West Somerset Railway General Discussion

One principal problem with masks can arise when taking them off after use. They should be removed by handling the ear loops and not by pulling them off the face. Touching the mask and not the loops can result is spreading the virus to anything subsequently touched if the person is infected - albeit without symptoms. This is bound to happen in many instances - often by children and those who are in a relaxed frame of mind.
I am expect railway operators will have this in mind and have all cleansing facilities available.

 

Why are you all wittering on about face masks when the WSR PLC's current intention is no re-opening till 2021?

Surely, there are more important things to discuss in the light of the Bailey Report, and the legal clock is ticking away for the SDRT at Washford thanks to the statutory 'Notice to Quit'?

Or perhaps you would like to discuss station flower beds and Somerset cream teas instead?

 

I'm inclined to say so what. Beamish and the Bluebell both do what they do very well, but so too does the Moors. What it does is different to them but no less valid for that. This variety is the beauty of the of the heritage railway scene in the UK and there is something for everybody somewhere.
Just because it does not do what you want it to do does not mean that what it does is wrong. And if it is attracting volunteers who enjoy their time on the railway their age is irrelevant. As it happens my colleagues in the loco department range in age from 16 to 80ish and there is a very healthy collection of keen and very able younger members among them. While we would all love to see a variety of LNER coaches running the priority has to be ensuring that there is a railway to run them on. Lets face it in the year 2020 any steam train is a museum piece even if it is a post war one.

Peter

 

That is assuming masks are not needed in 2021, I hope they are not. Secondly that there is an WSR to re-open in 2021.
Many, many times it has been said on NP that any discussions here have little influence on what actually happens - maybe the WSRA Ex6 saga was an exception. The comments here may be read and criticised, but little, if anything, is changed. The support here on NP for 4110 and the hope that it stayed on the WSR was immense but consider what happened.
It does appear that there are PLC plans for Washford and the WSR as a whole and comments on NP will not, I believe, alter them - as much as many here would like them to. It took five years to implement the major parts of the Coombes Report and look how that has ended up!
The WSR is changing (I am assuming it weathers the present storms and survives) and many of the present players are going to find life a little troublesome, I believe, in the future, if they are not co-operative in the new vision. We may discuss the Bailey Report but that does not imply that those who will implement it will take note or listen.

 

There are some lawful exceptions. Statutory Instrument 592/2020 sets them out.

 

Ahhhh, glad to see you are back. Now perhaps you could apply your skills in assessing the fitness of individuals to my previous question. A number of us are waiting eagerly for the answer.

To recap, you stated that receiving a leaked copy of a report somehow made the receivers of the report unfit. The question is how your judgement was applied when you last co-opted someone onto the plc board given the extensive range of information easily found in the public domain ? It would be good to understand the process that you followed so it can be considered when the WSR structure is re-built.

Over to you sir.

 

Congratulations to the WSRA on their response to the Bailey report. It’s on the website here for those who care to read it. https://www.wsra.org.uk/2020/06/29/wsra-response-to-the-paper-peaceful-somerset/

An extremely well thought out and detailed response. Recognising the need for organisational and cultural change.

The suggestions made in this response re fundraising, assets, new cross organisational governance and accountability and the eventual folding of the WSRA into the newly structured organisation is spot on. It is a clearly different stance to the pre packaged ones from the PLC and steam trust.

After many years of discontent I am proud to see the WSRA showing it’s colours as an organisation that has listened to its membership and the wider community, adapted in the light of the Combes report and is now welcoming the Bailey report as the logical next step. One can only hope the other members of the WSR family recognise that!

As a member of both the WSRA and WSSRT, I fully believe the WSRA’s route is the best one.

 

Absolutely, well said Maverick. The WSRA response is enlightening and most welcome.

 

Having read the WSRA Trustees response to the Bailey report, perhaps its time that I rejoined the WSRA. The most sensible words I have seen coming out of the WSR "family" for several years, lets hope this can develop into a firm proposal without too much division.

 

I am sure Brian you have appreciated that no Board member or Trustee is answerable to the Court of National Preservation. As has been explained many times, they are answerable to shareholders and trust members respectively. Any co-opted director has to stand for election at the first AGM after co-option, which is when shareholders may have their say. And they have done.

In this connection it is worth reminding people that the ex6 WSRA trustees were not ejected by NP. NP played a role but it was only one influence amongst many.

Frank

 

I agree. I had hoped that after the Coombes Report I would have been able to read such a response years ago, and that I might not have let my WSRA membership lapse. Like you I shall now seriously considered re-joining. My membership of the DEPG never lapsed, by the way.

 

Let's ALL draw a nice wide line in the sand and baggage up the past where it belongs.

The future is what's important now, extremely important. There won't be another chance to get this right. Please only contribute constructive thoughts to the process hereon in.

 

If you care to read back then it appears the chap concerned appointed himself as the court, judge and jury. As he was so keen to make a pronouncement,

I am sure he can speak for himself and explain how he and his colleagues carried out their due diligence, if any was carried out at all.​

 

Just to add my opinion, I also welcome the WSRA's response to the Bailey report. It does in most if not all the parts (a second read required) allow all to move toward allowing the WSR to have a future. The grant funding and culture/governance pieces are for me of particular importance (whilst not ignoring the operational, heritage, farebox & relationship issues) because the WSR has to have in very simple terms more money and more people to survive.

On first reading whilst no-doubt this way forward will need some tweaking and altering in detail (which will always be the case), this is the first set of ideas I have seen from 'the WSR' which tackle the problems and moves clearly toward curing the issues which has plagued the WSR for a number of years, which have been brought into stark relief in the last 18 months due to increasing and what appear to be ever more desperate and aggressive actions.

Time for some people now to move aside and allow this new direction to move forward. Well done WSRA.

 

Indeed. But when an individual makes robust assertions about how things should be done, it is hardly surprising that someone should seek to understand how that relates to the speaker's experience. And I for one draw some inferences from silence.

 

Lets all hope that this is indeed a new dawn, for the WSR, That petty old ego's are consigned to the bin, and mistakes made previously are rectified, and everyone can move forward together, It will be very hard, as wronged parties will need to not seek revenge on those who wronged them, and the blame game stops.
The response from the WSRA is welcome , now the WSSSRT needs to declare that it too will cease, in order for a new body to be formed, one charitable group that speaks for all , sub groups will still be able to carry on as before, but it will be under the collective umbrella of a railway wide charity. I'm not sure how this effects the S&D group as I would imagine they would also have to function with in the new charity also. But at least, having the PLC as a trading arm of the charity, means, everyone should now be pulling i the same direction.

 

As I understand the various proposals, the lease of the line from SCC would be held by the 'new' charity not the Plc, so the S&DRT would need a new lease from the former to replace the one from the latter. I would suggest that probably would not be of grate concern to them.

However....the key question relating to the S&DRT of course is - will they still be on the WSR by the time that the new structure is in place, or will the Plc have succeeded in throwing them out in the meantime???

 

All welcome.

https://www.wsra.org.uk/membership