S&D Railway Trust

As Tom has alluded to, the difference would probably be paid by the loco owning group as effectively a contribution to the track, civils, signalling, c&w etc that the loco has used over its operating period.
The 82045 group have taken this a step further by raising money for future overhaul(s) before their loco has even been completed.

 

Sorry but the main issue here is Washford

 

76017
Pat

 

Yes, 30120 spent a week on the line in 1958.

44123 in 1952.

41241 was at work on the Branch when very young; possibly straight out of manufacture at Crewe.

Surviving West Countries that worked over the line include 34028 Eddystone, 34039 Boscastle, 34046 Braunton, 34092 (City of) Wells (for renaming) and 34105 Swanage.

Also latterly 35011 General Steam Navigation, despite the prohibition on MNs.

 

That is a major part of this thread but cannot be entirely separated from other aspects of the relationship between the SDRT and the WSR, particularly the future of the 7F and the PLC's unfortunate habit of saying one thing and doing another.

 

I quite agree. I was just being slightly facetious regarding jma1009’s request to stop the thread drifting on to 53808, whilst in the next sentence drifting the thread onto surviving locos that ran on the S&D.

 

I'm not aware of all the details of this sad situation, but there is a nice photo in today's Telegraph of 53808 promoting the museum. Good luck with the event this weekend.

 

I thought that had already been done to death before the discussion moved on (back?) to No 53808. It doesn't look a very complicated problem: the S&DRT offer the track and buildings to the Plc at their market value secondhand less the cost of removing them, allowing for the use of volunteer labour. If the Plc buys them, they stay, if the Plc declines to buy them, they are taken up/down and sold or removed to another site for storage or relaying in the case of the S&D elements of the trackwork.

 

Indeed, and that does seem to be where the SDRTs thoughts are with this. The issue being the need for an extended lease to allow time for removal, which the WSR aren’t playing ball with at the moment.

 

And what harm, exactly, is an basically on-topic discussion (I don't think there's an 'SDRT non-Washford matters' thread) about one of the SDRT'S major assets going to do, there? The WSR's behavior about Washford continues to be execrable, but the SDRT's Board, and their legal advisor(s), who are after all, the party who are in charge of dealing with that, appear to have the situation about as well in hand as it's possible to do, given the unfortunate circumstances (and the other party) - as has previously been discussed here at some length.

Having done that, the discussion has moved on to the currently not-fully-ascertained future of said major assets; this is, after all, a discussion board!

Noel

 

Are you saying that the Plc have already declined to buy the remaining assets off the S&DRT?

 

The Plc seem to have failed to respond either to the Trust's offer to sell these assets, or to enact their own previous offer to extend the lease to give enough time for their removal. In the meantime the previous lease extension has expired.
https://www.national-preservation.c...ashford-matters.1417790/page-192#post-2691174

 

From SDRT Chairman's message to members, September 2021 .....


"the WSR has indicated to the Trust that it does not have a short term need for Washford and that it does not have the finance available to purchase the assets.

The Trust notes that a statement in the WSR’s published accounts infers that the departure from Washford is being driven by the Trust’s review of its activities, resulting in a decision to relocate its museum items elsewhere. The truth is that the Trust has undertaken these actions as a necessary first step to protecting the Trust’s position and as a consequence, and only because of, the WSR’s prior action in issuing the Notice to Quit."

 

It has been stated further up this thread that the WSR has no need / purpose for the track / buildings at Washford.

It immediately occurs to me that this is a negotiation position.

The WSR plc don't require these buildings, so therefore are not going to purchase them..... If the S&DRT leave them behind for whatever reason, they'll take them thank you very much.

 

I've not been able to locate published accounts containing such a statement, and would be pleased to learn where it can be viewed, or for the relevant extract to be quoted.

Any such inference is but one step removed from an assertion that it was the S&D Trust that first gave the WSR plc notice that it intended to quit Washford, and not the other way round. Glad I have copies of the relevant correspondence and Notice from the plc's solicitors demonstrating otherwise.

Don't you just love such Alternative Facts!

 

The document WSR Final Accounts said this:


“Washford
The position with the Somerset and Dorset Railway Trust has changed since last reported. The Board reviewed the position following the issuing of the Notice To Quit in February 2020 and offered the Trust the opportunity to consider a further lease extension. Subsequently, the Trust completed a strategic review of its position and decided to relocate a substantial number of its assets including all of the operational rolling stock to other heritage railways. The PLC now understands that the Trust wishes to leave the Washford site altogether and discussions continue in 2021 on the basis for that move and the timescale within which that will be achieved.”

Which is one way of putting it………..

 

Thank you very much for posting that extract; most helpful.

So the sequence of events is:

• 2018: plc signs a contract to extend its tenant's lease by 50 years
• 2020: plc gives that tenant notice to quit, thereby repudiating said contract
• 2020/2021: plc offers same tenant a "further lease extension"

Shouldn't have been drinking tea when I read the extract, fortunately my keyboard seems to have survived...

 

That looks very much to me like ignoring the problem in the hope that it will go away. Given that the previous lease extension has expired, how likely is it that the Plc will attempt to prevent the S&DRT trying to remove their remaining assets?

 

It is reported (by the S&DRT IIRC) that the Plc said they had no short term need for the site - which is not the same as saying they have no need for it at any time, nor is it the same as denying (as has been hinted by others) that it might be used by other members of the 'railway family'. It's all a question of semantics.....