West Somerset Railway - Removal of the PLC Chairman and related matters

Thank you for that Crantock, but I will respond to Snifter's last posting.

The same comment applies to 9351 as applies to Odney Manor, namely that the existing Board has no knowledge of the Board ever having discussed it and we do not intend to discuss it.

As for your other question, as Crantock implies, we are not going to enter into a discussion about WSR budgets and finances on a national public internet forum. If you are a shareholder, then you can contact the Finance Director if you have a particular question though I would urge you not to do so at the present, given the amount of work we are currently undertaking. It is also the case that we would not usually expect to release information beyond that which is already in the public domain. Given the amount of interest in the progress of the company it is likely that there will be a mid year shareholder meeting after the end of the running season, though I stress that no decision has yet been made, so there is no point please in pressing further at the moment on when this might be or what information will become available. We will release further information as soon as we can.

Frank

 

Thank you Frank for confirming that there is no intention to discuss the sale of either loco. That is very reassuring.

 

Unless contained within official WSR plc Statements, or Statements published under the WSR plc Company Secretary's name, I am not inclined to have faith in information conveyed by an individual whether that individual is wearing a director's hat, or not.

 

Quite so, especially as some PLC Directors have very recent form when it comes to acting unilaterally, keeping others in the dark and not being 100% honest about their intentions.

 

Are you commenting personally or on behalf of the WSRplc Board?

The first question arising from the Statement is obvious 'what information is in the public domain?' Being an 'interested outsider', I am not aware of whether reports of WSRplc Board Meetings are circulated on the Railway or to Shareholders. I understand that any reports of recent meetings are likely to be heavily redacted and also understand that, while difficult decisions are being considered, a running commentary may be unhelpful. Nevertheless, the WSRplc has a wide range of 'stakeholders' who must be very concerned by recent activity, reports and lack of practically any official comment and clearly the rumour mill is in full working order. I would therefore suggest some form of official information would be helpful to all concerned.

I am a little concerned that the above, be a personal or Board statement, refers only to information to 'Shareholders' and not to any other 'Stakeholders' , specifically the volunteers (and indeed paid work force). They are a vital part of the WSRplc remaining a viable and operational business and would be ignored at the Board's peril yet get no mention above (and indeed 'if you are a shareholder, then you can.....' implies no-one else has a right to ask).

In the circumstances, and in particular after the financial warnings which date back to Alan Nicholson's time in the Chair, I believe anyone with the West Somerset Railway's interests at heart will be anxious to hear news of at least when the WSRplc Board expect to have formulated plans to arrest the financial situation, which can't have been helped by the 17% increase in costs last year. Again, as an 'outsider', I am not aware of whether any reports have been made available to Stakeholders of performance this year, whether that increase has been arrested and how revenues are doing but I am sure they are also awaited with considerable interest and potential concern.

Steven

 

May be the new Chair in all but name.

 

I’m afraid this just smacks of the same old exclusivity and “leave us alone we know what we are doing” attitude. As long as certain Directors continue to behave like this rather than an open and honest dialogue with all stakeholders, as Mr Bean Counter says, then we are no further forward.

Incidentally whatever happened to the so-called (but frankly laughable) ‘stakeholder consultation’ on the corporate plan that took place earlier in the year, was not Mr Courtney central to this initiative at the time?

 

Hi Keith, sorry old friend but I think my irony got lost somewhere. Ken

 

Steven, if said asset was sold to a support charity and then leased back it could provide cash for the PLC and revenue for the charity. Much like businesses do with buildings when they sell them to their pensions schemes and then lease them back or am I in cloud cuckoo land?

 

It certainly would - indeed, the charity could even enter an agreement where the PLC had responsibility for maintenance and or overhaul and hence payment back is reduced or not even made. The Charity would need to be able to show that the purchase and arrangements were within its Objectives, and that whatever usage agreement was reached, the Charity's asset was protected (i.e. would the Company be likely to be in a position to meet its obligations under the agreement).

A Charity would struggle to justify just tipping cash into a struggling PLC unless a wholly controlled subsidiary, but it would be able to make a deal whereby it paid a fair price for an asset that could either be used in furtherance of its objectives or be a good investment.

What I would advise by way of caution is that, whilst such an arrangement would look a lot like 'One Railway' at its best to many, if there are those who don't believe in 'One Railway' and who are terrified of anyone else having a say in how their 'trainset' is run, they may see such a suggestion, no matter how helpfully it is presented, as being an 'attempted takeover' and use it to spread further fear and division.

Hence, whilst a thought, perhaps more information on the extent of the problem and any cash shortfall would be needed before such solutions are suggested.

Steven

 

Thanks Steven, Looks like a very serious contender for a plan, I hope FrankC is reading this as it could be the Railway's move towards One Railway and solvency.

 

Many years ago when I was involved in the then cash strapped K&ESR I was closely involved in setting up the Norwegian Loco Trust and the Terrier Trust. Both charities still exist in support of KESR. I am not party to the financial arrangement s but my understanding is that the locos concerned cannot be sold to the detriment of KESR which is perhaps in contrast to the sale of shares in 4160

 

Aren’t we back to the issue of the relative underperformance on the WSR of fund raising to support the railway? It’s one thing suggesting one of the support groups comes to the rescue in the way you suggest, but I don’t get the impression that either the WSRA or the WSSRT have the middling six figure sum immediately available that might be a reasonable price for a near-operational ex-BR tender engine. Perhaps more critically, if numerous comments on this thread about people’s donation priorities are a guide, I can’t see the level of engagement or trust with the membership to suggest that an appeal to raise that sort of figure would be successful. Across the whole railway family, trust is hard won and easily lost.

Tom

 

The same could also apply to other departments of the railway, without which nothing could operate.
S+T, PW and C+W for a start.
A railway does not revolve solely around its loco's.

 

You seem to be comparing apples and pears. "Trusts" of this nature are not ipso facto incapable of becoming insolvent, but their bankruptcy remoteness arises from their limited activities and hence limited opportunity to incur liabilities (hoping that if the loco runs over someone, the aggrieved party gets paid out by the operator / its insurance rather than going after the owner). It seems to be a bit of a straw man here, but what appears to be under discussion is the wisdom of let's say a hypothetical company selling a significant and emotive asset, to keep the wolf from the door. Having an asset to sell is of course a happier position than having nothing to sell, even if it is not ideal. Other railways have sold locos, the SVR and Leander springs to mind, without imploding, and I think the WSRA has form. I think the main objection to selling an asset to fix a structural issue is that the sale proceeds just kick the can down the road, unless the structural problems are fixed, so the sale should be just one element of a more comprehensive solution.

 

I think it might more be that locomotive costs are better known and arguably (though I might well disagree with this statement myself!) more 'similar'. Locomotives can be hired, albeit at a cost and against an uncertain supply and a 'seller's' market. If Railway X runs from A to B but the track or a structure at C in the middle is not fit for use, that Railway no longer exists as what it was. Simples. Not saying this is the situation on the West Somerset but I seem to recall a lot of track work was needed for 60103 to visit and while spending the profit on that visit upgrading the track was probably a sound enough investment for the future, the question remains as to whether the existing business (and structure), as it is currently being operated (and structured), is generating sufficient cash to enable renewals to continue as they are needed. @Ploughman is wise in his warning.

Steven

 

I am very pleased to read Frank Courtney's posts today.

Some people owe him a considerably debt of gratitude for what he did for the Reform Group and getting rid of the old Ex-6 Trustees.

It is strange how memories of recent events can be so fickle, and those who benefited directly, so apparently ungrateful currently.

Cheers,

Julian

 

Here, here, people forget how Frank C & Michael R cunningly ran that EGM & in my opinion saved the WSRA. He now gets treated the way he has by the present trustee's, absolutely disgraceful!!!

DJB.