S&D Railway Trust

One thing is clear. It is no good thinking about how groups such as the WSRA or WSSRT might come to the rescue of the WSR and save it from Jones Pratt and his cronies. They are his lackeys.

Of course, where the WSR is going to find the money for the lawyers and for these projects in a time of covid remains to be seen.

Needless to say, if you don't agree with the eviction of the S&DRT, then there is no way that any of three (PLC, WSRA or WSSRT) can be supported financially or morally.

 

A Freudian slip or wishful thinking ?

 

Oops! I gave up trying to write any more as I was multi-failing, I clearly didn't wrap up soon enough!

 

Thinking about it, the statement mentions lighting up Kilmersdon with a gas burner.

1. What issues does this raise, and
2. As there are adjacent houses surely this will reduce smoke emissions?

 

Why did the WSR plc not publish a detailed statement like this in the beginning instead of its"cuckoo in the nest" derogatory one?
Why did the WSRA and SSRT not own up to being "in the know" all along? It might have saved quite a few pages of discussion here and made the picture clearer. We await a detailed reply from the S&D.

 

I agree. One of the statements said certain things couldn’t be said until now for ‘legal reasons’. I wonder what has changed, legally, to allow it now.

 

Not quite. It is obvious from this statement that they see their best plan as trying to persuade the Plc board to change its stance, if they can't change its mind, on the S&DRT's eviction. They have at least got them to admit to having made a mistake with their press release. That must have taken some doing. Of course, what also must have weighed heavily with the Plc was the obvious diversion of funds away from them.

I don't think it is disputable that, if the two charities had come out in support of the S&DRT at the beginning, the result would have been that they achieved absolutely nothing. The exchange would have been brief : Charities: "Withdraw the eviction notice or we will not support you". Plc: "F*** off then, we don't need you".

There is always a tendency in life to suppose the solution to staff problems is to sack people and get someone in better able to do the job. In reality it is usually better to try and get the existing staff member to improve because 1) no-one else knows the job as well as they do and 2) there's no guarantee that anyone who would be better at the job would want it anyway. It's only when you've gone down the improvement route and failed that replacement becomes a sensible option.

Personally, I think the charities are going to fail with the improvement route, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have tried.

 

It looks very much like that the real reason for evicting the S&DRT was not any of the ones given here and these have been come up with after the event to justify the eviction under the 1954 act.

 

Apart from a change in the weasel words and a different blame game there are still the same two demands for money from the S&DRT that the Plc appears to think they have a right to demand - and a right to evict them if they didn't cough up:-

1. Yes we agreed a rent but now the company needs more money so we want you to pay more rent, now.
2. Yes we agreed to fully overhaul the loco at our expense but now we want you to pay for at least some of it..

Both demands totally ignore what was previously agreed. Would anyone on here buy a ticket for a gala and then expect to find someone at the platform gate wanting more money off you - over and above what you have already paid for your ticket? If someone drove into your parked car and their insurance covered it would you then expect to be asked to pay part of the costs of the repairs?

Words fail me.

And if, as it appears, the WSRA and WSSRT are taking the position of backing the Plc's demands then, as far as I can see, it is the beginning of the end for the WSR. There never will be 'one railway'. No one will ever again trust those organisations to do the right thing for 'The Railway'.

Please, will 5 or 6 (or even 8 or 10) of you who live near enough to easily attend STAND FOR ELECTION TO THE BOARD. It does not matter if you don't know a thing about running a business you just have to be elected, outvote the current cabal to stop this stupidity and then co-opt those that do know and who will put 'The Railway' first.

I have no comment to make about the position taken by the so called 'support' organisations.

 

How does this all tie in with the resignation of Paul Whitehouse, allegedly caused by his being told to "Fxxx off" by the PLC chairman? The assumption, in my mind at least, up until now was that Paul had raised some concerns, on behalf of the WSRA, with JJP over the proposed eviction of the S & DRT, yet the PLC statement now says that the WSRA were on board with this action from the start.

 

When you think it can't get much worse, it does, I would say that what Andy Norman has posted seems to be right, I would not lay any blame on the S&D if they were to bankrupt the PLC. and brought about the end of the WSR, The trustees of both the so called supporting organisations, have show themselves to be as bad as the PLC, in their duplicity , and I hope that history judges them harshly,

 

They're being economical with the truth?

 

That's how barrow-boys do things ......

 

Thank you those that have posted today's joint statement, and the attached "Note".

I am sure you can all see for yourselves the inconsistencies and obvious contradictions in the "Note", especially the final section, and how this also contradicts the 'tenor' of the joint statement.

I think adding the "Note" was a big mistake.

So we have a sort of 'climbdown' in the joint statement with a willingness to negotiate and arrive at a settlement so the SDRT can stay at Washford, that is then contradicted in the final section of the "Note"!

In the "Note" we have contradictory statements over S&D loco '88'; it will be repaired/ it won't be repaired; the agreement will be honoured/ it won't be honoured.

I've seen enough 'strictly private and confidential' and 'without prejudice' correspondence to know that the "history" etc in the "Note" is not truthful or honest. What a shame I can't quote any of it on here.

(As to '88', The SDRT Journal makes it quite clear the SDRT offered to pay for a new tender top (above the chassis) for '88'. I was told this before any of this appeared in print in the Journal).

I consider the WSSRT and WSRA boards have acted in a most deplorable manner over all this concerning the SDRT and the 'Notice to Evict' and their complicity from what appears to be at quite an early stage with the WSR PLC board is inexcusable, and also unrecorded in their board minutes. Nothing short of scandalous and shameful in my personal opinion.

Cheers,

Julian

 

I seem to recall that Robin Moira White talking on the other thread about how Dunster should be transformed into a country station with goods yard. Is the price for being allowed to make this happen supporting the plc?

Also, the supporting statement from the plc says "develop the workshops for restoration works" when talking about Washford. They still seem to assume that the building and track will be left behind after the Trust is evicted!

 

it is possible that whilst the trustee board of the WSRA may have been on board, Paul Whitehouse may have aired his dislike of the position his fellow trustees had placed him in, and aired some views that the Chairman of the PLC did not like, But clearly, they have all made their bed, and now will have to play their part, which, could see in time a new West Somerset Railway, in where none of those currently in positions of authority, have any part, with a completely new structure, and company, clearly now only some very drastic action will sort out this mess,

 

https://www.west-somerset-railway.c...ement-regarding-somerset-dorset-railway-trust

A very good summary if you don't mind me saying so. If the WSR is to be saved then its clear that's not going to happen from within, there are now clearly limited options to turn this around, perhaps its time to lobby external people such as SCC, Cllr David Hall and the Local MP Ian Liddle-Grainger if people feel so inclined.

On a personal level I just don't understand this self destructing lemming mentality and I'm really disappointed that the WSRA supported this from before the notice was given. It means I have been lied to my face a while back. Hang your head in shame, you know who you are.

 

I agree with both of these comments you make here.

 

What I've learnt from the statement;

- The current board are quite good at blaming everyone other than themselves, especially previous PLC directors
- They are good at making claims to events which could have only happened prior to there appointment as PLC directors
- They have either never been to Washford, or have no understanding about Washford (ref the signalbox exhibition already mentioned)
- Its ok for activities such as hand pushing wagons to take place at Minehead, but not at Washford
- Contracts made by previous PLC directors are no longer applicable

The social media comment is an interesting one. Theres always a lot of claims that this forum is doing bad for the railway, yet any posts of a WSR bullying culture style seem to always have a like from the WSR Plc chairman on certain groups. Funny that...

 

It would have been possible for the WSRA/WSSRT not to have been associated with the statement and - say simply noted its contents