West Somerset Railway General Discussion

If the Trustees of a charity decide to lob money to a distinct non charity employer to pay its wage bill they would risk being held personally liable to repay the sums involved.

 

The person who was one of the best at raising funds for the WSR was, it seems, edged out. Is there a record of how many own goals that have been scored?
That fund raiser could have saved the line putting itself into hock with the bank to a lesser degree.

 

Thanks Pete. That page doesn't tell me about the relationship with the SVR operating company. What's to stop the operating company from just doing its own thing?

Steve

 

Well yes the model works but what exactly is the "model"? What's to stop the commercial company from doing what it likes?

Also, I'm not sure if a commercial company can have a "charitable arm" (as you put it) that accesses monies for "charitable" things but uses the cash to prop up its commercial business.

It seems on what I have read so far (SVR statements, FAQ) that the HLF is granting cash to pay the wages of an independent commercial company. If they can do it then so can we all...

Steve

 

That independent commercial company known as the SVR may be classed as a heritage site or operation. Sadly as I understand it, the WSR is recorded as a tourist railway so is not covered by an arts/heritage bailout scheme. The consequence is that our current structure has prevented receiving potential money.

 

A slight correction Steve, there are three bodies (the owning/operating PLC, membership body [the 'Guarantee' Company] and the Charity). I'm not aware of a webpage which explains 'how' they work together.

Appeals for donations to the SVR’s Fight Back Fund were switched at an early stage from donations to the Charity to donations to/share purchases in the PLC precisely because the Charity couldn't 'lob' money.

The public reports seem to say it's gone to the PLC. I'll post up clarification if I see it.

Patrick
Branch Lines co-editor, but not otherwise involved in running the SVR

 

Are the SDJRT open at the moment?

 

That could be seen as 'this is what we want to do' though, directing answers.

Open answers are a better way of getting the bigger picture. Even with the MD/BA thing, would people want time to go into BA or is it out and back?
People may not mind the diesels so much so put yes even though they really want a steam loco.

I think a SVR approach would work better for the WSR. A limited stop service with built in time to explore other destinations.

 

It's a model that can work well as it obviously does at the SVR. The GWSR is another example.

It assumes, as the the SVR web site makes clear, hat the funding is project by project and that the operating company generates an operating surplus. I it goes into operating loss territory the legitimacy of a Charity use of its taxation privileges to subsid a distinct copany becomes problematic. It's too simplistic to suggest this model raises money for the railway. Strictly speaking it raises money for projects that help the railway but accountability for how the money is spend would always rest with the Charity Trustees

These are exceptional times so maybe the Charity Commission would take a more relaxed view where the operating company is set up as a subsidiary of the Charity or the Charity is its subsidiary. Where they are wholly independent of each other, as is the case for the WSR, the Trustees would be wise to check very carefully to avoid becoming personally accountable for the subsidy.
"

 

There is some information on the SVR Wiki organisation page:
https://www.svrwiki.com/The_Severn_Valley_Railway_in_preservation#Current_Organisation

Basically they work together as follows:

• The PLC owns the infrastructure, operates the railway and employs the paid staff. Shareholders provide money for big projects by buying shares in exchange for benefits, mainly free travel.
• The Guarantee Company gets recurring income through membership, in exchange for which members get benefits, mainly discounted travel and the house magazine. All volunteers on the railway have to be members. Any surplus is used to buy shares in the PLC, increasing the members' stake in the PLC (circa 20%).
• The Charitable Trust is focused on fund raising through donations / gift aid, lottery and other grants. The money raised is given to the PLC and cannot be used for any purpose but is used for specific (and quite wide-ranging) aims in accordance with the articles. So for example it couldn't pay the GM's salary but could pay for apprentices or costs involved with restorations (Falling Sands Viaduct, for example).

The articles of all three organisations allow cross-board representation. I have seen this argued against because of perceived 'conflict of interest' – my opinion is that in a true 'one railway' there should be no reason for any conflict of interest and that the cross-board representation helps prevent this. Also the Charitable Trust representatives on the main Board can ensure that money is not used improperly.

 

Re: last paragraph [of post #27891] by @Lineisclear above, I agree caution is required, but suspect HM Treasury may ultimately prove less forgiving than the Charity Commissioners.

 

The answer to the apparent conundrum from WSR members about how the three SVR bodies operate is fairly simple. They are independent of each other but work closely together for the general good of the SVR. They even share offices in the same building !

The historical and very public deflowering of Nabarro forced mainly by working members being the only real instance of dissent and independence.

Edit. Robin above has posted more detailed information on the relationship and status of the three groups.

 

I seem to remember a comment from SVR senior management not that long ago along the lines of 'Of course if we were starting over again, we probably wouldn't have the structure that we do'. The point being that, as mentioned here before, pretty much any structure will work if the people involved want it to.

 

Thanks. I was unaware of that website.

It does rather confirm that using the recent HLF grant to pay the wages of paid staff in the "PLC" may not be within the Trust's gift. On the other hand, if it is OK for a charity to pay the wages of an independent commercial company (representatives are either directors of that company and therefore tied to do the best for the company, not necessarily the organisation they "represent", or they are just "attending") then maybe the WSR can do likewise.

Just trying to understand how it works on other railways to help look at alternative set ups on the WSR.

History tells me that the WSR set up has not worked and has long needed radical overhaul.

Steve

 

I don't think so, but then neither is the WSR so a bit academic!

 

I think that we should stop accepting lame excuses. So many other railways have managed to re-open (although obviously taking necessary safety measures), that there is no sound reason why the WSR cannot do so. I took a ride on the Dartmouth Steam railway last week, and it was at a sensible fare, did the whole line and gave a worthwhile break at the other end, which gave us all time for a proper meal and pint in Dartmouth. They didn't need compartment stock in order to ensure social distancing, and West Somerset doesn't AFAIK suffer from a particularly virulent form of COVID-19. Putting it plainly, the WSR is not reopening because a piss poor management has not kept up with track maintenance and ensuring rolling stock and staff are ready.

 

Sorry but nearly everybody else is managing to reopen. The plc have nobody and nothing else to blame for apparently not being able to reopen.

I hope that my ride over the line last autumn wasn't the last.