but when it comes to the point where they have to spend money, if the appeal has raised, say, 50% of what is needed, they can still go ahead, using the designated funds to fill the shortfall. In effect, they have used the unrestricted fund to underwrite a project for which there is a specific appeal. The designation really just serves as a reminder that (perhaps temporarily) the money isn't available for other projects: in effect, serving as a reminder that the same money can't be committed to multiple future projects.

Managing the finances that way does require a substantial unrestricted fund, which is one reason that I find it strange that the A1 Trust seems to operate only with restricted funds. But - assuming their definition is the conventional one - that appears to be how they choose to operate.

The key legal point about restricted funds is that they have to be spent according to the donors' wishes - for funds raised from an appeal, that would depend on the precise wording of the appeal, but a reasonable stance to take might be that if you hold an appeal to buy new cylinders for the P2, those monies raised can't be spent on the A1.

There is one other technical point about restricted funds, which is that - as far as I am aware - they cannot be counted as part of a charity's reserves in respect of its reserve policy. For example, a charity may decide that it needs to maintain, say, £100k of reserves to enable it to continue meeting its outgoings if there is a decline in income. Since the restricted funds cannot be spend on any activity, the reserves have to be in an unrestricted fund to enable that flexibility - another reason for thinking the lack of an unrestricted fund is a little odd looking. I think what the sentence at the end of Note 20 is trying to say is that there is sufficient distinction between P2-related activity and A1-related activity that, in the event of a downturn in income, the business of the charity can be maintained by using money from the A1 and P2 restricted funds while still maintaining adequate separation that money drawn down from the A1 restricted fund only goes to support the A1; and money drawn down form the P2 only supports the P2. (But which fund pays the electric bill?) It almost seems to makes more sense if conceptually you treat the A1 and P2 as entirely separate charitable entities that happen to share a single registration!

Tom

 

Just a point of detail about Restricted Funds. The constraint is not necessarily about the donor’s wishes, important as they are. It is also the case that if resources are placed in a Restricted Fund, they cannot then be used for any other purpose without certain, highly onerous, requirements being met.

There is then an overlap with appeals, where money raised in an appeal, even if administered through a restricted fund, has to be used for the specific purposes of that appeal unless the appeal explicitly states what is to happen if there is a surplus or the appeal fails.

From a church chair of finance just back from a committee meeting…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The coffers are by no means empty, perhaps this is the reason why an air of complacency about the situation seems to persist...

 

Like others, I’m not sure what the perception of continuing antipathy between the Trust & WCRC is based on? As I posted many pages back, the Trust’s chairman’s company has been involved recently in the development of Mr Smith’s Aysgarth Station

Update: just read that WCRC have purchased Riveira’s fleet of stock, inc 2 rakes of CDL fitted air brake only Mk2’s ….

 

Clearly it will involve another company that has A: A steam safety case, and B: rolling stock,
and there are only three Vintage trains, WCRC, and LSL , But first, Tornado will have to pass its tests , and be accepted by whoever operates it,

 

Gloucestershire & Warwickshire Railway?

 

Siding 51a in box tunnel, you might have to shunt out several 8f's a handful of Granges, and 5 9f's or you could just take the whole lot to Darlington

 

Tornado is still outside the shed at Loughborough, but it appears to have been having some work on the regulator valve(?) as the steam dome has been un clad.

 

Has Tornado moved from the GCR yet please?

 

Not yet, was back in the shed when I was there yesterday.

 

Not yet what please?

 

Not left the GCR yet

 

Remind me: where's it going after the GCR?

 

Tyseley, for mainline testing then to NVR mid October

 

I suspect that will rather depend on how long it turns out to be before she leaves the GCR....