Tornado

Presumably the usual apologists are, at this very moment, girding their keyboards to tell us that the Trust are ‘doing their best’ yet again, otherwise known as fiddling whilst the Trust’s reputation and finances burn.

 

That rather presumes cause and effect in WCRC dropping Tornado, where WCRC are the injured party.

 

The big problem is though, if the trust becomes insolvent, that means all assets will have to be sold to meet any debts, and the main asset is ?

 

I’ve no idea who is the injured party here myself, it seems to be a lose/lose to me, unless you know differently? But as the Trust are desperate for income I’d be going out of my way not to fall out my only customer if it were me.

 

As it's a charitable body I don't know how insolvency affects those - but aren't we getting a bit ahead of ourselves here?

 

I've no specific knowledge; merely observing that the requirement for apologists will arise in particular if WCRC are justified in ditching Tornado.

 

Been at work all day and just seen all the posts.

I didn't expect this to happen.

I do wonder if Tornado will now be like Scotsman is now. Nearly exclusively doing heritage line visits but with DB providing crews so the loco can move via the mainline to the heritage railways. If we're lucky it'll do the Pullmans a few times a year.

I very much hope I'm wrong however.

 

Hopefully it won't come to that, some people say, and I agree that there has to be change at the top, but there are still expenses to be met, the rent, and running costs for the new works, and unless there is a new operator, and revenue from operating Tornado, its dependent on supporters continuing to pay their money to the trust, if people walk away, then the bills mount up, even if the P2 is put on hold the bills are still there, And if those people, at the top, who i don't expect will want to leave, won't change, unless they are forced, to ie offer of money to the trust, in the form of a partnership, i so it's a death spiral, and has only one end, bills don't get paid, creditors call in receivers,

 

They say it takes two to make an argument. Regardless of where the fault lies, the A1 Trust should realise which side their bread is buttered, swallow their pride, and kiss and make up.

 

Very probably, though there are possible scenarios where I can imagine divorce is the best outcome.

 

It's only a few months since the Trust appeared (and indeed claimed?) to have no option other than the deal with West Coast.

 

Very, I was being somewhat glib. I'm curious just how deep the clauses get when both parties were desperate for each other. But if its this acrimonious, Smith will be asking if he gets a discount for bulk booking legal cases (glib mode for a second there). Neither party comes off well here and the kernel of the argument seems quite murky.

 

Does anyone know how this news will effect Tornado appearing at Greatest Gathering?

Do we think that they can quickly strike some sort of deal with DB to move the loco with them to the event? Or another TOC, or road haulage or even will the loco even attend?

 

I'd like to think it'll be at the GG (especially on the Sunday, when I'm visiting!) but after that it then will need to move to Darlington for the important S&D200. I'm sure it can be towed by DBC.

A day after the news broke, I'm now left wondering just what the hell is going on. It can't be over something as relatively trivial as the wheel flats on the support coach, surely?

 

We haven't heard of anything else for them to squabble about.

 

There is a mechanism - the resignation of a complicit and incompetent board. I’m sure that an appeal for suitably experienced new board members would be successful. The Trust’s President could manage the transition process.

 

I think both halves of that scenario are very unlikely and similarly, I think there's zero chance of a "palace coup" occurring at the next AGM.

Let's see what develops.

 

I fear it would still require the scales to fall from the eyes of the many gullible Covenantors to gain enough traction?

 

I have to agree with Sheff on this, As I understand it, please correct me if I'm wrong, but do Covenanters have any mechanism whereby they can force a vote to unseat the board, if not, then, how can change be enacted? The board will be under no pressure to resign, unless they decide they can't support the chair, Not only does the board need to change, but also the members need to have a way to hold the board accountable, and vote them out, ideally the board need to resign, and the articles rewritten with a new clause that the board are elected by the membership, and are able through EGM , and AGM, to be removed by means of a vote.

 

There is no membership. Covenantors have no powers to do anything except to decide whether to donate money. Short and curlies.