S&D Railway Trust

I would disagree. I think that the vast majority of the negative perception of the WSR is caused by the actions of the various people who make up the Railway and such actions are simply made public on Nat Pres (amongst other places). Much better to be put off volunteering by Driver X behaving like an arse on Nat Pres than be put off any future volunteering by having Driver X behave like an arse to you in person after you've volunteered.

 

Perhaps it would be better if driver x, guard y, signaller z weren't arses in the first place.

 

Ah, but that would be that railway in heaven.

 

I see that Bayard has already commented that it is most of us. I would say it's pretty well all of us here. A few are squabbling with each other, but I don't recall anyone arguing that evicting the SDRT is a good idea nor, even if eviction might be justifed for reasons that no-one has explained, anyone defending the PLC's way of going about it.

And this episode, damning as it seems, is only the latest in a series of actions by the PLC that appear to the spectators as being at best badly ill-judged and at worst evil.

Some urge us to support the Railway, but we are very wary of supporting the PLC management. Donating to the WSRA is a possibility, but it is unclear whether the WSRA has the will and the ability to steer the PLC in a better direction.

I think of the "Marples must go" graffiti on motorway bridges. Might we see graffiti on the WSR's bridges urging that [someone] must go?

 

The cynic in me would suggest that, given recent WSR history, the name(s) at least should be written in chalk so that they can be changed as circumstances require

 

Reading between the lines (no pun intended) it appears that Robin is unhappy with the present situation regarding the S&D Trust eviction notice.

If I thought anyone could tactfully negotiate a successful outcome between the two parties it would be Robin.

I can only hope that she or others of similar character can bring the sorry situation to an end.

It will only be then that we can all pull together for the future of our beloved WSR. <BJ>

 

I've thought all along that Robin and anyone else in a position of influence or even simply volunteering at the WSR is in an impossible position.

If they publicly disagree with anything the WSR does they might simply be barred from the railway they love. Silence can speak volumes and it is better sometimes to quietly fight from within than speak out, be barred and then have no influence at all.

I'm not saying this is what is happening, of course, as I only know what I read here, but for the good of the railway, I hope I'm right.

 

Ooh you bitch, Meow.

 

Julian AFAIK I have never met you. You are not ( nor ever have been ?) a volunteer on the WSR.

I am in my eightieth year, I have no contact ( and there is no reason that I should ) with the
Plc Board ( or come to that with the Boards/Trustees of the WSRA, WSSRT, DEPG or S&D ).

I recognise that at my age active participation ( ie I might not live to see the results of any
actions/ decisions I had taken or been involved with implemented ) is not appropriate.

I have no idea why you are so hostile to the WSR ? ( a position you have assumed on this
forum since at least early 2016. I note that overwhelmingly you post re the WSR. .Other
interests appear to be the penultimate CME of the LNER, IoWSR and Walschaerts valve
gear )

However despite my age if I believe my experience, past involvement or training are
relevant I will continue to speak out, including on the forum. !

Michael Rowe

 

I'm sure this wasn't your intention, but this para does come across as just a wee bit stalkery

 

I am somewhat remote, I don't know any of the personalities involved. All I see is what appears to be a grossly belligerent move on the part of the WSR management against the S&DRT. That view may be correct or there may be a good reason for it .
What I do know is that shouting about it on here is going to do nothing to resolve the situation so...
In the interests of openness and transparency and whenever this situation is resolved, one way or the other, can you please use your position and whatever influence you have to persuade whoever the 'powers that be are' to publish a full and frank disclosure of what happened, including naming names if possible?
I feel that is probably the only way to restore some of the trust that has been lost, primarily by the WSR Board and also to some lesser extent by both the WSRA and the WSSRT by their apparent inaction.
I appreciate it may be difficult but when this situation is resolved (and so long as other factors like Covid-19 don't mask the outcome by causing a much more dire situation) an announcement along the line of "All better now, let's carry on" is really not going to help remove the feelings of suspicion and distrust that seem so prevalent at the moment.

 

I definitely take your point, but as I lamented in a previous post, the WSR's pattern of perennially lurching from dust-up to dust-up is just getting really 'old'. It's a real pattern, and not just a few scattered examples.

In that post I asked 'what's the underlying factor behind all this', and I wonder if we aren't seeing it here: there seem to be more than a few people on the line to whom Talleyrand's famous line about the Bourbons ('they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing') applies. Every line can point to personal clashes, but with a few exceptions (e.g. that Welsh line, whose name escapes me) most seem to be able to keep it to a low level, where it doesn't affect the line as a whole.

Perhaps the WSR has suffered from i) a diffuse leadership structure, and ii) lack of a focused leader who sees changing the line's 'culture' to get everyone to pull together ('one railway' on steroids) as a critical task. In a primarily volunteer organization, that can only be done by example - not by mandate.

Anyway, to repeat what I said in that earlier message, "I do wish all the best for the line, and its hard-working and dedicated workers (volunteer and paid)."

Noel

 

If what he has said elsewhere on the web to be believed, Julian Atkins was a solicitor in another life but left the profession to pursue a different career.

I don't think anyone least of all a legally qualified person can comment usefully on the situation without being in full possession of the facts.

 

Thank you. Much appreciated.

Robin

 

The Teifi Valley?

 

I'm not sure I'd wish to be having a p@ss@ng competition about the number of legal cases a railway has been involved in. Even having to defend why railway [X] should not be considered amongst the runners and riders is not exactly a good look for the railway concerned!

Perhaps more seriously: the fact that it is even being discussed would seem to me to show again how poorly developed the pan-railway governance processes are on the railway. Why is there no agreed strategic vision for the railway (as opposed to each little fiefdom within it), nor any defined process for reaching such a vision? Inasmuch as there is any discernible strategy at all, it seems to be completely reliant on whoever is at the helm at any one time, and therefore management changes seem to lead to rapid lurches of strategy. No wonder many supporters and putative supporters feel disorientated.

Tom

 

Wise words.

 

I don't see Julian as being hostile to the WSR, I see him as being hostile to the WSR management, them what makes the (wrong) decisions.

 

Could something like this happen on any other railway where the supporting charity has an controlling interest in the shares of the company? would it have come to this ? I think there is a culture of dis trust between the PLC, and the supporting groups, based on past attempts by supporting groups to undermine the PLc, and perhaps a desire by some on the PLC,To show who is in charge, they would not take on the two main groups, because, if they combine their votes, they can demand an EGM, and unseat the board, so in a show of strength they go after a small group, that does not impact on the day to day, and the two supporting groups, who are after periods of in fighting not wanting to have another, that has the potential to do serious damage decide the railway and holding it together more important, but this do nothing approach is equally dangerous, because, they might well be faced with having to decide, do they back the PLC, and be seen as supporting the ousting of a fellow supporting group, and have to accept the fall out and possible loss of everything, or decide the PLC board has to go, for the railway to survive?

 

Hello Robin,

I am reminded of the phrase 'fine words butter no parsnips'.

It is not what you say, but what you do. You had a WSRA board meeting last Tuesday was it, plus a conference call including Martin Brown WSR PLC director. You know what my next point will be, so I won't bother stating it.

Cheers,

Julian