S&D Railway Trust

Oh that sounds fun. Before asking Q.2, can anyone who has read the Railway Herald article confirm what @Andy Moody reported that it said about this? Everyone else who has read it has said it largely just restated the Plc statement, and, whilst long and rambling in nature, I don't recall mention of this there.

I think to be fair to Railway Herald, railway news rarely actually needs journalism, simple reporting is usually sufficient, as stuff just "is" in the railway world. But when it comes to reporting on WSR matters, some degree of investigative journalism really is required, otherwise you end up publishing patently untrue statements like the Steam Beano one about WSR ID cards.

 

SDRT press release 20/3/20
The WSR plc has put part of the reason for the Notice to Quit down to our lack of contribution towards their financial difficulties. However, the Trust’s charitable objectives would make such donations unlawful and it would be unlikely that any changes away from our S&D specialism would be approved by the members at an AGM. Nonetheless, we have assisted the WSR in other ways such as by providing most of the proceeds from 2019 Beer Festival and purchasing items from them

Would this be the same Beer Festival that the PLC were happy to accept 'most of the proceeds'?

 

A check of the ORR web-site revealed this:

https://orr.gov.uk/rail/publication.../improvement-notices/improvement-notices-2013

It's the only reference I can find that mentions anything like the Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway and relates to an Improvement Notice issued on 6th Dec 2013.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the group at Midsomer Norton and not Washford.

 

The article merely says that the railway needs to increase it's permanent way capacity to meet the ORR's strict requirements and Washford Yard was identified as an ideal location... No mention of it coming from the ORR

 

You are not wrong.

 

Although unless I missed it no mention of the WSR either, so it's not diagnostic.

 

Just sayin'...

 

The way I see it is that indicates that the ORR has not had any reports or carried out inspections that required formal action. How that fact stands with regard to the content of the PLC's statement will be for legal minds to determine.

 

I think the WSR Plc need to elaborate on the a bit more to fully understand this. But I cant see how moving to Washford increases capacity. If anything Dunster is not fully utilised because of the amount of redundant items stored there, tidy it up and your capacity increases massively.

And other than being used to store machinery, spares and maybe a stack of sleepers for spot re-sleepering throughout the year, what else needs to be stored in a PWay yard to increase capacity? When it comes to the large projects, I thought the modern, efficient way of working is to order in the materials for delivery on a just in time basis, and then you would want them either delivered to the worksite, or delivered somewhere which is easily accessible for transfer onto rail vehicles to take to the worksite. It seems to be what they have done in the past, and also what other heritage railways and network rail seem to do. You don't see masses of materials sat around in a yard all year waiting for the winter project.

 

There's this: https://orr.gov.uk/news-and-blogs/orr-blog/2019/steaming-safely-from-the-1950s-into-the-21st-century which seems more like a news story than an actual report. Still it does highlight that there were issues with maintenance, structures, record keeping and the SMS and that the ORR are watching the PLC.

Keith

 

It does refer to Midsomer Norton Not Washford

 

Not necessarily - if you aim to get materials on a "just in time" basis, it is likely you will end up paying higher prices, because it is quite likely you are trying to get materials just when every one else is.

By contrast, sometimes there are opportunities to buy left-over ballast from NR at low prices if they have been working in your area, but doing so needs a space to store it until you are ready to use it. Likewise for track - thinking how we do it, we pre-assemble 60 foot track panels through the year, which are then delivered to wherever they are needed prior to each winter's planned track replacement. Doing it that way does require a degree of space. If anyone doubts the efficiency of doing it that way, we replaced 1040 yards of track, including enhanced drainage in places, last winter.

No comment about whether Dunster or Washford is the better location to do that - or indeed anywhere else on the railway.

Tom

 

Indeed - see https://orrprdpubreg1.blob.core.wi...nt Railway Company Ltd improvement notice.pdf for full details.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Indeed.
Just look at the mountain of concrete sleepers at Northiam. Short panels delivered as and when available cheaply. Stripped to components when p/w gang have spare time. Those short rails welded back to correct lengths, again when welders available at reasonable cost. All ready for when RVR can proceed with track laying.

That process all takes space. It may be unsightly while its going on, but saves a lot of money.

 

Continuing the O/T, the last statement of capital following an allotment of shares was on 17 May 2019 with statements beforehand every couple of months. Either the PLC board has not been approving share requests between May and the recent appeal, or it's not been stating them as required. It'd be a minor transgression if there's no significant change.

Back on thread.

Patrick

 

The ability and space to build point work under yard conditions to allow for quick on site installation needs significant space too.

 

May I posit the following scenario: Someone who attended the Real Ale festival saw something that they thought was dangerous. Without contacting the S&DRT, or the festival organisers, they contacted the ORR with their (subjective) view of what went on. The ORR, quite rightly, mentions this to the Plc. The Plc then contacts the S&DRT. The S&DRT explain what happened and point out that, in fact, nothing dangerous actually happened so that there is nothing to worry about and there is no need for them to give a commitment for safer working in the future.
All as reported above, but not with the same spin.

 

In the latest 'letter' just issued today by JJ-P:-

"..........during the past few weeks we have received some undesirable attention on social media, in particular a site called National Preservation. This became so unpleasant, that the operators of this particular website took down the page dedicated to the West Somerset Railway......"

AIUI from what the Admins said, that was not the reason that it was shut down.

".....It is important that you are aware we have decided that to protect the good name of the PLC, and you as shareholders, we have changed our approach from trying to ignore these comments, to one of issuing factual statements to rebut these unfair, unbalanced and unjustified remarks. One has been issued already and others may follow......"

I wonder which one that is then? 'Factual statements' are OK provided that the facts provided are accurate.

No mention as far as I can tell about the S&DRT situation.

 

Perhaps the “owners of NP” need to issue a “factual statement”

Tom