S&D Railway Trust

I thought the point of long leases was to give the parties some assurance of steady income to the lessor & stability to the lessee.
In the case of the S&DRT, wasn't the intent to go after some funding that would not otherwise be approved?
In the case of the Plc, didn't it recently sign a long lease with the SCC for somewhat similar reasons? Is there a unilateral 1-year termination clause in that lease?
Given the still cash-strapped nature of the WSR, I'm surprised the Plc is relinquishing any income resources.

 

The type of lease the WSR PLC has with the S&DRT would be a standard 'off the shelf' lease.

None of the leases you mention would have a 'get out clause' every 12 months; despite one forum member (who I have the highest regard for) mentioning a 'rolling lease' of 12 months. The WSR PLC and S&DRT lease had to be water tight for security of tenure generally, and furthermore because of the S&DRT applying for Heritage Lottery Funding - which it received.

The very recent activities of the WSR PLC board as per the S&DRT expose the WSR PLC to potential expensive costs, plus loss of income, that just doesn't make sense to most of us, plus all the angst created and loss of goodwill etc.

I hope that JJP is reading this thread, and might be contrite, and reconsider this stupid decision by the WSR PLC board.

Cheers,

Julian

 

The same goes for me.

This latest fiasco, involving the demanded removal of the S&D Railway Trust, is just one step too far when it comes to being appreciated by the many people who so far have been supporting the WSR's PLC.

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that the combined WSR PLC management are merely a bunch of autocratic chancers who probably between them do not even possess the ability to operate a bus service in a seaside town - let alone manage a railway of the magnitude of the WSR.

If the S&D Railway Trust decide to open a Just Fund Me appeal to cover the costs of their enforced move from Washford? Then I shall certainly make a donation in support of their removal expenses.

Jamie Glover.

 

Thanks, Julian, that makes far more sense.
So it makes me wonder why the Plc board would instruct their lawyers to send the letter that they did, in the knowledge that it could not possibly be effective.

 

Solicitors may themselves be in a difficult situation if they are involved in what can broadly be called 'abuse of process'

 

Why does everything have to have a hidden agenda?
HRA Board members serve a fixed term (I can't remember how long) and have to stand for re-election if they wish to continue for another term. So no there is not "more to this than meets the eye". It is just part of the normal HRA routine.

 

Well said. This is just not the way that people in railway preservation should be treating each other. OK, I'm a soft hearted enthusiast who should not be allowed anywhere near a boardroom. But I do have money to spend, and I go to most WSR galas happily buying a rover ticket for the day, sometimes two days. This year, I'll probably just stand on the bridge at Doniford for a couple of hours with a Thermos, and pop into Watchet to pick up some lunch, then mosey on down by bus to Washford to visit S&DRT for the Museum and I'm sure they'll have a book for sale that I haven't already got. Parasite, maybe, but that's how I'm feeling right now.

 

Possibly, but do you think that an Administrator (they are pretty hard-nosed) would keep the whole line going, if indeed any of it?

 

If the railway is pushed into administration perhaps JJP has thoughts of managing/dictating the Minehead Rail Link Group.

Anyhow, here's some good news. Don Bishop, Chairman of the WSR Gala Planning Team, writes:

''We are very pleased to be able to announce our third and final visiting loco for the big Spring Steam Gala between 23rd and 26th April 2020.

Courtesy of our good friends at the Great Central Railway and loco owning Group, Loughborough Standard Locomotives Group, we will be hosting a return visit of Standard 2 2-6-0 no 78018.

The loco follows the 'BR Standards' theme for our guest locos this time round and joins already announced single chimney 9F no 92134, courtesy of the Self family and the NYMR, and Standard 4 2-6-0 no 76084, courtesy of owners 76084 Locomotive Ltd and the North Norfolk Railway. Thank you to all for making your locos available for a visit to Somerset.

The BR Standards will join the home and long term hired fleet of Manors nos 7822 Foxcote Manor and 7828 Odney Manor, WSR Mogul no 9351 (freshly outshopped in BR Lined Green livery) and subject to final completion of winter maintenance works the ever popular S&D 7F no 53808''.

Thanks to wsr.org for the news. <BJ>

 

All this speculation on here about what is and what isn't in the lease is just that - speculation. Whilst there can be endless speculation about what a "normal" lease would contain, unless someone on here has read the lease then no one can say what the one under discussion actually contains.

 

Why should the WSRA make an official public statement about the issue?
It's a matter between the WSR Plc and the S&DJR, and as far as I am aware the WSRA has no 'stake' in the S&DJR's operations at Washford.
I think the WSRA are very sensible to keep out of the debate.

 

You can't blame the solicitors as they can only advise but must act as their client (i.e. WSR) requires. The solicitors can only be challenged for their charges - and given the experience of the Ex-6 - they won't come cheap!

 

www.bbc.co.uk/news/england/somerset

 

Fitting, but not necessary.

 

Except that many of us who work as volunteers on the line with company identity cards are also members of the Association or the Trust. Some recognition should be given to this fact.

Although the business action is dubious, there are those of us who recognize that the washford yard would be a great asset to OUR railway.

 

Are you saying you don't think it is a great asset to the WSR as it stands?

 

Indeed, the membership will have their views and they should be given weight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

And maybe after that realisation after a chain of events which the S&DRT eviction is the latest in a long line of, maybe the WSRA has been put back in its place with a new head who is more aligned with the Chairman’s views?

If the consistent rumours about this passed to me by ‘a number of local sources’ are true, as has been mentioned elsewhere there is a theme here of people speaking out and then suddenly departing. It seems this time the ‘exchange’ of views in a meeting involved the person concerned being told to “f**k off if you don’t like it”. Swiftly followed by a press statement containing the words “with immediate effect” and “to spend more time with the family” which in the world I come from only ever means one thing.

 

Indeed. I know of a situation where solicitors, tasked to act on behalf of their clients, are making claims on various factual matter where even the briefest of Google searches would show that they are wildly inaccurate. The other party can very easily refute these claims, with evidence to back them up, but it costs them time and money to do so every time. So a lot of time is wasted to no avail doing nothing other than earning money for the solicitors on each side