S&D Railway Trust

Gosh - yet another example of the Trust being helpful to the WSR, and not doubt at no cost to the Plc. Gadzooks man, we can't have these sort of people on our railway, it's just not done - Carson, get my solicitor on the speaking instrument at once!

 

Equally, I could be confused and conflating separate events! The ORR are always available for people to contact, after all

 

Don't worry, I have no doubt there internet can produce more evidence to dismiss the Plc's claims...

 

So in essence :
1)WSR Plc want to repaint Washford chocolate and cream.
2)WSR Plc want to ignore a recent lease agreement (on the assumption it has been signed ) as it doesn't pay them enough money.
3)They want to ignore or reduce their contracted liability to overhaul 88 when it's current boiler certificate expires but are quite happy to continue using it until then.
4)They wish to move the PW eyesore from Dunster to Washford in the expectation this will attract more visitors to both stations .
5)The Plc don't know the name of one of their largest shareholders/support groups .

 

..whilst quietly ignoring the fact that Dunster is in BR(WR) colours not GWR, or do they propose to change that as well???

 

I make no comment on the musings here on the rights and wrongs of the various statements that have been issued. How you chose to read them is up to you.
I had hoped that a role in getting the parties to agree to arbitration by the HRA would have been taken as a good thing.
However for those who want my head or the heads of other WSRA trustees on a pike I feel I must point out that nominations for trustee will be open shortly. You need to have been a member for a year.
Members are free to submit motions for the upcoming AGM which might be a tad easier than going to the bother of orchestrating an EGM.
We are hoping that the AGM can be held on line, I really do not want to see it postponed as members must have a voice in the appropriate forum.

If I post again on this topic it will not be until after the arbitration has taken place.

 

Agreeing to go to arbitration is most certainly a very welcome development. However the content of our Plc's position statement does little to inspire confidence that they would adhere to arbitration recommendations. The fact that their two biggest shareholders support the proposed eviction may be considered material by the HRA arbitrators. Nonetheless, the initiative must be given a chance.

 

Ah Southern colours, all good in my book.

 

If I may intrude on this fascinating conversation-- going through the locked thread there are postings referring to a path that was installed by Steam Trail/Sustrans which required walkers to cross the line at Washford. West Somerset Wizard's post at 14255 on page 713 seems to be the start of the discussion - perhaps that is part of the "safety issue" referred to by the PLC. I'll now leave.

 

seems it was the WSRA's idea

"The WSRA has developed and sourced funding for an imaginative plan for the development of Dunster yard, which would set out what a country station goods yard looked like. This will displace the present PW depot, and after consideration the PLC concluded that the PW group would be much better housed at WD"

Where is the funding coming from @Robin Moira White ?

 

Except that the money that was to be used was private money. One of the cornerstones of the debate was that as it had not been spent, where was it to be found in the accounts ? It's deja vu all over again.

In the recent release penned solely by the plc, there is the following statement referring to "88". "This repeated previous Trust concerns that some locomotive drivers did not like the Engine." In all my time on the WSR, I have never heard a single utterance that supports that statement. In fact when "89" was on the railway, the constant comment from the volunteers was that the owners of "89" ought to see how "88" performs. There have been countless improvements made to "88" and as commented before, she is very much a shed "pet".

Let's suspend reality for a moment and consider that the statement is temporarily true. So what. Some drivers don't like milk in their tea. Whoever wrote the release must have been scraping the barrel so hard to say something negative that they discovered the earth's core.

 

You'll have to excuse me being sceptical on this.

I fail to see how you can expect to be seen as independent when you sign a statement such as the one you issued yesterday.

The HRA is hardly a neutral party with Mark Smith sitting on the board of both the WSR and the HRA. Is that not a massive conflict of interest?

 

You are right, the statement isn't correct. It should read "a WSR fireman doesn't like the engine". Many a rumour flying round that an individual will make sure his firing turn is changed so he doesn't go on the engine. Maybe that fireman was also to do with the statement, who knows...

 

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but I note an interesting, related snippet in SR in that the plc gave notice last month for autocoach 169 to be removed. It was then agreed that it could stay after all.
Locomotive 5542 Ltd commented 'We hope that this agreement will continue for the remainder of the restoration and we can support the WSR financially over that period.'

Squeezing money out of those stabled on the WSR seems to be the driver at the bottom of it all.

 

No. That was a different issue.

Steve

 

I think that it will be very interesting to see the HRA Adjudication, and, of course the supporting evidence.

It will also be very interesting to see what happens if the Ajudicator rules in favour of the S&DRT

 

Presumably this is the plan that Ms White originally wrote and promoted very heavily on the WSR thread on here in the days before she became a trustee - I recall her posting daily about the state of Dunster and how much better her alternative goods yard display would be. This would explain why she seems to be firmly in support of the S&DRT's eviction

Edit: Robin's original plan included a project plan which would have seen Dunster's goods yard exhibit open last year - see https://www.national-preservation.c...ilway-operations.508987/page-422#post-1982636

 

Or Dark and Light Stone - the GWR building colours. Chocolate and cream on buildings was a BR colour scheme, I thought

 

Well, I had been thinking about renewing my WSRA membership - not now, I'm not.