WSRA Trustee Election Hustings

I'd hate to be seen as negative here but there a number of "facts" stated by Ken that could well be debatable, which could mean we go round (again) in circles and yet more pages added to this thread, so probably not helpful at this stage. We need to move on. I think what Ken might have done better was to simply written his last few words "ask what...the plc would like the WSRA to do [to] support the WSR." which is the starting point I have already suggested and therefore an approach that I fully agree with. When the WSRA has that answer from the Plc, it can then take the next steps to start formulating a fresh strategy.

Steve

 

Invitation to what Steve? Of course we're all pleased to be consulted, and recognise that that is a step forward, but as I said yesterday on another forum, consulting on a blank sheet of paper is surely not the way to move the discussion forward. If my local MP stood up and said "send in your ideas and I'll have a think about it" I wouldn't feel too confident about voting for him. (Having said that, I'm not too confident with my MP even when he does have ideas, but that's another story!)

Frank

 

I only read this thread on the few occasions when I have nothing better to do, there is nothing else remotely interesting on NP and nothing on the telly. Yet it is developing a horrible and addictive fascination, like watching a dreadful disaster in slow motion- I know I shouldn't, but can't help it! What now concerns me is whether the various protagonists can keep the thread going for a further 13 days, until the dreaded meeting!

 

Hi Steve, thanks for the reply but if you are going to quote me please do just that, "ASK what they, the plc, would like the WSRA to do in the aspect of support of the WSR" as the meaning has been slightly shifted. If you wish to debate the facts please email me kenefd@aol.com. Faol

 

Just to show that we in West Somerset are still civilised people (!), I thought that forum members might be interested to know that a group of individuals in WSRMAG met with some WSRA Trustees in an informal meeting yesterday evening to exchange views and understanding. No bones were broken and no chickens were harmed in the course of the discussion. The meeting was at the invitation of the WSRA Trustees and we are grateful for that. There is no point in giving a long report of the discussion, and in any case almost all of the matters discussed have been aired at length in these pages. Further it is certainly not for me to report the WSRA views. But my personal conclusion, having listened carefully to what was being said, is that, as Faol implies, this is a structural problem. I am now even more certain than I was that all the individuals in this unfortunate situation are acting from the best motivation. Yes, of course, some are more diplomatic than others, and some resort to what are seen as more devious ways to achieve their objectives. But, in my view, nothing much is going to get any better until there are some clear structural changes, and the first step in this might be for the WSRA to produce a strategic plan for consultation, which doesn't seem to exist at the moment.

Frank

 

Dear Frank,
I wish I could sum it up succinctly as you have but between us I think we've hit the nail very firmly on the head. Will it drive in or will it bend only time will tell. Live in peace is my new motto. Ken

 

Perhaps surprisingly given that we are 16 pages into this thread and a large part of the 90 plus on the WSR Developments thread also cover this subject, in effect the crux of the issue has started to surface in a new and clearer way the last few posts:

"Who (or what) constitutes "The West Somerset Railway""?

There have been a number of statements which clearly see "supporting the West Somerset Railway" as meaning "supporting the PLC", whilst I don't think I am in danger of being told I assume too much to say that is clearly not how the present WSRA Board sees it!

This must be a common conundrum in the heritage railway movement, as the most common (though not universal) structure is an operating Company (often a PLC, but not always) and a membership organisation (sometimes a charity but often not). Whilst each set of circumstances differ (mainly due to the extent of the membership organisation's shareholding in the Operating Company differing from 100% in some cases to around 10% in others), would the question even arise on many lines as to "which body is the X Railway?"

The basis of the problem here seems to be that both WSRplc and WSRA see themselves as being the one body that constitutes the West Somerset Railway. As an outsider, I would suggest that to those not as closely involved, The West Somerset Railway is the line and the way it operates and preserves itself - or, put another way - it is a partnership of all the parties involved.

Clearly, for some time, it has not been a Partnership as differing parties aim to have the upper hand or jokey for position. I cannot help but conclude the whole Freehold issue came about as a result of such positioning and has clearly made matters much worse, but, as I have said before, did not cause the situation - rather arose from it.

As for a solution, I would tend to agree with the poster (was it 21B?) who said a major restructuring is necessary and, like that poster, having worked with business structures, could make a suggestion that I am pretty sure would increase agreement overnight - everyone would hate it!

It is very pleasing to see the reports of the Railway continuing to run successfully and decent financial results being reported by both main players. Let us hope that the near warfare behind the scenes continues not to affect the success of the West Somerset Railway. Disquiet being visible all too easily happens and people, perhaps unconsciously, can all too easily take out their frustrations with other parts of the organisation by being less co-operative than they may be, seemingly obvious to the effect on the fare paying passengers of them scoring points over other factions - I trust and hope that the West Somerset Railway is not suffering from this.

However, longer term, competing visions and time spent battling each other will affect the development and growth of the Railway. Supporters will take their efforts elsewhere, time will by swallowed by politics and the Railway will suffer.

This issue needs sorting - and nothing I have seen from some of the main players tells me there is any great will to sort it - merely to grind the "opposition" ("anyone who dares not agree with my view") into the ground.

I said early on and will repeat now - if either party "wins", the West Somerset Railway will probably be the ultimate loser. Whether either party likes it or not, each is an organisation holding valuable assets and contributing to the overall West Somerset Railway experience. They need to come up with a means of ensuring they can do so in Partnership and not competition.

Steven

EDIT - Frank posted while I was typing, but it sounds like a tremendously positive move and one focused on a future way to improve matters rather than the perceived rights and wrongs of the past (and present).

 

Semantics, I suggest, Ken.

Steve

 

I have put down my thoughts on the way forward and put many a word on here and elsewhere too. Far from a blank sheet of paper as well you know. But always keen to hear from others.

Invitation? From the Plc. To discuss the work of building bridges, of course. As we were discussing at that part of this thread.

Steve

 

Good news. I'm glad you seem to agree the WSRA needs change and to produce a strategic plan, which is exactly what I have been suggesting for some time now. Whilst we have our differences there is indeed a lot of common ground and common ambition.

Steve

 

Chaps - particularly those who are or might become trustees soon. One Railway - One strategic plan, please, shared with all stakeholders in the railway. IMHO the easiest way is to leverage all the work already done on the plc strategic plan as a starting point. It's still capable of being amended. When there is ONE plan then the stakeholder group or forum or whatever it is can review the plan and look at how well they are staying on track. Again this does not mean the plan cannot be amended from time to time by group agreement, the best plans always are.

 

Mushroom management at the WSRA needs to stop. In the last year I have sent five polite emails to the Chairman and Mrs. Kaufmann asking for information. Not a single one has been replied to, or even acknowledged. The problem is getting the existing trustees to radically change their attitude to the PLC and the membership. Sadly there are some very inflated egos amongst them. Unless these can be punctured little progress will be made. Also the underhand tactics used by the existing trustees needs to stop. Unless, and until, those two things happen little or no progress will be made.

 

I think that first the WSRA needs to ask itself the following questions, and have thorough answers...

1. What is the WSRA purpose really?
2. IF the answer to no.1 is some variation of "support the WSR", then the question has to be how can WSRA add value to the WSR family? What is it that WSRA is better positioned or suited to than any of the other organisations?
3. How can we provide evidence to the rest of the WSR family that we add the value (or could add the value) we think we can?
4. What behaviours, attitudes and approaches to each member of the WSR family work best?
5. What actions could we take to demonstrate our "true" intent? (I would suggest identifying some quick wins as well as the longer term items. A quick win that would demonstrate a different approach might be for example paying rent on plc buildings used for commercial purposes).

Fundamentally WSRA needs to show that it can bring something to the WSR family of value, and the indications are that many feel that it hasn't brought enough value in recent times.

 

And if the answer to 1 is not "support the WSR? It seems to me that those presently in charge of the WSRA see their role as "controlling" the WSR, by whatever means available, whilst WSRplc just runs the trains on a day to day basis under the strategic oversight of the WSRA.

 

I think it is ok for the WSRA to desire a role in setting the strategy of the WSR if they are going to contribute to it, and in proportion to the contribution they make.

WSRA Trustees I think need to realise that the plc can manage without them if it wants to, and that at the moment there is little incentive for the plc to do more than merely tolerate the WSRA, and in fact as far as I can see they don't even have to do that if they don't want to. Starting from that point is important in plotting the way ahead for the association.

I feel I should emphasise that I am an outsider, and I can only offer observations (intended to be constructive criticism) as I have no knowledge of the characters or insider information. That may be an advantage of course.

 

Thanks. I think your questions are fair. My take on the answers are as follows.

1 The purpose of the WSRA is quite clear and has been stated many times over, and its purpose is to support the railway.
2 The WSRA does not consider itself better than other WSR organisations. The value it adds has already been stated over and over (grants, revenue for example)
3 The evidence is there for all to see - for example, coaching stock, locos, infrastructure, triangle uses, stone train revenue to Plc, revenue to Plc from dining train.
4 The WSRA as a charity has advantages to the railway - I see this as an opportunity for others to help to exploit for the benefit of the railway
5 I do subscribe to the view that the WSRA needs a clear, agreed, shared strategic plan. That will need dialogue with all parties. Quick wins are fine and I believe the WSRA are quite willing to discuss changes, but, it needs dialogue which doesn't seem forthcoming.

So really the value the WSRA brings and can bring to the railway are there for all to see. All it needs is a willingness to sit down and work together to hone the sharp bits that are causing problems. Like other candidate trustees, I busting to get in there and rectify that situation.

Steve

 

For an outsider you have been very perceptive. Only a minority of WSR volunteers are actually WSRA members and a significant amount of the WSRA's revenue comes from the stone trains that the PLC could cut off at any time if they wished to. A major benefit to the WSR has been the construction of the Norton Triangle that allows rolling stock to be easily turned. What does not seem to be common knowledge that the WSRA own little more of the triangle than the land the track sits on. The track and the ballast actually belongs to Network Rail until the end of the ballast dumping contract ends when it will become WSR PLC property. Perhaps the biggest mistake WSRA members made was to convert it to a registered educational Charity. This was promoted as essential to the future of the WSRA but has actually not brought the benefits that were promised. Unfortunately the charitable status limits what the WSRA can do. Of course they do have a commercial subsidiary but the accounting for this is not as transparent as is desirable. It would be very difficult to convert the WSRA back to the previous position. Nevertheless it should be given serious consideration. It is lamentable that the WSRA no longer supports just the WSR and this has been forced on them because without it the WSRA would be unable to justify their charitable objects to the Charities Commission.

 

Posts in the other WSR thread suggest that the WSRA is not a big player as far as the PLC are concerned. They said as much to the Somerset CC in one of the FOI pdf's. A prior post also detailed the financial support given by the various organizations connected with the WSR: the WSRA was the lowest contributor it seems. Add the free facilities (sheds/offices/cafeteria) they receive it suggests they should be giving the PLC far more financial support than they are.

In order for the PLC to be interested in meaningful dialogue it seems that the WSRA has, in the first instance, to restore the trust that the PLC probably once had in the Association and offer more support in accordance with the aims that, I am sure, most WSRA Members believe they pay their dues to achieve. The two threads here caste a great deal of doubt, in my view, that this is what is actually happening.

 

With respect, it is not whether you can answer those questions - and I think you have not answered question 4 at all - but whether you can convince the WSRA at large to take on the challenge of truly reflecting on these questions and coming to a considered view after a period of reflection that will really count. Anyway, if you or the rest of the WSRA want whatever assistance you think I can give pm me.

 

In common with similar groups nationally,The Association constitutes two main groups.

The majority support the railway and the Association only through their subs, various appeals etc,and in return receive the quarterly magazine/other benefits , which helps to keep them involved.Quite often, they take little active role in the AGMS or the voting process. Their interest and financial contribution is however invaluable.

A second very much smaller group comprise those who volunteer on/for the railway or WSRA in many different ways, committing time, energy, and finance,possibly family/ domestic life. A group which is now clearly dissatisfied with the sole communication with the trustees being the magazine or AGM, and feel explanation to them on the freehold issue or consultation on their views on other matters have been minimal.Hence the current unrest.

Once the dust has settled after the AGM,and in the off peak system, a brain storming session with members may be fruitful ,further developing the WSRAMAG discussion paper, examining the various issues that have surfaced here and elsewhere. e g what are our aims, how do we develop them in the future,what do we do well, what needs improving, and so on.
I have volunteered on the WSR nearly thirty years on the footplate and loco restoration. I wish to see both PLC and WSRA work together in harmony towards the common cause of the railway itself.The forthcoming AGM may well be the first steps in that direction by members voting for those who can deliver change.