S&D Railway Trust

My point though is that especially given the current situation, the eviction of the S&DRT from Washford, in my view anyway, makes it significantly less likely that the WSR survives the Coronavirus Crisis.

 

One would assume that a sensibly and professionally managed would have done that sort of analysis. Whether the WSR has or not...who knows!

 

That presupposes that the land at Washford is worth more than £1,250 pa to another tenant. Not only have the Plc given zero evidence of that, they have repeatedly implied that the reason for raising the rent is that they need more money, not that the site id worth more, i.e. the calculation is not "this land is worth more than you are paying for it, so pay more", but "it will cost you more to move to another site than paying additional rent, so pay more". Added to which, as I stated previously, who else wants to occupy a site with a difficult road access over a working railway without the benefit of a signalled level crossing?

This shareholder doesn't assume anything of the sort. The reasons for evicting the S&DRT are not financial, otherwise why replace a tenant paying £1,250 pa with an occupier paying £0 pa. It's not even as if the Plc using Washford yard saves them rent elsewhere.

Yes, communication is one area where all parties, apart from, perhaps the S&DRT seem to be at fault. What is it with railways and lack of communication?

 

Revenge for not paying up, surely?

 

I have to agree with you there. It's probably the result of ignoring a problem in the hope it will go away.

Which is why the charities are trying to steer the Plc away from litigation.

It's not. When you have the personalities that are involved here, moderation or mitigation is a lot easier and more achievable than force. One of my posts in this thread was moderated by the removal of a piece of strong language. I didn't mind and the post was still there in its essentials, making the point I was intending to make (I hope). The alternative would have been simply to remove the post - the use of force. Would that have had the same effect?

 

That what it looks like to me.

 

I see your arguments but I disagree slightly. I think a lot depends on the starting position of the WSRA and WSSRT.

If they support the eviction of the S&DRT but believe that the PR damage is having a significant impact on the line - in which case the strategy is to be as emollient as possible but while not shifting the position on the eviction. It is a PR strategy more than anything else.

The HRA as arbitration looks pretty rigged and compromised. Akin to asking Richard Branson to decide on whether airlines should be bailed out.

If they genuinely believe that they have ‘talked the PLC down’ then I think that they are on a hiding to nothing and I don’t believe it will change the behaviour of the PLC and I suspect that they are just fulfilling the role of ‘useful idiots’ to prop up and give the PLC legitimacy in evicting the S&DRT. “Look the WSRA and WSSRT support us showing that everyone is united behind the PLC and Jones Pratt”.

 

Clearly, and this is but the first act, an a tragedy, second act will be, telling the WSRA, we need more money, and if we don't get it, it will be your fault if we go into liquidation, and god forbit, if JJP gets his hands on those unsold shares, i can guarantee the WSRA will be told your no longer needed, or recognised as a support organisation,

 

A prepack means all, or the overwhelming majority of the creditors and other interested parties have agreed to the new arrangements before administration takes place. In answer to your second question, they would be voided as one of the contracting parties would cease to exist.
There is no obligation on the other party to offer a new arrangement to newco.

I believe most of the licences under which the railway operates would also fall away.

 

What's to stop him?

 

I always read Tom's (Jamesquared) posts with great interest, but I think Tom has missed a number of points...

The 'position statement' of the WSR PLC attached to the 'joint statement' does not deal with semantics 5 years or so on. Instead, it states quite specifically

"the PLC can’t fund the locomotive’s overhaul, given the current financial position"

That, at least to me, is a statement of the actuality as to the WSR PLC board's position and it's intents and 'bona fides'/"good faith", and that the WSR PLC board won't honour the agreement.

Tom has referenced the WSR PLC accounts and the amount put aside on paper for the loco. Others have suggested previously and recently this money has been spent - is no longer there - and there is some support for this in the 'position statement'...

"The PLC has worked to build some financial provision to look after the engine"

(Without any specific amount being stated)

The above 2 quotes contradict each other, except if the money in the accounts has been spent or was never really there to start with then all is sort of clear to some of us.

Personally, I would rather concentrate on the 'Notice to Quit' over Washford, over which the legal clock is ticking away.

Cheers,

Julian

 

Indeed, the money situation is unclear enough that I wouldn't want to bet on a legal challenge, it'll probably be very hard to prove, even though it's clearly morally wrong. The notice to quit seems much more concrete.

 

Where's the bona fides in a blatant breach of contract ?

 

Where is Andy Norman?

 

Thisis only going to end one way, and that is by the S&D Museum trust fighting the eviction notice in court, then if they lose, they will have to find a new home, and the WSR will have to deal with the negativity that will fall on it as a result, As the PLC has indicated, it is going to not stick by the contract to overhaul 88, then who can blame the owners if they decide, to sever all ties, and remove the loco also, telling the PLC, if you don't like it tough, but that will be just one of the issues, another will be that the members , who disagree with the stance the charities have taken will not want to bail out the failing PLC, and, of course the charities will get the blame.
If you build your house on shaky foundations, it will at some point fall down . the line is in dire straits financially as it is, without the external pressures brought on by the lockdown, and not being able to trade, and every heritage railway is asking for help to see it through this very hard time, but instead the WSR, seems to prefer to internally self destruct , and be in a perminent state of internal strife, with each other.

 

"The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing"

or endorse evil from others

Rob

 

The statements by @Robin Moira White and @aldfort remind me of a scene in the kangaroo court that tried Nicolae Ceausescu after he fell from power.

Judge: Did you sign the order
Ceausescu: Yes, and you should know because you were there.

There is now no way that the trustees of the WSRA and WSSRT can claim that the actions of the PLC are nothing to do with them.

I'd also suggest that the offer of rigged arbitration is a PR move, ie make the S&DRT an unacceptable offer and then claim that the S&DRT are being inflexible if they reject it.

 

You would have thought that it would have dawned on the Plc Board by now that they are on a hiding to nothing if they go to court. Whichever way the decision goes, they incur the enmity of a large part of the railway enthusiast community, the same community on which they rely for donations, and pay for the privilege.

But hey, ho, such failures of understanding are as perennial as the grass; why else would the fable of the goose that laid the golden eggs have been written?

 

The only way out is for the plc (and its new allies) to say sorry to the S&DRT, the notice to quit withdrawn, and a reliable assurance that the cost of overhaul for 53808 will be met by the plc as per existing contract. Unlikely, but this needs to happen for the sake of the Railway, which matters a lot more than JJP's ego.