West Somerset Railway General Discussion

bear in mind that you can probably do two round trips on GCR in the time it would take to do one on WSR - because it's less than half the journey distance

 

I believe the NYMR return fare is £33 so it compares quite well in my book.

 

£35 for an on the day rover ticket for a steam gala might sound a lot, but it's only £7 more than the normal price for an on the day rover ticket and for that extra £7 we get a more intensive timetable and a lot more locomotives in steam.

When considered alongside some other leisure days out it's quite good value. One of my friends is a football supporter and will happily pay about £50 for a ticket to watch his team, and that's just for a couple of hours entertainment not a whole day I hear that a day ticket to the Reading Festival is about £80 (not that I'd even want to go to either whatever the ticket price!).

(Oh, and I'm not a local.)

 

As an aside there is a legal ‘IOU’ process imposed by a court. I’m not a solicitor and can’t give legal advice so this is only my opinion and it would not be fair to involve this particular case so only to pick up on your point generally without reference to anything that may currently be happening here.

It’s a useful thing to know in life for anybody and it’s certainly helped me in the past in companies I’ve worked for. I’ve been involved in my commercial life with instances where somebody is threatening legal action with financial stakes and it’s easy to get worried about it, but.

Before going to court if there are financial consequences for either side a Court if asked will apply a ‘Bond’ on the person/company bringing the action (only the company bringing the action, not the respondent). Because as you mention hypothetically if a Court found either that the case was not proven in which case the legal costs /compensation of both sides would fall on the company bringing the action or if the case was proven then the ‘betterment’ costs would be large for the company bringing the action so win or loss there is a cost on the company bringing the action.

Courts do not of course like IOU’s they are worthless so a Bond (real physical money or assets) has to be lodged to the court in advance by the company bringing the action to a level of the potential costs in total if they lose (or win in this hypothetical example). In simple operational terms as a Solicitor once explained it to me: “this process stops 'chancers' threatening to use the legal Court process on thin evidence to get their own way”. It’s a legal way of saying “put up or shut up”.

The additional way the Courts stop at lot of cases wasting their time is to usually ensure an independent mediation process is gone through before action can be brought.

As I say just general comments bearing no relationship to happenings here and I’m sure both sets of Solicitors in this case will be briefing their respective Clients according to the full facts.

 

Although that is true, there is the point about the Trust getting Lottery money, and that having been conditional on their having the long lease. If in fact the PLC can terminate the lease, then the Lottery people failed in their duty, which would be a serious concern in its own right.

 

Didnt the WSR consider 5542 too small? And now they're moaning its no longer on the line as they now have a lower weight restriction and could make use of it again?

 

But they now regularly use a 57xx on the ex Minehead diagram.................

 

Quite right too. Before this was brought in, I and my work colleagues were sued by our previous employer who saw us as potential competition and decided to use the courts as a means to shut us down. They failed, and eventually withdrew from the action. We were awarded costs, but, by this time, they'd asset-stripped the company that had brought the action, so there was no way we would get our costs back.

 

Also isn’t 4561 now being overhauled?

 

Yes, but then hired 5553 not long after. This is the gift that keeps on giving, just a shame they're sharing their dirty laundry constantly...

 

Didn't the WSR have to pay any penalty when pulling out of 44422 and 6695 agreements?

 

I can't answer that, only those owning groups can, but the WSR had spent heavily on them, I believe, and were in no position to claim that expenditure back, so I suspect the owners settled for a clean break on that basis.

 

I may be wrong, but I don’t think an agreement for 6695 was ever signed. There was a proposed 25 year agreement but it was never finalised due to the WSRs issues.

 

Fortunately 44422 and 6695 have found homes that are keen to have them running again, we can be glad at least for that.

 

I think most people will understand that any action on this matter from certain corners within the WSR 'family' will have to happen in private; but it's very good to hear this from you, with its implicit inference that something is indeed happening. (A most lawyerly statement, BTW!)

Noel

 

... but wouldn't most of us prefer 53808 to continue working on the WSR? A big loco needs a decent length of track to work over, and a line where it will get plenty of the work.

 

Security of costs orders.

Upthread a poster stated the impairment charge in the accounts of £142,437 arose from the 44422 agreement. The annual report said the contract was terminated immediately on an amicable basis.

Patrick

 

And of course the £142k loss was as has been indicated before as a result of a decision to terminate 44422's contract early made by the current management. However the £142k was also a part of the reported £806k loss which was of course blamed on the previous management. As I've mentioned before the devil is always in the detail !!

 

Are you saying the decision to terminate the agreement for 44422 was irrational? I had understood that a number of expensive issues were found during the overhaul which may or may not have been known about by previous management.

 

I'm maybe misunderstanding, but surely Mr Bunch actually receives nothing from the Swanage agreement apart from seeing his locos run? Swanage pay to overhaul the locos and then the steaming fees that would normally be paid simply stay with the SR. Mr Bunch wouldn't receive anything?

Keith