West Somerset Railway General Discussion

What I do not understand about the Plc's posting is WHY they redacted those bits relating to the S&DRT and 53808, especially as those were - I would argue that most of us would have assumed - the key reasons why the HRA review was requested in the first place.

Let us presume for a moment that the redacted content came down largely in the Plc's favour, for whatever reasons. Surely then they would be happy to show that off? If the other way around, and the Trust does have to leave etc, then that is going to be clear eventually anyway, so why hide it now? IIRC it said Redacted "pending discussions between the Plc and S&DRT" - but surely whatever those two bodies agree between themselves is not going to alter whatever Bailey actually wrote? Or is there a suggestion that Bailey has got something wrong and jointly they want to persuade him to correct it?

There have been suggestions further back in this thread that maybe the S&DRT might simply relocate elsewhere on the WSR such as BL. Now, this could be seen as a win-win situation for both sides in that (a) the Plc gets WD for its 'future plans' and 'saves face' by not having to withdraw the 'Notice to Quit' and (b) the S&DRT gets to remain on the line and hopefully sees 53808 continuing to run past its doors. But who gains any real benefit? Can the Plc really do at WD anything that it can not do elsewhere on the WSR and that would justify the necessary expenditure? The S&DRT might well gather some extra visitors (good for income) but - unlike at WD where effectively it is the whole station as an 'S&D outpost' entity - at BL (or wherever) it will simply be 'another attraction' whose S&D-like identity will be lost in the generality of the overall site.

 

The link did stop working overnight but it is now working again this morning !! ??

 

It now has the permission of the author.

 

That's because the file (or a similar file) has been reinstated.
Give it 10 mins and it'll be withdrawn again...

Keith

 

report is still available available for all to read on official WSR website with redactions. No comment from WSRA or WSSRT yet! or SDSRT.
No comment from plc regarding letter from WSRA re promotions sale, selective publishing of "good news" from plc?

 

You seem to think you are a good judge of character when it comes to business ethics. Can I invite you to comment on whether someone running a business that is then sanctioned by the regulator on a safety culture issue is fit to hold a position in another organisation.

Regarding the report..... "I'm Spartacus !". Ships often leak in the most unexpected places.

 

Was the part of the report that has been released by the PLC done so with the agreement of the other three parties - WSRA, S&DRHT & WSSRT? If not do they have an opinion on the matter?

And can the conclusions on the Washford Debacle be made public yet? I might draw an inference as to what it says.

 

Just to add to your comments about an S&DRT move to BL, there is the matter of who would pay to give the group similar facilities to what they currently have. Is there even enough room to do that? Then there is the issue of 53808 - with the plc basically having told the S&DRT that they won't be overhauling the loco at the end of the lease, the issue needs to be resolved asap (maybe it's covered in Mr Bailey's report), but as it stands why would the SDRT trust the plc regarding any new lease at BL?

Keith

 

To quote the report,

4.12 Were it not for the current Board of the PLC the railway would in all probability already have ceased to exist. They took on an insolvent business and turned it round so at least it has a fighting chance of surviving the lockdown. Instead of personal attacks they deserve recognition for what has been achieved and, above all, support in future. I’m sorry if this causes distress to some. I’m not in this to be nice. I tell it as I see it.

 

And that is another problem, the matter of trust, would you , if you were the trustee of the S&D tasked with discussing the future of your locomotive with the PLC, have any trust with the very people you are dealing with, given their recent behaviour, I certainly would want everything in writing , and my lawyers present, to ensure the other party could not, without fear of penalty, and massive legal costs, not keep to their side of the contract by the letter, whilst the PLC as a body might continue, those currently elected to office in it, clearly can not.

 

Not what I have been told, as a board member you are no doubt well placed to comment.

 

A report written before further facts over financial liabilities were in the public domain.

Now back to my question...….

 

Tempering my earlier comment, one doesnt have to agree with all that is in the report, I will not impunge any motives in the writer deciding to put in para 4.12, or question their judgement simply to say lets look at the main thrust of it, which I suggest moves in broadly the right direction and of course ask for publication of the rest of it, which may make very interesting reading.

 

As I suspect with others , by the time I had read an email via HOPS yesterday evening
the Document had, to my frustration been taken down. It has now, apparently post the
authour's permission reappeared with slight additions ( assuming a previous post here
is correct )

Yet another 'cock up' from the Plc it would appear.

However I have just waded through the last 24 hours of postings.

If I am wrong no doubt somebody will shout but.....

The S&D appears to have copied said report through its Membership, e.g. Andy Norman
( by his own admission) @Maverick and I assume based on recent postings Julian , some time past.
(Moderator Comment: Be aware that the above remark (now in italics) about the S&DRT copying the report to members is an unsubstantiated one, we have been told. If so, and we have no way of verifying this one way or the other, Nat Pres disassociates itself from this comment and it remains the responsibility solely of the poster)

I wonder if the WSRA, WSSRT, the Plc , let alone the Author knew of such a circulation ?
( To copy a document to known vocal critics of the Plc seems at best naive, at worst
very bad faith .)

Having now skimmed through the document ( I will read carefully in due course ) it
appears to be a ' without fear or favour' document. Let us all get behind it. Whilst
it would be very surprising if it were an exact blueprint for the future, it offers IMHO
a very good starting place.


Michael Rowe

Moderarator. WRT to my " appears to have" I had assumed that 'Andy Norman'
' Maverick' and 'JMA ' ( based on their various postings ) were members of the
S&D Trust and again based on their posts that they had received copies of the
'Bailey' report.

If this is incorrect I will apologise unreservedly.

Michael Rowe

 

NYMR Chairman perhaps? I believe he was some form of corporate lawyer, now busily engaged in trying to turn the NYMR into a pale version of the DSR.

 

Do you mean the "proceeds of the transfer of its [WSRA's] trading activities to the PLC"? If so, he know about it:

It's interesting (to me) to note the WSRA public statement to its members of 17th June and the PLC's response came after Bailey's report, with "tensions" continuing.

Patrick

 

As @granmaree posted earlier the plc statement is back on the plc website together with parts of the Bailey report, and a statement that it is published with the full permission of the author. It does not say whether the WSRA; WSSRT or S&DT agreed to publication in this place and time but does say that sections 2 and 3 (about the S&D issues were redacted "at the request of all involved parties, whilst mediation activities are still underway"
https://www.west-somerset-railway.c...response-to-sections-4-5-of-the-bailey-report

A gentleman named John Bailey is Chairman of the NYMR Trust. I do not know for certain whether he's the same John Bailey who wrote the report but the report's recommended structure for the WSR looks very similar to the NYMR setup. This is a charitable Trust and a Plc. The Trust controls the Plc, owning all the voting shares. The Plc can issue additional shares, to raise money, but these are non-voting and have no entitlement to a dividend. Charity Trustees are elected by the membership and some of them are also on the Plc board, other Plc directors appointed based on the skills needed by the business.

As @Maunsell907 says this sounds like a very good starting place for discussion about the WSR's long term future. The plc's statement says they'd like to go with this approach if their shareholders like the idea. It is now incumbent on the shareholders (including the WSRA & WSSRT ) to make their views known and to hold the plc board to account in delivering the outcome.

Since the new Trust would be the WSR's membership organisation I could easily imagine the WSRA winding themselves up and putting all their assets into the new Trust - on condition that a wide WSR Trust membership is achieved from the start with all WSRA members (and hopefully many others including plc shareholders) automatically enrolled on day 1.

 

Just catching up...

Noticed an interesting bit in the Plc response:;
"It is also clear that any such re-organisation will throw up significant internal challenges. The most obvious of these is the future role of the existing charities, although Bailey states there is no reason why the charities that currently fundraise for their own limited objects should not continue to do so."

I would have thought that the "...most significant challenge..." would be the complete demise and replacement of the existing Plc. Perhaps they hadn't noticed that suggestion?

 

I think they've covered that as the preceding paragraph makes clear:

Patrick

 

Home town jury for the plc, then.