S&D Railway Trust

Like what?

 

After monitoring recent events and statements ….very likely. <BJ>

 

YES.

 

I give up with this. Personally I don't give a damn and dunno why so many others do.

 

It's not the purported basis for ending the tenancy which, explained several times upthread, is that the PLC needs the site for other purposes.

Patrick

 

The WSR claimed the S&D Trust refused to pay for a new tender tank for 53808. The S&D Trust have already said they would, even though they are not obliged to do so in the terms of the loco hire agreement.

The WSR claimed the S&D Trust probably didn't want to be at Washford anyway and would prefer to be somewhere on the old S&D. The S&D Trust had a big disagreement over whether to move to an old S&D Trust in the 90s, and the ones that did split and went to Midsomer Norton, leaving those who were presumably happy at Washford, at Washford.

The locomotive they refer to lighting up with a gas burner hasn't been on the WSR in over 2 years, before the current lease was signed. If it wasn't a problem then why should it be a problem now?

The WSR claimed simultaneously in the same statement that they understood the terms of the loco hire agreement for 53808 obliging them to pay for the overhaul of the locomotive in return for getting free use out of it for 10 years, and also saying that they had no money to pay for the overhaul and didn't intend to try.

The WSR claims to want to develop the site at Washford. It has listed numerous things where there clearly isn't room for all of them. It has also simultaneously complained about he S&D Trust making their own plans to develop the site and also putting forward no plans at all.

Those are just the ones off the top of my head, from watching from afar. No doubt those closer to the action can come up with more.

 

Because it matters. We're all on this forum because we care about railway heritage. We want the WSR to be successful and we want the S&D Trust to be successful. The actions the WSR have taken, and the way they've gone about doing them, are morally wrong, and potentially legally wrong as well, and it's negatively affecting both organisations.
That's why we care. I don't know why you don't, having gone to the trouble to come on here and post several messages questioning how bad it is. The minute we come and tell you it is bad, suddenly you don't give a damn? What's that all about, other than just coming in to stir it up?

 

I think that you will find that it was the WSR PLC that was reported to the ORR for various shortcomings, and not the the S&DRT.

 

Whatever happens, it now seems that the issue is going to arbitration.

The PLC will need to make their case with supporting evidence, the S&DRT will seek to refute it and make theirs in the same way.

I hope that the adjudication is published, while I do not know if the full documents will be in the public domain, presumably both sides cases will be outlined and the adjudicators opinion on each one, based on the facts.

 

I would expect there to be a paper trail, whether a specific occurrence was reported to the ORR (there are criteria for such) or just dealt with internally.

I wouldn't expect that paper trail to be made public on a public forum such as this, but if there is a dispute and the WSR is using unsafe working practices as part of its rationale for the actions taken, then it is reasonable that they should produce that paper trail as evidence for the arbitration process - that would include specific incident reports, investigation reports, and any follow-up internal communication around re-iterating in-place procedures, or modifying procedures in the light of an incident. All of which would be perfectly normal, but the paperwork should exist.

Tom

 

I think what this statement highlights is the difference between the way the WSR has approached this matter and the way in which the S&DRT has.

It serves to highlight the lack of professionalism at the top levels of the WSR (PLC and supporting organisations).

I am curious, can people think of other examples where the HRA has acted as an arbitrator between parties?

 

It arbitrated when @Robin Moira White & others were expelled by the Ex 6 from the WSRA, that was an interesting read to say the least!

Based on what was in the ajudication decision the WSRA is lucky to exist and the restraint shown by those expelled is commendable

 

Why did you bother to post then ????

 

Just out of interest, do you also believe that if Somerset County Council were to revoke the WSR plc's tenancy on the trackbed, with the intention of providing it to a non-railway organisation, you would also believe that the WSR plc should just accept that regardless of any previous agreements the Council had made?

 

Thanks. Is there a copy of the adjudication decision somewhere?

 

Isn't it time for your medication?

 

Not true. The landlord can give notice under whatever terms of the agreement allow him to do so, but properties change hands and the tenancy goes on. The SCC could sell its ownership of the WSR to someone else, that wouldn't mean the end of the agreement with the plc and the new owner.

 

The incident with the gas heater was nearly 5yrs ago and that person is no longer with the Trust. So you can see that the WSR are beginning to flounder with their reasons.

 

I'm not too sure that I would choose the HRA as mediator in all this. I can think of all sorts of reasons why not, but the 4 obvious ones are that

(1) the WSR PLC board has already 'primed' the HRA

(2) Mark Smith is on the board of both the WSR PLC and the HRA

(3) the links David Morgan MBE has with both the WSR and HRA

(4) In complex disputes the HRA will use an "arbitrator professional" anyway

(Incidentally on 20th October 2019, JJP made a presentation to the HRA "WSR, The Journey to regain premier status" that contains a lot of detail about the ORR inspection and what needed to be done, and the only reference to Washford is repairs to the embankment).

 

So - not "within the past couple of years" as claimed in the Plc's statement? Oops....

On the other hand, that part of their statement refers to matters "brought to the attention of the Trust" (presumably by the Plc?), so maybe they waited about 3 years before doing so - hardly of great concern then, or so it would seem.

The more that one looks at it, the more it begins to fall apart.....