S&D Railway Trust

Something the PLC seem unable to comprehend....

 

Do you really think Robin & Mike have the ability to control the WSRA Shares? I thought they had a Board and ultimately a membership to do that? Would it be right to ‘persuade’ the WSSRT to follow what they both as individuals wanted? As I thought again the WSSRT also had their own Board and membership to decide what they wanted to do?

Don’t get me wrong I think your thinking is the way many see it and I’m not going to argue with your interpretation myself either. It does appear that ‘the few’ can close ranks and decide what the outcome will be and that’s a fault of the WSR’s structure with two competing Charities with an equal controlling 9% share each. Many will have noted the silence, apart from bullying and undermining of people voicing concerns who dare to stick their heads up instead of positive justification to show accountability of the leadership to the people who actually own the WSR.

Please don’t get caught up in the past with reference to ‘the reform group’ as individuals, that was another time and many of those people have moved on as you know. However it would be fair to say that there are an increasing number of people who have gone beyond just being concerned and as you would expect people will unite even when you try and suppress them. Many people care deeply about the WSR so ultimately won’t be silenced. I’m no leader, I’m just a bloke with a view sat on the side-lines who doesn’t want any status or position now or in the future. But the reform group started this way the last time with the results you know well and this time a new set of people are gathering pace quickly, much to the disgust of some.

I can only continue to call for the WSRA & WSSRT, via their own web-sites if not here to come out and say: Yes or No concerning the S&DRT and then we can all ask some further yes or no questions such as Volunteers being removed for having an opinion that differs from the few, no HR Policies, HPC activities that clearly haven’t taken place and so on. If they have acted correctly then what’s the problem?

 

Given the behaviour of the WSR senior management towards @Andy Norman it seems clear that anybody doing that would have to accept they would not be allowed to hold any sort of operational role on the WSR in the near future, purely because of the levels of unprofessional spite with which the management seem to operate.

 

Mr Norman So what did you mean by " the people you were enlisting last week to head up immediate reform "
Specifically please, 'what people' and 'what reform'

Thanks in anticipation

Michael Rowe

 

As you asked, yes I do.

I was a member of the board and know a few of the personalities on it. The board are still pursuing the 4160 shares even though I have been told that the shares were not transferred properly and were never the charities to sell. I have alway disagreed about going after them but was always outvoted. When I left they had spent around £22K and that was 18 months ago. with the uncertainty and law being what is is seems to me that it is foolish to pursue it but they still continue and if they lose the final bill to the association could be massive. I have no faith in the WSRA board with those 2 on it.

 

Come on Michael you know what happens if people stick their heads up in public so trying to pull names out is not going to help. Lets just stick to lots of people love the WSR and want it thrive. There is actually an underlying positive thing amongst all this negativity, the passion for the WSR is very large and I've been surprised how much people really, honestly care for the railway many call 'theirs'. Now if only a good management team could harness that in a positive way and work with the community instead of against it, all of these problems would disappear, but I'm back on to my the culture is the only problem opinion again.

And please call me Andy, we know each other well enough after 6 years surely.

 

You miss my point. I fully appreciate the advantages of giving via a charity, and what it means to do so for restricted purposes. However, there are times when even that highly specific act of giving can act to support an organisation which I dislike. That may be because the donation relieves pressure on other funds, or it may be simply the implied vote of confidence in the organisation that will ultimately use those funds.

At this time, the actions of the WSR plc have created a situation in which donations to any part of the “family” (with the apparent exception of the S&DRT) may feel a stretch for donors.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Andy, our paths crossed in 2016 when you were keen to be co-opted as a WSRA Trustee.
My memory says you attended one Trustees monthly meeting, accepted a role as part of
a team charged with recommending changes to one aspect of the organisation. You then
resigned shortly afterwards. ( not helpful at the time when we were still striving to keep
the WSRA afloat in the face of continuing adversarial actions by members of the 'ex6'
former Trustees. )

AFAIK we have had no dealings ( other than 'Good Morning' ) with each other since
then. I have however read many of your voluminous postings and increasingly
I believe they serve scant purpose wrt the WSR. ( They also contain many statements
as per the recent claims re "people... head up immediate reforms." )

The Railway needs ( and will ) all the help it can engender to survive the next few
months. It is not the time to pursue personal agendas I submit.

Michael Rowe.

 

That's a fair point, however the clock is still ticking for the S&D having to vacate Washford, and the current situation is hardly likely to make that process any easier either. The Trust had planned to challenge the railway, potentially ending up in court, which will be a lot harder now too. Given that, also with the current situation in mind, the railway is even less likely to be able to do anything with it's newly acquired land (and there were some pretty big question marks over this already) surely the sensible and nice thing to do is to at the very least put it all on hold until things get back to normal. That would then go some way in relieving concerns of those who might otherwise be willing to donate to keep the WSR afloat in these tricky times, but instead give what they can afford to another, equally deserving railway, as we're all in the same boat with no income whatsoever.

 

Perhaps the enforced shut down of much of the heritage railway network may take the decision out of the hands of the protagonists, If the finances of the WSR are as believed, they may not survive to re open, and even if they do, will be reliant on a lot of good will from their members and shareholders, who may extract a very high price for their continuing support, If the WSR Chairman is the main culprit, then he may not remain in that post, but if he has the backing of the Board and Shareholders, then the likes of the WSRA , and other groups, may live to regret it, if they are in turn evicted from the nest,

 

Please folks a little calm. The whole heritage movement in the UK is at risk due to the current pandemic.
The board of the WSR plc and the trustees of the WSRA are currently exploring every avenue to ensure the survival of the WSR. I am confident that those elected to head the organisations on other heritage railways are doing exactly the same thing.
Robin is right, if you can, please lend your support to the heritage movement at this very difficult time. If you don't want to help the WSR then help another railway but for god's sake help.

If you can't help in any way then at least pay attention to the statement from NP the mods.

If you are a WSRA member then you'll have an opportunity to replace the trustees at the AGM later in the year if you feel they have served you poorly. Maybe we'll be lucky and get a raft of people standing to do the job. The work started by Frank, Michael et.al is bearing fruit, WSRA have made a healthy 6 figure positive contribution to the WSR again in recent times and you'll be well placed as a trustee to continue those efforts.

I've been "at work" for 12 hours now, checking in here was my last task of the evening so I'm going to have some down time. TTFN

 

Rather than put things 'on hold', the WSR PLC board have the option of withdrawing it's s.25 Notice to Quit on the SDRT, especially as many of us consider the 'Notice to Quit' to be invalid anyway.

And the 'Notice to Quit', (let us assume just for the purposes of this exchange it is valid), can only be effective if the WSR PLC board can prove the s.30 (g) grounds under the 1954 Act, which as 'flying scotsman123' notes is pretty much impossible, and the WSR PLC will face significant legal costs and expense. If it can't pay into Court sufficient for all the SDRT's legal costs at the start of proceedings under a 'security for costs' application, then the WSR PLC board are on a hiding to nothing.

It would be nice to see wiser counsel prevail. Good governance ought to suggest this.

And yet again, whilst I am typing this, Mike Sherwood (aldfort), acting Chairman of the WSRA, in his above post has once again avoided any mention of the SDRT and Washford, or taken the opportunity to declare his position re the SDRT and the WSR PLC board's action.

Cheers,
Julian

 

How does evicting the S&D ensure the survival of the WSR?

 

Well of course, but agreeing to put things on hold would be a start, and allow a more graceful climb-down. I know nothing about professional mediation, but in my imagination that's the sort of thing that might get suggested to get the ball rolling using these difficult times as a ladder to climb down.

Of course, and I have been cautiously sympathetic to the decision not to 'fight'. However I'm really not convinced that co-operate is right either, although I do understand why that might be attractive to you (suggestions of holding on to power are absurd, I'm sure you're doing what you think is right for the railway), which seems to be the approach you're suggesting here you've taken, given you're obviously not fighting and after mention of your mediating skills, there followed a "but".
Now I'm also well aware that "Who am I to tell you what's right for the WSR?" given I've only been involved in the preservation world for 7 years, none on which have been at the WSR, compared to your 40 (?) odd years. But sometimes an outsider's view is useful, and in the case of how the WSR appears to the wider world, potentially even more so.

 

It will obviously cost WSR in the short term at the least, however they must have factored that into their calculations.

 

A fresh eye and an outside view is always welcome.

Robin

 

"Factored into their calculations" might suggest costs, and the WSR PLC board have embarked on a stupid ill thought out stance with regards to the SDRT. What will the WSR PLC gain by wanting to occupy Washford Station and the signal box and the yard?

If the SDRT leave, they will leave nothing, under the terms of the lease. It will be just as it was in 1975 with no track or buildings in the yard. No track or buildings in the yard!

Empty station building and empty signal box.

It will cost the WSR PLC a very tidy sum to deal with County Court proceedings over the 'Notice to Quit' and all that involves, and after just under 2 years ago granting a new 50 year lease to the SDRT of Washford.

And again whilst I am typing this the Vice Chairman of the WSRA also does another post not mentioning the SDRT explicitly, and failing to take this opportunity to state any comment whatsoever on the position of the SDRT -v- the WSR PLC yet again.

Cheers,

Julian

 

Beyond providing us with your counsel and wisdom, what practical step will you be taking to assist the WSR (or any other heritage railway) in this time of trouble?

Robin

 

Robin, I am still trying to get my head round this outburst from you late last night. I have actually found it very upsetting, personally.

 

If I may say so, that's a bit rich...