West Somerset Railway General Discussion

For historic reasons most railways are struggling to reconcile challenges created by the often strange ways in which their management structure has evolved. The reality of having separate charitable and non-charitable organisations however they are affiliated (and there are many models of affiliation) means a messy compromise because each must have its own strategy, ideally of course aligned. Easier said than done. In addition, members and shareholders expect clarity, and largely prefer not to have open revolution on their hands. It can be difficult in such an environment to accommodate new ideas and initiatives with the board(s) being only one aspect of the problem. I think it is critical for the future that we all strive for an environment in which "flights of fantasy" are encouraged, for these new ideas are what keep the railways fresh, interesting and ultimately sustainable. By encouraged I mean, that the right of anyone to have an idea and be listened to is defended, but also that the right of the board to consider any idea against the other priorities is also defended, and that it is remembered by all, that bad ideas are often only good ideas proposed at the wrong time.

On the subject of Dunster ... I think the only question should be can the money be found without impact on any other priority. I am a big fan of the WSR and Dunster is such a wasted opportunity. There is also something in the comment about the need of a link from village to station. A good footpath across the fields and a return of the vintage bus perhaps?

 

Different railways have different legal structures. In the case of the WSRA they cannot legally subsidise the WSR PLC operations. They can make grants provided they support their educational objectives. So it would be possible for them to support the provision of interpretive items at Dunster but not track repairs or any other operational costs.

 

You are broadly correct. However the NF triangle is a different matter some of which is owned by the WRSA. Much of the track work has been loaned/gifted by Network rail in exchange for various rights to turn their locks erc.

 

Neither can the GWR trust, but they seem to manage to give a lot more in grant money than the WSRA despite having a much smaller turnover. As far as I'm aware, the only structural difference between the two railways is your lack of cross board directors. Both have a dominant Plc and a supporting charity.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

You need to look. At the memorandum and articles of the two charities to see why. I don’t see the cross board memvpbership has much relevance in this context. Also remember it is not long since the open warfare caused by the toxic 6+1 ended

 

There is, AIUI, a difference of opinion between the WSRA and WSR plc about ownership of the track on the triangle.

Robin

 

You may well be right. AIUI the agreement(s) regarding the three parties are poorly documented and may well be contradictory. Hopfully now relations are more normal any problems can be resolved amicably.

 

You are being a little disingenuous about the historical situations and drawing parallels with today. You are aware that relations with the WSRA were not good in the past and funding may have been the underlying problem. I certainly gave not been influenced by the excellent then and now shots. I have been saying for years that the Dunster yard and the linear scrap yard create a very bad impression. Equally the overall presentation at Washford is a delight to behold. It may lack the sort of interpretive items you favour but whenever I ride on the Railway passengers always comment favourable even though there is not much else to attract visitors. Contrast that with what they say about Dunster. Notwithstanding your grand plan a huge difference could be made this winter just by tidying it up. Quick cheap an easy!

 

Why don't you have a look up the M5 at the SVR and see what they've done in the past 10-15 years or so ago? Yes there's the sexy stuff like the carriage shed, the engine house and Kiddy diesel depot. But a few years ago as someone thought ' the car park at Kidderminster's a bit of a mess, we should do something about that'. It took a few weekends of rolled up sleeves and bloody hard work but it was made a bit more presentable, and it makes the SVR look a lot more professional, you say a carriage shed is more of a priority, but what do do until you have one? Do nothing? Robin has suggested a low cost sensible idea for doing something that makes use of a current under used asset. Ask yourself this, if Hornby were to pay a visit to Dunster today, and viewing all the rubbish on display would they want to use it as the basis for something they would want to sell?

 

Really? I had this impression that the PLC owned it, but I guess that was confused.

As in, they are responsible for all upkeep and maintenance? In which case they are lucky the CC hasn't gotten on their case!

Noel

 

The WSR have a lease of circa 75 years and are responsible for the maintenance. The CC would not have clue about the condition.

 

West Somerset Railway - Then and Now #127

Washford 1905 / 2017

There's that signal again at the left hand edge of the shot and the down starter can also be seen in the distance. The prosperousness of the station is clear from the shrubs along the platform and the newly extended loading dock.

The Edwardian era was a golden time for the railways. Busy, and as yet little competition from those new-fangled horseless carriages.

1905


2017

 

Cant we get someone to polish those railheads!!

 

Are you volunteering?

 

Surely that depends doesnt it on how you word things? If the track needs to be reconfigured in order for the "grand plan" to take place I would have thought that all capital expenditure associated with this including potentially the relocation of the pw depot could be considered grantable since they are works that must take place to allow the "educational" part of the plan to take place.

 

We do regularly using the correct tools for the job! - but not in November or the early New Year.

 

This would be worth doing only if the current users of the yard agreed ways to ensure it was kept tidy thereafter.

 

Agreement? - more like a sensible management requirement surely?

 

Can I just say something in defence of the trustees and the plc board.
It is true that historically there is both confusion about and a degree of weakness in agreements about rights, ownership and responsibility. The two (volunteer) boards are working their way through these things as quickly as possible while also trying to be mindful that the railway needs to keep running.
There is also a lot of misunderstanding about the charities objectives and what it is permitted to do. However those of you who are aware of the Associations Locomotive Restoration Fund might well have a look at that and use it as a model to help form a view given it lists two Association owned and one plc owned locomotives as targets for the fundraising efforts.
Don't forget in all of this that there are currently already two distinct charities supporting the WSR.
BTW - I'm personally a fan of devolution and empowering station friends groups to develop their stations under a strategic railway wide plan.
For clarity as well. The shares the Association holds in the plc were purchased before the Association became a charity. At the time the plc, which started life with the intent of running a commercial train service, was struggling. The Association which was going to "run the odd steam train at weekends" stepped in to help and the model for the plc changed from commercial to heritage. One can argue the toss about the historical rights and wrongs all day long. The key going forward is a shared vision and everything being done under the "One Railway" banner.
I'll end with a sales pitch. If you are a WSR fan then do consider joining the Association. The journal will help you keep up to date and understand what's happening on the railway as it speaks for the whole railway family despite being published by the Association. Your membership will also provide a vehicle for any donations you may choose to make towards specific projects as they are brought forward and donating via the charity will enable the donations to be gift aided where you are a UK tax payer which increases their value to the railway family as I am sure you are all aware.

 

M&As can be changed though if necessary, it's not anywhere near as drastic as changing the structure of the while railway. My point still stands that a railway charity *can* grant a railway Plc money for a wide variety of things, it's not the structure or the fact that one is a charity and one a Plc that is the problem.

I only mention cross board directors as I was told this makes it more acceptable for a charity to grant a plc money, although I don't see why it's a bad idea anyway. There shouldn't really be any conflict of interest issues to worry about if both organisations are pulling in the same direction.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk