S&D Railway Trust

As of today the last Companies House filing is the appointment of Bob Meanley on 14th December 2019. (Although it took until 31st Jan 2020 to register this!)
Pat

 

One or two former posts have hinted at the hopes for a former GWR branch line ethos. I doubt that; why strive for a costly upgrade to a red route, if that is so? I know, who a former NP poster referred to as zealots, have a rural a GWR in their sights but the direction mentioned some while ago was to encourage the lucrative charter business to the line. That would mean large engines, hence the red route need. I wonder about how much of a future charters have at present? And how much of the £500,000 could be raised? With the prospect of litigation that is well and truly, in my view, out of the equation.
Apart from 4165 the other small branch engines are no longer there: i.e. 4160, 4110 and 6412.

 

I'm not sure that 'branch line' and 'red route' are mutually exclusive. It might well be possible to have a railway which looks like a stereotype 'sleepy, bucolic' branch line, but it actually capable of accommodating 'red route' engines. To a large extent it would depend upon how often you used the latter as opposed to the smaller 'branch line' types.

 

I just want eo see any steam loco on any railway.

 

I think to look at the totality of the actions carried out on the WSR and trying to look for evidence a grand plan, is a waste of time because I don’t think there is a grand plan. It seems to be driven by a desire for power and then hidden behind arguments such as ‘GWR branchline’, or ‘home fleet’ but when you step back you can see how devoid of logic or consistency these arguments are because of the contradictions between argument and previous actions (as you point out).

There is a lack of a clear and coherent vision about the railway in the short, medium or long term. Now, given the financial situation and the Covid crisis I can understand if the board said, we have a vision but we are working on it and we are concentrating on negotiating this difficult period, but if that were the case, why then engage in lengthy, distracting, exhausting, unnecessary and negative battles with groups on your railway? That to me is evidence of a board that is in over its head and doesn’t know what it is doing.

 

I know where you're coming from! The WSR and SVR have from time to time had GMs that are on the board (and so were also directors), but also at times GMs that are not on the board and are officers.

Emphatically I wasn't suggesting such a thing (your honour)!

Yes - shadow directors does include disbarred directors operating behind the scenes (I can think of one public case recently in the non-railway sector). The term is also wide enough to include anybody acting in that way.

More generally I was just trying to say it's not unusual for people to change roles, and wouldn't read anything into the (temporary?) change at the WSR.

Patrick

 

I agree with that, but am still struggling with the definition of “officer” - at work, I’ve heard the term used in a rather more precise way that suggests quite specific roles, rather than being a general synonym for “employee”.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

There is a repeated stating that " numerous complaints have been made to the ORR about the conduct, practices or operations of the S&DRT at Washford". I cannot imagine what I would have to witness on a preserved railway to complain directly to the ORR. I might take a dim view of something, but for me to make a serious complaint, the incident would have to be a very dangerous, "near-miss and we don't care" sort of thing. I can't recall any report of a serious, or dangerous, or in fact, at all noteworthy incident at Washford at all.
If there is only record of one complaint made to the ORR, then the WSR's claim is a lie. If they are telling lies in print, then that is libel...

 

Companies Act: "An “officer” of a company is defined as including a director, manager or (company) secretary, and any person who is to be treated as an officer of the company for the purposes of the provisions in question" http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/notes/division/10/36

Patrick

 

Hope you all spotted this as a journalist's dreams
1. The ORR does not specify what locations to put departments
2. Washford at the top of an incline is the worst place to have P Way yard due to runaways which will no longer be stopped at Blue Anchor as WSR have removed the catch points
3. Bishops Lydeard is already a too crowded place

 

Who have the ORR visited in recent times? It was the WSR and certainly not the SD Trust. A complaint would have resulted in a response from the ORR and possibly a visit. I do not think that that has happened. Fake News?

 

Is it not that language has changed? My 1902 railway rulebook is "for the guidance of the officers and men..." In that context I think it might translate to "senior leaders"

 

Indeed, everyone else who worked for the railway would be a "servant of the company"!

 

Maybe, but.....
1. How many unfitted PW wagons does the WSR have?
2. Unless you leave the points set for the yard, then nothing will go very far.
3. If you always shunt with the engine at the BA end, then there ought to be no (or much less of) a problem.

I hasten to add - despite the above, still not a good idea to have the PW there. In fact, as there is likely to be more shunting in/out of the yard with a PW depot in regular use, rather than currently with the S&DRT 'museum site', then another factor to be taken into account.

 

Well, we all know what floats to the surface(top), don't we ?

 

Unfortunately, most preserved railways have directors who think the railway is there to serve their own agendas, pet projects, preferences and egos.

Most preserved railways manage to keep a lid on the bullies, although it is a merry go round of railways taking turns to have bad directors.

 

This discussion is quite hypothetical, because their already exists a quite sizeable native species hedge between the houses in Castle Mead and the railway. There is also a hedge that runs north from the yard between two fields, so I can hardly see anyone objecting to a hedge between the yard and the field as a continuation of it, apart from those folk who move into a new house in a village and then insist that nothing else changes from then on.

 

Can see this thread getting closed

 

It's not the yard and the field, it's the road and the yard, the cottages and the yard, the pub and the yard, the running line and the yard ..... there is no way of screening the mess that it would inevitably become and reducing the noise. Would anybody feel it would be a good move? To access the site at Dunster is the track embedded in the roadway as in a proper crossing on the level? At Washford it is basically ballast with check rails on the running line, the line is quite a raised hump? Further expenses to lay that properly and install phones to request possession if they had to satisfy the ORR that they were moving many private and works vehicles across a live line numerous times a day safely. Far more than the S&D would in a whole season!

 

Just as a matter of record, the PLC statement of 1st May 2020 says:

Also, as a matter of interest, has anyone else noticed the way the PLC'sstatement gives the background to the SDRT? The statement talks about the SDRT having Kilmersdon, carriages, wagons, signalling and the museum but no mention of No88 - strange!
It's also interesting to note that the PLC is complaining about the SDRT paying £1249 pa with the implication that this is very low and part of the reason for the eviction. So why are the WSSRT not being evicted? They only pay £841.60 pa! Double standards?

Keith