West Somerset Railway General Discussion

You are correct that my involvement in the dispute between the PLC and the S and D Trust over Washford was agreed by the parties as one of facilitation with a view to their reaching an agreement. As a result discussions have been held and are continuing. The relevant section of the report was redacted and the parties, agreed should remain confidential while those discussions continue.
The post above makes assumptions about the Extension Agreement and its arbitration provision which are flawed however reasonable they may seem. Assuming the parties agree at some stage to lift the confidentiality restriction then the reasons will be clear.
It's not so long ago that the two Charities, WSRA and WSSRT, were being criticised, especially on this forum, for their alleged support of the Washford Notice to Quit. It was obvious that whatever the outcome of the facilitated discussion it would have ramifications for the whole of the "WSR Family". The report on structure was done on my own initiative as a confidential one addressed to the Chairmen of each organisation. Judging by the response of each of those organisations they found it helpful and decided to lift the confidentiality restriction to enable wider discussion.
Whether the Notice to Quit is appropriate or reprehensible does not change the control that the PLC have over the railway and the remoteness of the possibility that any other entity could take over . Recognising that is simply an observation of fact, not an endorsement of any behaviour or policy.

 

No argument but the concern remains as to primary motive

 

Remember the timing of the 'Beeching' survey was regarded as being extremely questionable at the time - schools shut and midweek and no account of tickets being purchased elsewhere

Lies damned Lies and Statistics - Surveys comes to mind!

 

But for what reason?

DJB.

 

It certainly would. That's when the GWSR are starting and we've already been planning that for a month, maybe a bit longer? There's a hell of a lot of work involved.

 

Horrible thought!!

 

Exactly and cause for concern I suggest!

 

With the line verging upon insolvency the question arises about where and/or from whom, would the money would have come from for the purchase? Yet another appeal?

 

and possible conflict of interest, which could compromise the memebr of the WSR Board who has an interest in property development. I am not jumping to any conclusions but think that shareholders should know. It is a legitimate concern.

 

Were I a shareholder, my concern would be the absence of a reopening plan & the Washford eviction notice as that is inhibiting fundraising.

There are clearly concerns about the consequences of this but they are not the immediate issues although they follow from them

 

Just a reminder... the Board are all volunteers. My guess is that these weekends are being run as a result of a directive from Moscow.

 

Ah! so the word 'bolshy' might be appropriate.

 

A reason which might have nothing whatsoever to do with the West Somerset Railway, because it wouldn’t be surprising if the people concerned had property investments and interests elsewhere.

 

If you mean the Minehead Rail Link Group why is it pertinent? As far as I’m aware they’ve never done anything much other than the occasional press-release calling for somebody else to do something. No evidence of them having much credibility, influence or money.

 

Don’t forget, they have the all important Facebook page. Must be serious.

 

Yes, you can, but I am not currently a Director. The financial figures you have included refer to the then Financial Director, and General Manager, who were then full time paid staff, both of whom are no longer employed.

 

As you haven't identified the assumptions about the Agreement and its arbitration provision you impute to me, you deny me the opportunity to assess whether I have made any such assumptions and if so whether they are flawed. I made what seemed to me an uncontroversial factual comment about the Agreement's content, and I'm not impressed by the rejoinder that I'm wrong but you can't tell me why.

It's up to you whether you elaborate upon the assumptions I am supposed to have made, but anything further you have to say about the eviction dispute seems likely to reinforce my uneasiness about it being conflated with wider WSR problems. In my view it would have been far better for the HRA to have had nothing to do with the eviction dispute unless and until it was asked to appoint an arbitrator, thereby maintaining its distance from the matter.

Failing that, the opportunity was there to put the eviction dispute into an entirely separate, confidential box, of which some other facilitator could have acted as caretaker, whether appointed to do so by the HRA or otherwise. That would have left you free to compile the report on what ails the WSR in a way that would have minimised repercussions on parallel attempts to resolve the plc-S&DRT dispute. Unfortunately this was a path not taken.

I don't doubt that the discussion about the future governance of the WSR you initiated was necessary, appropriate and perhaps inevitable, but intermingling it with efforts to resolve the plc-S&DRT dispute strikes me as being a serious error.

 

Personally I couldn't give a nadger's grunge pin. But I am pleased to see, at last, a recommendation for changing the organisational shape of the WSR and one that seems to have gained a lot of approval with those running the affected parties. We have a fighting chance for change. The fact this recommendation shares a report with the Washford issue is not a "serious error" at all. Just be glad that perhaps we have the chance to get the old structure gone and a new more effective structure in.

Steve