West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I agree but it does not, in anyway, justify spending even more money on a project that already has significant cost overruns. Since you feel so strongly why don't you fund the cost of making it suit your views?

 

I have already been in touch with @Roger Thompson via a PM to discuss a way forward. I doubt much more of value can now be said publicly.

Robin

 

Here we go again...... WSR squabbling.
Thought this had finished with the WSRA thread.
When I look at this thread I look for interesting facts, news and discussion etc and not the same old same old from the same old person.

 

I agree entirely with your sentiments. The one joyous aspect over the recent Festive Season has been a complete lack of pointless comments from certain arm chair occupants.

Sadly the Festive Season has ended with the arrival of Epiphany and once again pedantic arm chair occupants are at their keyboards.

Personally I believe that the much ado about the pitch of the roof and barge boards is a strong waft of wasted oxgen and keyboard tapping. The building looks good, is skilfully constructed and presents a sight that will be appreciated by most of the WSR's punters who are not railway architecture purists.

There is no need for apologies at all. The building is up and all that now has to be achieved is the raising of sufficient funds to pay for the building as is. Perhaps Roger Thompson could advise readers of this thread of a method , if they so wish, of making donations towards the current financial shortfall.

Jamie Glover.

 

I agree. You should be castigating those who are being pedantic about the pitch of the roof not me. I said right from the start "What is done is done" and my position remains the same. I am not the one advocating altering the pitch. It is an absurd idea. As a railway we need to spend money on important things not on correcting minor aesthetic errors.

 

Just as well a few folk took a slightly different view on 3.1.71.....

Robin

 

If some-one were willing to fund amending the roof to the historic profile, then fine - there can be no assumption they would make the same offer for something considered 'more important' by others. If they were to make that offer, then it must be assumed it is 'important' to them. Of course, if they realised in advance that they would might attacked by a vicious minority for their proposed generosity because that minority presumably would have preferred the money spent on the building being replicated in the first place to be spent on something they were personally more interested in, they probably would be discouraged from making the offer.

This is the nature of charitable giving and precisely why a Charitable, educational Trust can do things which the operational PLC could never justify as a high enough priority to divert scare resources to do.

Part of the joy (and also frequently cause of conflict!) in our hobby, like so many interests, is the wide variety of forms it can take. This means that what appeals to some people sufficiently for them to give financial support will not appeal to others, nor can be assumed that the same financial support would be available for a different project. Hence, it is perfectly possible and indeed healthy to have a number of appeals on the go at the same time because there is a sizeable amount of 'WIBN' funding that can be encouraged for the 'nice to have' work but which would not be on offer for different 'nice to have' projects.

Steven

 

For those of you who have, as a result of the discussion in the last 24 hours, kindly contacted me and asked how they can contribute towards FoCHS funds to help cover the £10K shortfall in the cost of the Goods Office, the only way at the moment is the old fashioned one of sending a cheque to the Secretary of FoCHS. I will provide her contact details by PM to anyone who contacts me and asks for them.
However, I am going to propose to our Treasurer that FoCHS sets up a PayPal account to receive any donations which folks want to make, and I am hopeful of specific fundraising initiatives being announced later.

 

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the WSRA though they did, under the EX6+1, eventually, and reluctantly contribute, originally having said it was "A non heritage project". What exactly is wrong with different views being expressed?

 

Nothing, it's just the way that you express them!

 

Roger

As this is a heritage project why don't you ask the Association to receive the donations and thus claim Gift Aid? There would be a restricted fund for that purpose. We need teamwork!

Paul
Chair, WSRA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Thanks, Paul, I hadnt thought of that. I will talk to the FoCHS treasurer about it.

Sent from my Lenovo TAB 2 A10-70F using Tapatalk

 

Here are 'close-ups' of the three: Stogumber original, Crowcombe original, Crowcombe new...

Robin

 

Now we are cooking with gas!

Jeff

 

In the application there was reference and photographs of the Watchet and Williton buildings, as the heritage aspect within curtilage of listed buildings was essential to the application I thought that was the design that had planning granted by the council.

.

 

That's because I am from Yorkshire. Up here we say as we see it with no parsnips!

 

The approval was as per the application drawings. It seems a classic case of nobody noticing until it was too late. The lesson is to scrutinize any future planning applications carefully.

 

Yes, so unfortunately, I suspect that before any corrections could be made, a new application or an amendment to the existing consent would be needed.

 

Yes it would.