West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Why is someone posting something marked 'Nor For Publication' and where is the "The issues surrounding Sections 1-3 about the S&DR were the subject of an earlier response."?

 

See the typo...

 

I'm glad that wasn't just me! Difficult to have previously published a response if what you're responding to you are still redacting from everyone else...

The fact that "Not for publication" is still there just makes it look a bit odd. One hopes that this wasn't unilaterally published?

 

In case you missed it the PLC have on their web-site just published their response to this report sent from the HRA to 4 Board Chairman which is marked 'Confidential' and 'Not for Publication'. They have copied the report in full at the bottom of their press release. This document was the initial response by the HRA as a result of them trying to help resolve the S&D eviction as previously reported. The HRA expanded their remit on their own inisutive and included the wider WSR issues and all 4 Boards. This was their opening view.

It was of course 'leaked' immediately to a number of us at the time.

Lets hope the PLC gained permission to put this in the public domain otherwise there will be some upset people around who were trying to help.

In my opinion this PLC release basically says "we have this under control, the two Charities have to go and the PLC reworked is staying". I don't think that was what the HRA intended, but what would I know and perhaps I'm too cynical now or is it another case of debunk in public before not talking to people !

 

I think @RailWest was referring to the Plc saying "The issues surrounding Sections 1-3 about the S&DR were the subject of an earlier response." Did we miss that bit? I've not seen anything in response to the Bailey report apart from the above link, which only addresses sections 4 and 5 about reform, and nothing on the Washford matter.

 

So, the one bit we do not yet know 'the answer to' is the one bit for which the HRA was asked to report originally! More waiting is required, it would seem :-(

From a brief read of the rest of the Report, at first I was not happy as to the way that it seemed to be going. Towards the end though I felt a lot better, the thrust seemed to be very much in line with what so many on here have been suggesting. But will it happen - who knows?

 

Sorry I was picking up on the fact the full report has been published but marked Not for Publication. No I've not seen a previous reply either to the other sections, a call to the S&D might give you some answers, I had that conversation .

 

Quite.

 

It should say “without” not “withOUR” lol

 

A glance at the map before they went would have disabused them of that idea. The height of the NYMR compared to the rest of the NYM is not so immediately obvious.

 

"With Our Prejudice" - maybe a Freudian slip ?

Noted also:-
"...which addresses several important issues on the railway of which we now share with you ..." - what exactly?

"... it makes sense that the consultation should include external parties with a specific interest in the WSR such as Local Councils, HRA, HPC, HLF and the ORR and some other heritage railways. ..."

But what about the S&DRT, the DEPG and the various Friends? Bailey says "I envisage their involvement in a railway wide solution......" and they are (or at least were) part of the PDG.

 

Roland

Where can we send ideas/offers of help to? Does the group have a specific contact address/e-mail? Or would you prefer direct contact to yourself or one of the other committee members? I do have some suggestions and like a lot of people right now, I do have some spare time.

 

You can contact the WSRA members of the team using their WSRA e-mail addresses.
https://www.wsra.org.uk/the-team/

 

Perhaps they meant what they published ......... !

 

I have just read the report and one thing does puzzle me. Many people on here have talked about the Plc failing and others have pointed out that if it did, the operating licence would be lost. In the report, he suggests a new company being set up and the necessary licences being swapped to the new company. What exactly is the difference in these scenarios? I am genuinely a little confused.

Ed Chap

 

I presume that if a new company was set up in advance and everything was prepared in advance that's quite a different matter to the Plc crashing and burning. One presumes as the HRA have recommended it it's at least a viable option.

 

Yes, I was not really impressed with the suggestion we should be grateful to the current board for "turning the railway around". Doing better than the previous management is not very praiseworthy if you then find a new and different way to make a hash of things. However, the proposed way forward is very much the "Art of the Achievable". Better to aim at something you know you have a good chance of succeeding with and succeeding, than to aim for perfection and fail dismally. The best is so often the enemy of the good. I'm just glad that someone has finally produced a report that says, "It's the structure, stupid".

 

I am surprised that you get that from,
"I would not recommend trying to transform the PLC into something else nor, with its current shareholding structure, is it a suitable vehicle to act as the operating company for a Charity. It’s probably better to start with a clean sheet, create a new operating company (as a controlled subsidiary of a new Charity) with employee contracts transferred under TUPE regulations together with licences any anything else the operating company needs to run the railway. The existing PLC would become dormant."
That doesn't sound to me like a "reworked Plc" staying.

 

Reading it briefly, while it does advocate that in terms of legal structures, the tone came across as being plc centric.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Well, 2 things strike me

1. What is the point of a fundraising committee when the goodwill to donate is absent?

2. What is the point of redacting the HRA report on the issue that some of regard as the single most important goodwill issue?

And so far as I can tell from what has been disclosed, John Bailey's Report is a 'whitewash' of the WSR PLC board, and the WSRA is the 'scapegoat'.

Cheers,

Julian