West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Should we worry when a company director don't seem to be consistently sure what the name of his own company is?

 

But has the WSR ever done a study on where and at what time their passengers travel and what determines that travel, not to my knowledge?

By another name it is called Marketing - meeting the needs of the market

 

A customer survey undertaken with all travelling passengers would help determine what was required when and where

 

Maybe the clamour, by the WSRA to get their hands on 4160, if that is the case, is to ensure they have a finger in the WSR pie in the future. The proposals, in the Bailey Report, do seem to infer a sidelining of the WSRA. Maybe that was what that alleged altercation between the two Chairmen really referred to?

 

That requires someone to go out and SELL the Railway to possible interested parties, has this ever been done?

or has the Railway waited for the customers to come to them, if so the American expression Fat Dumb and Happy comes to mind!

 

I don't think the timelines support that.

And in any case, as I've said before, the WSR Plc is a legal entity, not people, and the same applies to the WSRA. The people that run it are not intrinsically "WSRA". They are just intrinsically "WSR". I don't see why becoming trustee or director of a new company or charity which would allow a better set-up would be so objectionable to anyone.

 

I've generally given up commenting on the WSR situation, for a variety of reasons, but this was able to rouse me.

Moving the SDRT out of Washford would, in view of all the work they've put in there, be tremendously difficult (and probably expensive to boot). To go through all that, to move to another location on the same line which has just attempted to terminate their existing lease would seem to me to be extremely ill-advised (to say the least). What guarantee would they have that all the time, energy and money put into moving would be secure? A lease? Oh, like the one the PLC is now trying to bail out of?

I would think the SDRT would be ill-advised to do so unless the new contract included an 'if we try and break this, you get the PLC' clause. (In some jurisdictions, the legal term is 'liquidated damages'.) It would be the height of folly to proceed with such a move without roughly that level of security. (In fact, anyone dealing with the PLC in any way would be advised to proceed in that way - see the WSRA's non-payment problem.)

Without that, it would seem to me best for the SDRT to move elsewhere - if such a place exists (from what's been said here, I'm not sure it does).

Noel

 

The 2018 PTT suggests they know what their passengers dohttps://www.national-preservation.c...lway-operations.508987/page-1340#post-2584753.

In some respects an EPOS system will give you a pretty good idea as to what people are doing at the start of the day (which is important for getting things right). Once they are with you, then it is a case of ensuring they can get home at the right time for one of two things 1) Put the kids to bed or 2) able to get a decent meal somewhere and then retire to your place of choice. There's a cut off line with the latter one. Get your later arrival wrong and the train runs empty. Get it right and people are with you for a longer day

 

Whilst clear and inspirational leadership is a good thing I'd say it's often a mistake to rely too much upon one person with unchecked powers especially in a complex organisation. The proposed WSR structure in the Bailey report might be one way to address this since the Trust would act as a more effective brake upon the power of an over-mighty plc chairman. Similarly, independent directors of the plc would bring a healthy dose of commercial reality to the top table as a balance to the Trust's heritage objectives.

 

If modelled on the NYMR version, though, there's a risk of a loss of accountability. Under John Bailey the NYMR has seen a large reduction in size of the Trust Board (so far fewer members from the working membership) and even the Chairman is now to be elected from within the Trust Board, solely by that Board - the general membership no longer have a say in who their chairman might be. It's not a model that I for one would completely recommend, whatever the financial advantages.

 

As you all know I don't often post here but I was upset to learn I'd failed to answer a members question.
So I've trawled back through the cloud and I can find no e-mail in my inbox from the WSRA member mentioned in the link.
Can I ask the collective of NP if they know the chap concerned to ask him to get in touch please.

 

Yes.

Steve

 

I guess you may have missed noting the attendances by WSR over many years at various trade exhibitions in the group travel sector. (At places like Bristol, London, Manchester, Birmingham.)

I've even found a picture for you!


John Simms from the WSR's Commercial Department and Antony Brunt from Exmoor Tourism at work with customers at the West Somerset Railway stand at the Group Travel and Leisure Show at the NEC Birmingham on Thursday 22 October 2015.
© Martyn Snell
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence. Any re-use of the above image must conform to the requirements of the Creative Commons Licence.

Visit wsr.org.uk for all the Topical pictures

Steve

 

It's all a point of view, some say marketing is the art of convincing gullible people to pay good money for something they didn't realise they needed !

 

Not for the first time I'm afraid you are just starting rumours which discredit people who are not supportive of the current PLC. In my post #26789 in reply to Rodney above your post (had you taken the time to read it) I said:

"Lets narrow it down a bit for you and stop a rumour before it starts and somebody puts out another press release blaming somebody else for something they did (again). It was not the S&D, there that's down to three sources for you to look at."

So that leaves three places it could have come from and others with no connection with the S&D were sent the document not just the three people you mention.

I of course know exactly who. The old guard are still playing games with each other and the same old, same war is still raging, its just a pity the poor S&D are caught in the middle of this latest chapter. They have been nothing but professional through all of this.

Thank you to the mods for making the comment they did on Michael's post and I hope my stopping a rumour in this post (as I tried to do in post 26789) doesn't cut across forum rules.

 

and please do not forget the positive go get attitude of the Lynton & Barnstaple who like the Gloucester Warwicks started with nothing unlike the WSR who were presented with an existing infrastructure!

Bring a go get attitude to the WSR and the money will follow!

 

Indeed. The tone of the para. 5.11, while advocating one member, one vote, suggests an underlying suspicion of members' motives for seeking to drive change.

More generally, I'm personally very uncomfortable with the idea of restricting voting rights in the company because it entrenches management power. As an armchair NYMR member, I observe a disconnect between how the railway is managed and some of the active members, and see the consolidation of power within the management structures as both enabling management to pursue their chosen agenda and leaving issues between management and members (e.g. over the emphasis on heritage vs numbers) festering, unresolved, and smouldering. I'd far prefer a system in which the owning charity holds a controlling stake in the company, with powers to issue more shares to maintain it's shareholding at 50% + 1, where those "with huge emotional capital invested" can choose whether to use their influence through the charity or directly upon the board through their shareholdings.

 

So perhaps you could explain the lack of discontent on the Gloucester Warwicks and their ability to raise large sums of money to deal with their traumas and progression, one of which would have been sufficient to kill of the WSR at a stroke?

 

I tend to agree!!!!