West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Ooh, low blow. We have seen on NP PR reps from railways and loco groups coming out with somewhat combative comments, and even some who closely associate themselves with particular lines posting political views, who also might reflect on such wisdom.

 

I will leave it to others to assess the consequence of my views, and indeed yours.

However, I refute the charge of bias. I have a great affection for the WSR, and wish it well. My observations are based on what “insiders” have said, combined with my experience of professional and voluntary organisations. Those observations lead me to the conclusion that the structure of the WSR is in itself a factor in the issues that have arisen over the years, probably including the current funding issues.

I firmly believe both that those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it, and that history repeats it self, first as tragedy and then as farce.

You and I disagree; we each have our sources and reasoning. I see no reason why that should make either of us guilty of bias.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I don't regard all the posts on here as representative. I form a view from occasional visits, talking to people both on the WSR and elsewhere and reading and listening. That view has the benefit of being at a distance and not being intimately involved (although I am intimately involved in successful and well run heritage railways elsewhere.) If an organisation has problems, it is generally the done thing to bring in someone not intimately involved to sort things out, rare to find that person from within. The WSR PLC have done just that with JJP and Bob Meanley, which is a good thing.
You can be too close to the problem.

 

Nobody said communications were perfect but they are much bettter than readers of this forum might think. Few organisations could not improve but change for change sake is no panacea. Many outsiders make the mistake of thinking that there is one perfect organisational model. In many cases the structures have historical roots.With hinsight it might have been better to have a different structure. However wholesale change seldom produces the expected benefits. As Petronious said soem 2000 yewars ago. “We trained hard—but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we were reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and what a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while actually producing confusion,

 

Which is not the same as saying they can or should never change - merely that the history needs to be understood and respected when undertaking change.

Edit - I observe the inclusion of the quote from Petronius since I posted. I agree with him that reorganisation for reorganisation's sake is unwise and damaging (more recently, Gerard Fiennes is often quoted as saying "when you reorganise, you bleed"), but sometimes it is necessary.

I do not say that the WSR needs to reorganise now, but do not accept that this also means that it does not need to reorganise; only that the costs may outweigh the benefits.

 

I too have a lot of affection for the WSR, as a former member of the WSRA and a regular visitor today, but I find it deeply frustrating. It has real strengths and enormous potential, but it also seems to have a long-established culture that stops it from flourishing. As a visitor, I chat to people working on the line, ticket inspectors, platform staff, someone painting the window frame on a signal box, and I'm surprised how often they'll complain about someone else on the line, a group or individual. Maybe I'm just unlucky to speak to the disgruntled few and the vast majority are happily united, but when I think of the WSR, I think of a culture of different factions at war with each other.

I hope that can change. Recent comments on here lead me to think there's a chance it might. When the leaders of the organisation start to lead, giving a clear vision, communicating well and behaving well, my confidence will grow. But for a potential supporter, the current culture is the biggest turn-off.

 

Can @aldfort tell us how the fundraising is going? He did say that we would be kept informed.

 

The fact remains that the 4110 'people' (certainly the leaders; how many of the followers agree with them, we will see as the money comes in) apparently don't want to follow the PLC's lead, and work through the WSRA. The current burst of activity here would not exist were it not for that fact.

And a number of 'outsiders' (such as myself) have been defending (where possible; I've also indicated where they could have done better) the PLC and WSRA leadership against seeming WSR insiders (to judge from their comments about how they're acting in the current situation).

So I'm not sure I can wholly agree with your characterization above.

Having said that, I expect we both want the WSR to be a successful, happy railway. May our wishes come true.

Noel

 

It happens on other lines as well, not just the WSR. I visit quite a few heritage railways during the year and while overhearing staff complaining about other staff members isn't common, it's not unheard of. OK, so whatever company, organisation or group we belong to sooner or later there's going to be someone who isn't doing things the way we think they should. But on a heritage railway it's best not to do it where visitors can overhear as it dosen't help the railway's image. People should be especially careful if the visitor has a camcorder, camcorder mics are much more sensitive than people realise! (On one occasion I had to replace the camera audio with music as there was no way I could include the comments that had been picked up.)

 

No wonder there is so much "froth" on this thread as there's a fair amount of supposition in that statement. As far as I know, the people who have pledged to the 4110 group are quite free to switch to the WSRA route - although remember it is their money and their choice to spend it in a way that they feel is the best option; and as I understand it, the group has stopped all activity for now. And do remember that group was set up at the request of the Plc which later decided on a different course

I hope the current fundraising by WSRA is successful. I assume they are close to reaching the target as there's been no funding plea to the wider membership. I look forward to hearing more from the WSRA on that topic.

Steve

 

Agreed. I expect that one of the reasons the original appeal did well is that there were regular updates, both on the 4110 Facebook page and on Steve's excellent website. I would strongly advise the WSRA to do the same. People are more likely to donate to the cause if they think it will be successful.

 

Just to lighten things up a bit, Bishops Lydeard visit in March 1976.

 

5521

 

I joined a number of Heritage Railways back in the 1990's and volunteered because if was Fun.
Looks like to me that there is a lot of 'non fun' on this thread.

Time to Jolly Up!

 

If the volunteers did not have fun they would not do it!!!

 

Yes, keeping people informed about how an appeal is progressing is very important. Regular and frequent updates saying how much has been raised are vital to keep the momentum of the appeal going, without regular updates to keep the appeal fresh in people's minds they'll forget about it.

 

Hunh?

The statement regarding the 4110 organization is from a Facebook post of a letter from Christopher Ruddick "On behalf of the Directors of GWR4110" in which he says "we are unable to support the joint statement you have drafted" (which I take to be this). If that's not "the 4110 [group] apparently don't want to follow the PLC's lead, and work through the WSRA", then how would you characterize the 4110 group's position, as given in their own letter on the matter?

And as to "the current burst of activity here would not exist were it not for that", I suppose that technically that's supposition, but then again, technically the statement 'the sun is going to come up tomorrow morning' is also supposition! Nobody would object to such a supposition, though, as it's likely accurate. As to the accuracy of my supposition (I suppose I could/should have thrown a 'likely' in there), would you really try to claim that had the 3 parties released a statement of the form '4110, the PLC and the WSRA have agreed to work through the WSRA to purchase the loco from the PLC', the discussion here would have been as sizeable, and long-running?

Am I missing some other supposition?

(The rest of your post I concur with, which is why it's not mentioned here.)

Noel

 

Yes, I see what you mean and I can see the reason for your reaction. My view on the 4110 group's current position following the Plc's change of direction is that they are now not competing with the Plc/WSRA appeal so the latter has a free run. And good luck to them. I guess the 4110 group will disband at some early point. I imagine the Plc/WSRA are mighty glad the 4110 guys did all the hard work raising awareness of the sale of 4110.

Steve

 

Regarding the Stakeholders/Shareholders/Staff meeting on 2nd February.

Maybe a well-informed member can answer a couple of questions.

What documentation will I need to produce on arrival to prove that I am eligible to attend as a shareholder?

For those of us having to set off early, will the venue be able to provide attendees with any sort of cooked breakfast?

Is there an approximate time that the meeting is expected to conclude?

We are in possession of the postcode, so finding the venue should present no problems, and I assume that, as a golf club, adequate parking is available.

Thanks in anticipation, Stef.

 

The plc chairman's invitation letter explains a requirement for attendees to pre-register and gives a contact name, 'phone number and email address. I suggest queries be directed to that person, as they are surely best placed to accurately answer. The letter appears on the official website under the 'news' heading. Hope that helps.