West Somerset Railway General Discussion

The very least they (The WSRA) could do is say why?!!

If I were a member I would most certainly want to!

 

A bit like Brexit then!!

 

Concerns over conflicts of interest was cited as the reason.

 

Very interesting perspective Ken

You did not mention that it was Robin White who as the then Chairman of the WSRA who acquired the coaches better known as the Chicken Sheds along with 6705 from the US

Had Robin and the 10 come up with a Comprehensive Plan for the Restoration of these Carriages and not gone on about the Shareholding and Amalgamation with the WSRA they might just have prevailed at the AGM!

 

I presume you mean WSSRT rather than WSRA. I think it unreasonable to say the ten should have had a comprehensive plan for restoration of the carriages at that stage. They did say they were committed to the project, and wanted to help move it forward in new ways that might actually achieve something. The fact that it was Robin that initiated the project in the first place shows how daft an idea it was that the carriages would be forgotten about under a merger.
And the reason they went on about the amalgamation was because, well, that was their raison d'etre! The way I read it they didn't specifically want to be trustees of the WSSRT, (they said they'd stand down after the merger), they wanted to reform the WSR and bring the WSSRT along as part of that, and saw standing for election as the best way of achieving that.

 

I was looking around to see if there was any news of the work funded by the £863K CHRF grant, which all has to be complete by the end of March, now four and a half months away, and all I could find out was that, by the 4th of this month, the Plc had set up a committee to organise the work. I do hope that some of the activity shown in the photos on Steve Edge's blog is spending some of this money, but if so, why not keep everyone informed? Spending big money on the railway is exciting, it is cheering to see the progress being made, what's not to like?

 

I suspect a good chunk of that money will quote easily be swallowed up by costs that don't necessarily produce photos of work being done, paying bills and the like.

 

If that is the case why not give the plc the credit for finding this more acceptable path?

 

acceptable to whom though? See, any way forward will be shouted down by the various factions, who all agree on what they don't like, but can't on what's right, because it involves the " outer side" so no matter who may want to start the process, it will hit the wall of the various powerbases those in charge have set up, to protect their own little empires, for instance, the WSSRT hates the WSRA, or those in charge of it, The WSRA hates the PLC, Or those making the decisions at the moment, whilst the WSSRT don't mind sitting in the shadows, offering the PLC its support to keep the fight going, on the grounds of we hate the WSRA, even though the plc has done some despicable things, such is the hatred , how will it end ? Only by members realising it has to stop, that in some cases their management are not working for them, but themselves, for example, ideally, it needs a whole new set up, a new charity, without any of the influencers from either of the other two, it needs a new company , again, with a whole new board, with people elected to office based on their professional, and personal experience, not on because they will back me, or they share my vision, because that vision may not be right for the line.

 

Much was made of Chris Austin and David Baker resigning from the WSSRT as a result of the consequences of the GDPR breach where immediate action was not taken to rectify the issue. (One trustee actually proposed that it would be addressed after the AGM and the correspondence escalated way beyond what could have been achieved through prompt action.) Matters culminated in a statement that those affected did not wish to involve the authorities but prolonged inaction would leave no other option. The 10 were portrayed as bullies who had caused such distress that health issues resulted that prompted their resignations.

Companies house shows a very different story. Both gentlemen are recorded as having stood down on September 23rd. Answers on the back of a ballot paper please.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/01079916/filing-history

 

It all adds up to the present board of the plc being out of their depth. The WSR needs competent management, whether in the form of a plc doing its job properly, or in the form of a single charity running the Railway effectively. Neither seems likely to happen any time soon. I really hope that I am wrong, and I am open to persuasion. Preferably not by a roll around on the platform - I'm a bit old for the school playground!

 

How odd. What were they doing at this meeting then? And why not mentioned at this meeting? I'm presuming it's down to some finickity CompaniesHouse procedure rather than anything else, but it does look odd.

 

Frankly, none of those currently in charge on the WSR, The PLC, the WSRA ,the WSSRT come out of the recent events with any shred of decency, maybe the WSRA might, but only just, at a time when the railway needed to come together, to pull in one direction , what did we get, we got the saga of Cuckoo's, We got the silence of fellow board members, of the railway family, we got lies said, later proven to be lies, we got open warfare between supporters of the PLC, and others, , We got an orchestrated campaign against people standing on a ticket for change, by those fearful of change, aided and abetted by the PLC,
right now, the only way I can see forward is if something bigger than the feuding parties were to happen, that put the survival of the line on a knifes edge, Then and only then would sense prevail.

 

As the filing was on the 6th of November I suspect a clerical error in the dates. It was over a month between the resignations and filings. Non Story

 

Fair enough, I'll go for cock-up over conspiracy every time. What isn't a non-story though is that Chris Austen was already planning to stand down this year, and re-purposed his planned resignation for political ends. That seems rather underhand to me.

 

They would still be members so that's fine. If they were no longer directors then another question is why would someone who was an ordinary member invite the 10 for suitability interviews ? The invitation emails were dated on or around September 28th with the sender using a job title that they no longer held.

A good effort Rodders, click on the pdf and you will see that November 6th is the processing date however the effective date is the one that counts and that is the date declared by the WSSRT.

 

I hear & read lots of things people are supposed to be doing but until happens who knows

I refer you to the answer in #35214

 

I refer you to the document.

 

How long does a company have in which to make such filings? The gap between 23rd September and 6th November is suspiciously long, and also suspiciously convenient given that voting forms all had to be in for the 7th to be valid. As @Snifter says in #35216, it is the effective date that counts, and on which they ceased to be directors.

 

The HRA have attempted to (and continue to) address such issues via a series of seminars as can be seen from the following link
https://www.hra.uk.com/presentations
One of the issues is however, the turn over of management staff at railways (either from elected roles failing to be re-elected when their time is up, or other causes).
How many of you have worked in an enviroment where you no sooner get a new manager trained in the best way to do something (i.e. your way! ) than they leave and you have new one to train up.
It's an ongoing process and even without the specific seminars, the HRA meetings are great place to meet your colleagues from other railways and share knowledge and experience.