S&D Railway Trust

Don't worry about it - the mods have kindly moved/removed the posts

Keith

 

That's probably the most polite yet appropriate description of the WSR that I have seen.

 

and also without giving any substantiation as to what a commercial rent would be for a site with no access except across a working railway line.

 

The WSR signed a new lease for the S&DRT in 2018. Presumably the rent arrangements were specified in that, so therefore must have been acceptable to the WSR at that time. AFAIK the S&DRT has paid its rent since then and is not in arrears. If the WSR wants to open polite negotiations about a possible rent rise, then fine, but to complain in effect that someone is not paying more than their agreed rent seems a strange attitude......

 

The whole eviction business betokens a very strange attitude, but so do several of the WSR PLC's other doings in the last couple of years. A coherent explanation would be a slight improvement, and a change of heart would be a huge improvement, but the weeks go by with no hint of either.

 

I would expect that the PLC does have an plan behind this, either its divide and conquer , with the intention being to remove any dissenting voices and put the supporting , or as some see it, not supporting enough groups firmly in their place, with a view of "We don't need you anyway" or its someone actually believes they are bigger than the railway, My view, is no one person is indispensable, especially if their actions look to be endangering any railway, on a wider scope, I hope the members of the supporters groups when the time comes at their AGM'S remember who supported a fellow group, and who was happy to sell them down the river, to most likily try to divert the anger of the PLC from their own group, history remembers appeasers with contempt.

 

I don't think it's that uncommon for a change of landlord or a change of personnel at the landlording organisation resulting in the new person becoming convinced that the tenant is on to a good thing and the rent ought to be a lot higher. It's also not that uncommon for this to result in the tenant leaving, only for the landlord to find that the rent paid was the market rent after all, and having to settle for the same rent, or even a lower one, from a new tenant.

 

If neither of those is the actual plan, the PLC could very easily say so. The silence strongly suggests that one or other of those is indeed the plan.

 

It would be good if in the summer the dmu from Taunton could be an auto train with 4 coaches

 

What year?

 

There are no mainline-registered engines that are suitable for use in 4-coach auto trains.

Iirc, only the 14xx and 64xx class locomotives are suitable for 4-coach autotrains, and the WSR has none of those, so you'd need to hire one in. 1450's boiler ticket expires this year, which would leave you with 6412 (SDR), 6430 (Llangollen) and 6435 (Bodmin) operational.

 

They’ll just have to go round the triangle the hahaha

 

Back to the SDJR and WSR, the post i have made in the Main WSR Operations chat may be of interest in relation to the Washford Eviction notice. https://www.national-preservation.c...lway-operations.508987/page-1254#post-2569964

 

I was aware that those two were auto fitted, but I was under the impression that it was cab end only for the prairies, thus limiting them to 2 coaches?

 

I've read this a few times. The SDRT trustees have both a long lease and fiduciary interests the the trust. I'm not convinced they can just agree to increase contractual rent payments to the PLC if not obliged to, unless there are other reasons for doing so? Enough lawyers on here to worry about such things though.

Patrick

 

Curiousier and curiousier. A cash strapped organisation that is telling us that it is virtually insolvent and needs to do x,y, and a to survive, is at the same time looking to buy the trackbed.

 

Unusual the bigger loco can haul less in auto mode is it because they couldn’t get the pipes to the front which controls the regulators