West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Indeed an interesting document which I hope will be published in full on Steve's site

(now pubished!)

 

There is a whiff of kicking it into the long grass. ‘Now is not the time for reform’.

The decision to look at the NYMR seems parochial. Bailey seems to have become the PLCs house consultant. Restructuring as a process is always going to be bound by the local context, and I am unsure (hopefully someone with NYMR institutional memory can shine a light) how the NYMR mirrored the WSR.

I’d have thought that if you wanted to find a path you would look broadly for patterns of best practice in reform initiatives.

 

Has everyone now had the chance to read this document now available on .org I see?

http://www.wsr.org.uk/internal-for-staff-bailey-consultation-aug-2020.pdf

I see this diatribe as a holding action with the frightener being the cost suggested, can't see this going anywhere soon or in a way that might do anything other than exacerbate the current difficulties! Tell me I am wrong please

 

Surely first things first sort out the Washford issue First or is it a forgone conclusion SDRT are Leaving?

 

From their latest magazine, I conclude the Trust are leaving as the notes of the AGM state as much. Of course negotiations may still be going on behind closed doors.

 

I have read it. My polite response is it seems to have been written by some one who doesn't understand finance or the processes involved in the transfer of a business.

 

Nor someone who has thought through the VAT implications of collecting Gift Aid on tickets.

The statement about cost being the major issue, yet the potential return on investment being measured in months is also rather bizarre.

I get a distinct impression of a concerted effort to find a particularly long patch of grass. Perhaps the weeding teams might like to get their scythes out ...

Tom

 

Even in the late '90s, when I found myself 'used to best advantage' in a TOPS office after being displaced as an AFA, I found that the old manuals seemed to have disappeared from TOPS offices and that details of the old procedures were only accessible by an obscure online reference system.
Those who had learned to use TOPS in the card less era had no idea about why certain numbers of 'skip' characters ( were necessary, as they had no concept of the punch cards at all, let alone the transition from 80 column to 96 column working.

The A2 procedures were very much used at that time. But I can see why they would have been banned once CTT became the norm (or Consign Under New Tops System as one implementation manager coined it).

 

Even as early as 1976 I recall that the number snatcher at Blue Circle Nortfleet used a Dictaphone to record the MGR numbers as he walked past the train (played back over the phone to the TOPS office as a series of six figure numbers interspersed by the crunching of boots on ballast)

Since the Northfleet trains were made up at Cricklewood to 43 (later 46) MGR from sets of 30, it was not uncommon for the numbers to be wrong. Once we got into CTT it got complicated especially if the clerk at Hoo Jn had reported arrival and placement simultaneously as was the norm. I got into the habit of reporting arrival only, and awaiting the number check before placing those which had actually arrived. Cue multiple consist updates/corrections to get the correct wagons placed. Indeed occasionally Northfleet received the wrong type of coal and the whole conveyor system had to be cleared and long delays before next train could be handled.

 

The NYMR have managed to become eligible to claim Gift Aid on ticket sales, so presumably John Bailey has advocated this, but the NYMR and WSR are very different operations

 

Not at all, inflated cost is the usual weapon of choice for shooting down an unwanted project, closely followed by inflated programme, needless complexity and "Health and Safety".

 

Apologies, I don’t have details myself. I know I joined the Friends of the GCML 10-15 years ago, and that at the time there was mention that the structure of the organisations around the GCR had changed, but not really of how or why.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

“Highlighted the possible opportunity”would be a better description.

As the latest PLC statement makes clear there are a number of potential alternatives that need to be investigated. The two broad options for a charitable structure are where the charity supports the operating company or where the operating company is its controlled subsidiary. There are others including the Bluebell model advocated cogently by Tom in an earlier posting. The drawback with the first of these is that the a charity can only provide financial support within the limited scope of its public benefit charitable purposes. Precisely the limitation that the S and D Trust correctly identified.

What some of the posters on here seem to find unacceptable is the degree of control that the PLC can exert over any restructuring process. That’s because the exercise isn’t starting with a clean sheet. It can’t because the PLC owns the Crown Jewels in the form of the operating licence and the lease of the track and track bed . Its Board is bound by law to run the company in the interests of its shareholders and to safeguard those assets for them. Their consent will be needed to any restructuring so it must be right that the first step is to consult them as the “owners” of the company and its assets.

I believe it is recognised and accepted that a restructure that merely re- arranges the deck chairs would be pointless. It also has to recognise the interests of stakeholders not least those volunteers on whom the viability of the railway depends. The process must be inclusive and a consultative body like the PDG can help ensure that.

As the WSR shareholders include the supporting charities and the county council consultation means they will be consulted directly on the way forward. As has been pointed out on here the combined shareholding of those entities of less than 20% means they have influence rather than any realistic ability to direct and control. However if used constructively it can help design of a sound blue print for the future.

 

Yes, Dr Beeching never really died; just changed his name!

 

does the PLC, and whoever is chair have control of the 75 per cent shareholding that isntrecorded in the main blocks, in the hands of other shareholders, most of which are un traceable, that case, the board can use the power of those shares to do what ever it likes, as if it has a proxy on those shares, that in effect gives the board unlimited power

 

I fear this is, once again, overstated. The GWR Trust gave £250,000 to GWSR Plc to repair the landslip at Gotherington this year. The Trust's single charitable objective is "'To support and/or maintain the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway as a living museum for the benefit of the public." This seems to enable the GWRT to cover pretty much any cost it may wish to choose other than standard operating costs, and even then, I see no reason why in future a case couldn't be made for the Trust to, say, sponsor the cost of running a freight train a few weekends a year. In the past it has also helped the railway purchase some Mk1 carriages.

From the Trust's website "The aim of GWRT is ‘to maintain and develop a railway museum for the benefit of the public, buffer stop to buffer stop, fence to fence’. GWRT does not own any infrastructure or operate any trains."

And also this: "The available funds of GWRT are used to support the maintenance and development of GWSR; applications for grants are made by GWSR and affiliated groups on site and each is considered by the GWRT Board. If the request is considered to be within the aims and charitable status of GWRT, the Board will make a grant in full or in part. If an item is purchased by GWSR or the affiliated group, it remains the property of GWSR or that affiliated group but if it is sold or moved away from GWSR, the value of the grant must be returned to GWRT. Grants are subject to depreciation using standard accounting guidelines."

I appreciate that, but just because the Plc holds the "Crown jewels" doesn't mean it has to take the lead, merely that it needs to be on board with any proposed change. At the very least, it ought to be working very closely with the WSRA and others. Like I said, it would be interesting to know whether there was any WSRA input into this latest statement. To my mind, legal requirements aside for a second, actual members of the WSR are more important than individual shareholders (as distinct from bodies that hold shares). Members give a recurring donation every year, and receive a quarterly magazine updating them on the progress at the railway which they presumably are interested in. Shareholders on the other hand gave a one off donation, probably many years ago, of quite a small amount, and receive little information other than that legally required of AGMs etc.

 

I don't think so, a chair can only use the power of those shares if those shareholders appoint the chair as proxy, which isn't a passive thing. I'm sure we went over his before, someone like @simon will I expect correct e if I'm wrong.

 

The Chair casts those proxy votes for which he or she has been validly appointed as a proxy. That can be both for and against the same resolution

 

The point is that the limits of what can be funded by a Charity are defined by the public benefit purposes for which it is established. In the example you quote they are very broad but it’s not always so. In any event they have to fit within one or more of the charitable purposes set out in Charity legislation. In particular, as you identify, problems occur if the Charity wants to contribute to operating costs especially if the operating entity is loss making. Charity Commission guidance on the relationship between charities and associated Non charities has been updated recently and is pretty clear on the limits Trustees should adhere to.