WSRA Trustee Election Hustings

Yes! Yes! Yes! That's exactly what I have been banging on about!

Steve

 

Do you feel that the WSRA should be the senior partner in the new forum or do you feel that all the groups should have equal standing?
The Friends of minehead station if the PLC are to be believed give more to the railway than the WSRA last year surely this means that they should be a senior partner if donations to the railway are counted.
Or should the makeup of the forum be equal

 

I think it is up to the members of any new truly co-operative group to work out who is represented on such as a group and how it works. I'd like to think all groups would be represented, individually or represented as a collective. My discussions with the Plc and WSRA and others on the question of such a group suggest a place for everyone would make it unworkable. I reckon it may have to start out like that, with a view to seeking a smaller number by discussion and agreement. If places at the table comes down to "contributions", then all groups should make the decision as to how to calculate the value of the contributions. The key to success, in my view, is that the group is truly representative and truly independent, and moreover, the participants fully subscribe to the idea of shared business plans and the concept of compromise, as required.

Steve

 

An understandable question, but one that comes across as rather loaded. The "...if the plc are to be believed..." also sums up the problem - lots of assertions, and a lot fewer hard facts.

I'd suggest that all at the WSR focus on finding a way to reach a consensus, not on the constitutional minutiae (Alf shows how successful that will be in S Beds) or the micro history.

The WSRA leadership needs some change, and to recognise its screwed up. It, and three alphabet soup of organisations supporting/quarreling over the WSR then need to find something they can work on together., building trust and partnership.

The alternative is that old scabs are picked and picked, and the poor old railway you all claim to love will die.

And yes, I say that despite your comment that on the ground you work well together as volunteers.

A thought from history. After WW2, Somme wanted to repeat Versailles and came up with the Morgenthau Plan. History remembers the Marshall Plan rather better, thank goodness.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, Things are slowly moving into a positive direction. Carpe Diem

 

Several times in the past I've postulated that any heritage railway rests on four pillars:

(*) Operations: Who is responsible for running the railway in a safe, reliable and financially sustainable way - that would include both the trains, and other commercial operations such as catering?

(*) Ownership: Who should own the assets - land, rolling stock, buildings etc, including both heritage and non-heritage assets?

(*) Funding: Who is responsible for leading fund-raising, i.e. providing money over and above what is generated by the railway's day-to-day commercial activities?

(*) Governance: Who sets the overall strategic direction and policy for the railway?

It is clear from all that has gone before that, while those four functions apply as much to the WSR as any other railway, there isn't unanimity on who is responsible for each function within the "alphabet soup" - hence the issue of numerous bodies undertaking fundraising (some able to reclaim GiftAid, some not); two bodies undertaking commercial operations etc etc.

So it would be interesting to hear who the various candidates see as being responsible for those four pillars in the future: the answer to each question might be any of the bodies in the alphabet soup, or a combination, or a new body, or "I don't know but here is how I believe we should find an answer" or "an external body" or indeed anything else or a combination ... I'm pretty certain there will be near unanimity on some (e.g. the first question) and probably not on others (e.g. the last). But at some point the greater-WSR will need to think about the answers to those questions, so it would be interesting to know where the various putative WSRA trustees stand.

Tom

 

A good and thought=provoking question.

Forgive me if I number your 'pillars' 1 to 4.

1 is clear - there can only be one 'operator' on the railway, no room for many 'TOC's within one heritage railway, and that must be the plc which holds the safety case.

4 is also clear hereafter, which will be the new 'stakeholder' group which is starting to coalesce out of the ether at the behest of SCC.

2 and 3 are inevitably much more complex:

For example on 2, we have the D&EG at Williton who have (and should have) lead responsibility for diesel locos on the line. This has been disturbed this year by the acquisition of 09 019 by 4160 Ltd and its lease to the plc. That caused concern from the D&EG who were on the point of purchasing an 08 to fill the Bishops Lydeard shed pilot role which they had anticipated was theirs, only to hear 'on the grapevine' just before they committed themselves to that expense, that an 09 was on the way. Openness and discussion could have avoided that difficulty.

Also on 3, for example, legacies are much better channelled through a charitable body, for a number of financial reasons. Equally, there are plainly economies of scale if catering operations are combined or co-operate closely.

It is the structures to establish boundaries and connections, in particular on 2 and 3 which have broken down in recent years and which need to be co-operatively renegotiated. The correct solutions are not necessarily simple, and may change with time as new features emerge. An historical example of change 'for example' would be the time when 'steam driver' courses emerged. On the WSR are a direct company run operation, whereas on the Bluebell (if you still do it as I remember) they are a commercial operation by an exterior operator - Clive Groom for which the Railway charges the equivalent of an access charge. Different, perfectly workable solutions emerged on the different railways.

It is likely that there needs to be some mechanism for negotiations / discussions on 2 and 3, perhaps as an offshoot / sub-committee of the stakeholder group? In the past this was largely done by the high degree of overlap between the membership of Boards / management bodies in the 'alphabet soup'. As the organisation grows perhaps we need more formal, and well-understood structures.

kind regards

Robin

 

My observation would be that the current WSR situation is completely unworkable from a practical standpoint. Having spent the majority of my working career trying to sort out company structures and streamline them I think there is little prospect of long term peace whilst you have such a loosely bound suite of organisations with overlapping roles and unclear boundaries.

At the very least there needs to be a memorandum of understanding negotiated by all parties, and to which all parties commit setting out who does what. Further to that there needs to be an agreed forum and process for communication and collaboration. The plc needs to have a vested interest in WSRA prospering and vice versa. At present this is clearly not the case. The MOU could perhaps spell out what the WSRA will fund for the railway over the next few years. Perhaps WSRA should consider transferring the Rambler operation to the plc in return for dividend bearing shares?

Lastly I really think that you need two organisations, and two only. The plc and a charitable support group that encompasses all the charitable needs and sub groups in a single (more efficient) organisation. Groups such as D&EG are tenants and their remit is sufficiently well defined and subsidiary to that of the WSRA and WSR plc to not be an issue provided there is some form of written agreement between them and the plc.

 

I couldn't agree more.

The main point here is not - can you win the battle?

No, the point is - can you create the peace? And peace is more than just a temporary ceasefire while both sides re-arm. It's a lasting, mutually beneficial, mutually respected and valued arrangement based on shared understanding.

As someone (a politician if I remember) once said, you don't make peace with your friends, you make it with your enemies. Regardless of the here and now, I'm still not sure that all parties to this thread have bought into that idea for the future and that is what the WSR needs and deserves - a future.

 

I would beg to differ with your statement - especially my highlighted portion - on the basis that the D&EG are not simply tenants but as a body has committed its resources since the late 1970s (i.e. the early days of the WSR) to the provision of diesel traction specifically for the WSR hence its fleet comprises locomotives indigenous to the area during their BR service.

Whilst the group has not involved itself with the politics - especially in the present situation AFAIK - it has been closely associated with the PLC and merits more than a simple landlord [PLC] / tenant [D&EG] relationship. As a simple tenant I might [just] accept that its relationship is wholly restricted to the landlord and the agreements thereof BUT the history of the WSR / D&EG relationship as traction provider is greater than your presumption.

However therein lies a potential problem as identified earlier by Robin that notes there are several bodies associated with the PLC whose interests are so closely allied to those of the WSR that their contribution needs to be re-examined and the appropriate re-negotiated agreements put in place. In that context the WSRA is only one of the bodies that support the PLC and its activities but it seems unwilling (or unable ?) to accept the fact that as a supporter of the PLC its needs are subservient to the needs of the continued success of the PLC. In my 'umble opinion until the WSRA accepts that subservience it will be a destructive force that will not only destroy itself but has the potential to cause collateral damage to the WSR that many WSRA members do not wish to see.

 

I beg to differ. There's a big difference between providing support to another organisation on the one hand, and being subservient on the other hand. To adopt the latter will quickly lead to the other organisation perhaps making unworkable and maybe damaging demands on the supporter (and maybe even the railway itself). That's why I see the need for a partnership based on mutual understanding and direction, where no partner is master or servant. Each partner needs to have the ability to do what it does best and to have the support of other partners to make that happen.

Steve

 

Fred

You have identified here the key present difficulty.

Most of us think that is what the WSRA is for - that is why I joined it some 30 years ago. There might be some semantic arguments as to whether 'supporter of the plc' and 'supporter of the Railway' are different things, given that 'the Railway' in some sense undoubtedly also includes the D&EG, the WSSRT, the S&DRT etc etc as well as the plc.

At the moment the WSRA, both by (1) its constitution as an educational charity, and (2) the direction set by its present Trustees, is not acting 'as a supporter of the PLC/Railway' and that is the key difficulty that needs to be solved.

This will need some very clear thinking, open communication and co-operative discussion to sort out from where we are, with goodwill on all sides.

kind regards

Robin White

 

To answer Tom's call for comment from candidates on his "pillars", to avoid repetition I will simply say that Robin's reply matches my thoughts.

Steve

 

Err, no and yes.

I don't agree that the WSRA is currently not acting as a "supporter of the Plc/railway". I think there are a great many examples of recent WSRA support for the Plc and for the railway - as allowed by the constitution and through direction by the present trustees. I do acknowledge the negative "events" of late, though!

I do agree with your last statement and I sincerely hope all parties will adopt and maintain that desired position.

Steve

 

OK, perhaps I should have said 'not acting as a supporter as well as it might'.

I stand corrected.

Robin

 

Thank you that makes the point I was getting at perfectly. I wasn't suggesting that the D&EG hadn't contributed to the WSR, rather that their relationship was, and is, by nature very different to that between WSRA and PLC. It is in point of fact less complicated since there is no remit within the D&EG to want to affect the overall direction, governance or strategy of the railway other than where it might directly impact their activities. There is a reduced opportunity for conflict to arise. I was not being pejorative in describing the relationship as I did. What I missed of course was that the D&EG is also a key supplier to the PLC. As a result their relationship is naturally symbiotic, and it is that that makes the difference with the WSRA / PLC relationship. Unless and until the PLC can feel that the relationship with the WSRA is similarly symbiotic there will continue to be trouble. And yes I am afraid it is WSRA that will have to move first. The PLC can and could continue to manage quite happily without the WSRA, but the opposite is not the case. WSRA trustees need to wake up and realise that the deck is not stacked in their favour, and that they will have to start to build the bridge. The PLC can, probably will, and probably should wait to see if the WSRA intent is "honest". At the risk of repeating myself, this is going to take a few years to fix.

 

Following up on your thoughts, I wonder if you could put down some ideas on how the WSRA might engage with the Plc? Other than the proposed "stakeholders group", there will need to be regular dialogue between the two parties, face-to-face, on day-to-day business matters, without mediation. How do you see that coming about?

Steve

 

Forgive me, Steve, but is it not yourself that is standing for election and might come up with the suggestions? If you are not so sure how it should be done perhaps you should reconsider? What are your proposals for solving the apparent impasse?

Frank

 

Oh, I've got ideas, Frank, and indeed already have an invitation. If elected I'd like to represent other WSR folks views too, so further ideas and comments are always welcome. I'm sure you and your chums, being big on consultation, would be pleased with that approach?

Steve

 

In the Begining.................... there were about 8 of us in something called the Heavy Gang and our job was to prepare locos to leave Barry for pastures new. Then Duggy Fear decided he could get a company going to save the Minehead line and the Heavy Gang turned its attention to gathering bits and pieces. I remember well visiting Norton Fitzwarren station where BR had loads of recovered semiphore equipment and loading Harry's van to move it to Bishops Lydeard. We gathered, Duggy formed the operating company and all went well. I even found the 2 Barclay diesels at the Royal Ordinance Factory and they are still on the line. Harry kept pleading with the newly formed company to buy some locos out of Barry but time rolled on and the remainder were getting worse and worse. Eventually the 3 prairies were bought and 4561 is still there and 5542 visits regularly.
In those days everything went well and the company asked for help and the then new Association did the jobs, the company needed money and the Association helped to raise it. The Association grew and supplied all the volunteers and slowly but surely the railway started to take shape. The line was late getting going as far as restoration was concerned and the choices of coaches was restricted. I remember well the letter from the GWS saying the Minehead line was doomed to failure and they would disassociate themselves from the WSR. However, despite everything the WSR kept going and the Association played a major role in keeping the Company afloat in the 80s.
The tide slowly turned again and the WSR became profitable and has remained so.
The Association also grew and eventually became a company limited by guarantee and then a Charity. At this point the once common goals of the the 2 entities started to diverge. The Association had a commercial arm which became a wholly owned trading company that covenants its profits to the Charity. Whilst the WSR plc consolidated itself as a tourist railway with a huge heritage bias the Association built its commercial arm into Restorations and started to buy and own land. Hence the Association that once had lots of assets and low costs became a commercial animal with a large staff and high running costs. So much so that without the income from the stone trains it would likely have become insolvent.
Hence there is little wonder that the Association and WSRplc have diverged and the Association has become a big business in its own right BUT its infrastructure costs are low as it does not pay any rent towards most of its accommodation, Restorations use the Swindon Shed at Williton free of charge, they use their offices in the station building at Bishops Lydeard free of charge, they run a successful cafe at Bishops Lydeard free of charge. They run their highly successful Quantock Belle dining train and pay only a discounted access and haulage charge.
So it is relatively simple the Association has different goals as it has taken on a life of its own, all other support groups with maybe the exception of the Steam Trust and the DEPG exist to support the WSRplc infrastructure only. The Trust exists to collect and restore heritage items and the DEPG collects relatively modern diesel locomotives but does supply all the diesel power that the WSR needs.
Sadly only the Association now exists that has no direct support for the WSR it has even removed the words 'the Minehead line' and the 'West Somerset Railway' from its M & As preferring to support 'Railways of the West Country'
This, it is my firm belief, is the bit which needs changing, if the WSRA is to co-exist with the WSR it has to support the WSR and its efforts must go in that direction. All its flowery words about support the Somerset ratepayers and educating the public need tipping overboard. If the current Trustees are still in post in 2 weeks time try writing to the WSR plc and ASK what they, the plc, would like the WSRA to do in the aspect of support of the WSR and I think they may be amazed how quickly that type of approach results in a meeting. Simply stop arguing, infighting and playing brinkmanship and all will be well. Faol