S&D Railway Trust

‘Regretting the concern caused for members of the S&D trust,...’

I find it hard to imagine how anyone could come up with such an insincere form of weasel words, short of hiring in a semi-housetrained Polecat, to write it.

‘We’re sorry you are sad about us evicting you’, ‘we are sorry you are unhappy about us destroying 40 plus years of work’

 

I would agree that, at face value, that statement would seem pretty unambiguous. However, if we are going to "play with words", then the WSRA and/or WSSRT might well argue that "support for the Plc" was a general concept about the overall Plc strategy and should not imply specific approval of individual components thereof such as the WD eviction. I know that might be stretching it a bit, to say the least, but - as I'm sure we're all aware - the intended interpretation of something is not always the same as one's initial impression. Those who wrote that statement may well have crafted it to leave themselves 'wriggle room'

 

And my goodness are we seeing some wriggling!

 

I don't blame you for saying that Robin. Keep your head down until the all clear has been given. <BJ>

 

I wonder how much involvement the WSSRT really had in the joint statement. I suspect that had they seen it before publication they might have managed to get their initials in the right order!

 

Sadly it looks like a standard political tactic is being employed.

Now: "Now is not the right time to discuss this"

Later: "That is in the past and we need to move on"

 

..and even the full name of their Trust in the heading!

Why do I get the impression that this is another document which has been 'rushed out' in an attempt to calm things down, but only succeeded in making them worse?

 

If you go back to the locked WSR thread on here from around the time it happened there is a bit of information posted on there, but I don't blame anyone for not wanting to hunt through the dross to find it.

My recollection is that:

* shortly beforehand the WSRA were striving to change the composition of the PLC board and said they were going to do everything they could to get two of the directors removed from office
* at least one frequent poster on that thread, who has since passed away, admitted as an aside that he was one of the people who had contacted the ORR
* by the time the ORR inspection occurred, JJP had become chairman

As I said this is my recollection of what was posted on here; anyone who has a few days to spare can if they like trawl through the arguments for themselves

 

After sleeping on it, I think ive worked out what the two drivers behind this really are;

1. Money
2. The SDRT are not Great Western

Health and safety is always a good excuse to fall back onto in any argument, but as most of the claims made could realistically only taken place prior to any of the current board joining and the new lease being signed. This is just a smoke screen for the other two.

Just look at who are now the key players in all this, they are all known for wanting the WSR to be a 'recreation of the past'. So stations al in chocolate and cream, GWR or WR engines, etc etc. But then they want to run Manors, Halls, Castles, locos which would have never have been able to run on the line.

Interestingly, from observing during all my visits, and looking on wsr.org.uk, Washford is used reguarly by the WSR Plc PWay as somewhere to dump track machinery. So the PLC have a tennant which has developed and maintains the site for them to come along and use as a storage yard. Whatever rent the SDRT pay, the PLC have a excellent deal in all this if you ask me!

 

I recall it to be "Yorkshireman"

 

I can understand the issues about wanting to develop a GWR Ambiance, however 88 is a 'Somerset' loco and nobody would say that The Dukedog doesnt 'fit' the ambience of The Bluebell

 

Interesting to see that Washford is proposed to become the PWAY base. When the previous statement talked about perhaps having " some animals" there it must have meant Sharks / Dogfish / Salmon etc.

Jon

 

The current suggestion is at least more realistic than some sort of petting zoo, especially as there is one a few miles away.

 

I thought that the report to the ORR from a MOP was a separate event. Sorry if I've got confused (not difficult, I know).
I've just seen the picture of Washford on Steve Edge's site, and it suddenly became clear. As Downline alludes, it is painted Green and Cream, not Mud and Custard. Explains everything. Western exceptionalism trumps common sense (for the zillionth time).
Pat

 

Something I have pondered, and posted about, in the past.

I suspect most of the rest of the UK heritage world looks at all this and shudders, and thanks their lucky stars that their organization isn't like this.

I fear that the WSR will be a lesson for the rest of the heritage world in what not to do - e.g. to have a membership charity in overall control of the line (to discourage people from using their usual 'business' mindsets when thinking about it); and follow a 'promote from within in stages' policy for all management positions, to allow gauging the ability of potential management personnel to manage volunteers ('herding cats'), as well as insight into their basic character, before they are advanced to a position with real power..

That would actually be a positive outcome; I fear the reality is likely to be worse, e.g. if the creditors get their hands on the assets. And who knows what a cash-strapped SCC will do with the trackbed if the PLC disappears. (Hint: anyone who trusts a politician to 'do the right thing' is almost certain to be disappointed.)

Won't it be an irony if the Ex-6's basic concept (that a charity own the trackbed) turns out in retrospect to have been the right one? Too bad they had 'WSR disorder'.

Noel

 

Really?

This additional 'position statement', which I call the "Note", is explicitly referred in the "joint statement" as follows:-

"The PLC’s reasons are set out in the attached statement."

You don't sign a 'joint statement' without considering and having knowledge of something else attached

 

You were quite correct. The festival took place in June 2019, some months after ORR first became actively involved.

I doubt a MOP instigated this. More likely visiting railway staff I suspect. The document refers to visitors (plural) contacting ORR, if indeed that actually happened.

 

But knowledge of the attachment in no way affects the situation that the Plc was the sole party responsible for it.

However...those from the WSRA and WSSRT who signed the joint statement, by doing so IMHO have implicitly - if not explicitly - accepted what the Plc stated in the attachment. If not, then they should have made that fact clear.

 

No matter how much some people try to hide it, the facts are now out there, and from the reports, it is clear the supporting charities, Sided with the PLC, and talk of one railway family isn't worth anything, prehaps, this was always how it was going to end, with the S&D trust having to take the railway to court, its going to get messy, legal fights never end cleanly, If the trust win, it will finish the railway, the PLC will become insolvent, hopefully from that a new start might become possible, if they lose, then the trust will have to move elsewhere, and i would imagine sever all ties with the WSR including removing 88 whilst it still has some boiler life left, then again, that leaves open the possibility of a claim against the PLC, for steaming fees , for the time it was on hire, as the PLC have already indicated they are not going to stand by their contract to overhaul the engine, in return for free use of it, any Judge would i think find it fair to seek damages for this, so either way, pig headedness has ensured that its now highly likily the WSR will fail in the near future.