West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Mine arrived in my Junk folder - not sure why.

It is also available to non-Staff Members here: https://www.wsra.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/WSR-PLC-Briefing-23-10-18-3-WSRA.pdf

 

I must admit when I first heard the news that a recovery plan was in place following an ORR audit I was a little concerned, especially as despite all the politics and rubbish on this thread there was no inclination tht there was anything fundamentally wrong with the operations side of the railway. We had ORR round a while ago and whilst there were naturally some improvements to make there was no feeling for a need of a "recovery plan".

Having read that statement though it appears to me that the new chairman has dealt a masterstroke, bolting on a whole load of not necessarily operational improvements to bring an end to this not particularly proud period of the railway's history to the operational requirements advised from ORR that form an overall "recovery plan" which I sincerely hope will be a recovery for the whole railway, not just operations or indeed the Plc.

So I don't see this as a reason to be concerned, but quite the opposite, that there is an overarching plan put in place, that because of the ORR improvements contained, I think has a really goo chance of being carried out.

 

The message seems generally positive but is noteworthy for what it doesn't say: exactly what improvements are necessary and how they are to be achieved. The words "... the displeasure of the past that has notably led to public embarrassment and provided continued distraction to the business must stop" could be seen as hinting at another round of restrictions on what employees and volunteers are allowed to say in public: stick to the party line or else. Outside observers have less entitlement to information than the people who run the railway and/or inject cash, but all of us are potential customers and potential donors, so it does matter what messages we receive.

 

Cross keys Roundabout - Roadworks

For anyone coming to the WSR between now and the New Year, please be aware that roadworks are being carried out at the Crosskeys roundabout associated with the new filling station.

At the moment the road layout has been temporarily altered to a 3-way temporary traffic controlled junction.

This is causing severe traffic hold-ups at busy times. This morning the tailback towards Minehead reached the riding stables.

I would recommend anyone using that junction other than very early or late use an alternative route if you can and if not, allow plenty of extra time.

If the configuration / effect changes, I will post again.

Robin

 

I'm on the WSRA email list but I've had no communication from them since 2nd October 2018 so they must have used a more restrictive list.

 

I suggest you send them an email asking them to check your email details are on the membership database. No harm in asking and no harm in them checking.

Steve

 

I called Keith Sanford and he sorted it out. Most helpful.

 

Seems to take a lot of words to say not a lot.

 

Reading between the lines and spin it appears that the railway is being operated satisfactorily, but lacks the wherewithal to ensure its continuity. I also believe that the drive to get new volunteers is a contributory part of this. Maybe many have gone elsewhere or ceased commitment due to the continual upheavals. Contrary to beliefs you don't have to live in Somerset to see what is happening there, much peeps out of the posts here - even if some are 'speculative'.

 

Regarding my comment that I had not received the Chairmans email despite being a member of the WSRA and a PLC shareholder.

I've had a very helpful email from @aldfort informing me that as a result of the recent GDPR legislation it will be necessary for me to contact the WSRA and give them specific authority to send me such communications in future.

Hope this helps others.

Stef.

 

If aldfort did say that then he is mistaken. Unless the WRSA wrote to you in the past asking for permission and you did not reply or replied in the negative.

 

Quite, unfortunately the authors writing style does mean some reading between the lines is necessary. The author would have been well advised to get some one to read through such a letter before sending it out as it's not the best paid out letter. However at least the author seems to understand there are big issues that need to be addressed and seems intent on doing so.

 

Nepotism? Surely I am not the only one who has noticed.

 

I did wonder. As I've said before, whenever a managerial position is to be filled on our railway (directorial or otherwise) a volunteer announcement is sent out with a job description asking for candidates to apply. Occasionally we've cast the net further but only for very specialist jobs. Obviously I don't expect to see those for the WSR because I'm not a volunteer but it would be reassuring to know if that ever happens.

 

AIUI Specific permission has to be given regardless of what happened I the past. My doctor’s surgery told me I had to reauthorise them to send me text messages about appointments.

 

I'm not convinced by this, just because last time you agreed to give your info specifically for railway updates or appointment reminders or whatever GDPR wasn't specifically mentioned doesn't make that permission invalid. The idea was to stop them gaining your permission for appointment reminders for instance then sending you other stuff like marketing, which you hadn't given permission for. But virtually everyone has been over the top cautious, so there's not much point pointing it out to individual organisations.

 

Well until it goes to court we will not have a definitive answer but the example you quote seems a very strange reaction. One my doctors surgery certainly didn't follow.

 

I take your point that a sample of one is not definitive. I get the imp[ression from various organisations that they are taking the opportunity to keep records now and no harm done anyway. I find the reminders invaluable.

 

It certainly wasn't necessary to re-confirm permissions that an organisation already had on record - the official advice from the ICO was very clear on that.

It may be though that GDPR audits had shown that the records to prove that those permissions had been given had been lost or were incomplete. I do suspect that as @flying scotsman123 said most organisations have been hugely over-cautious, in some cases due to bad advice received from "GDPR consultants".

(In my day job I had a big debate with someone as to whether IP addresses constituted identifying information or not! I held that they didn't for practical purposes)