S&D Railway Trust

That is what many have been saying for some time, but perhaps our mistake is in trying to apply logic to affairs at the WSR.

 

I'm not so sure that is a question, more like a given fact.

 

Hello Jill,

I too have similar concerns; I think it can be said that the WSR workshop staff have a high regard for '88', and to send it off to the MHR for the MHR not to be happy with the work done would infringe the badge of honour.

If someone has intervened and directed the workshop staff elsewhere so that work on '88' is being deliberately delayed, that would be a matter of considerable concern and a further breach of yet another agreement between the WSR PLC board and the SDRT, on the WSR PLC board's part.

(This is being closely monitored by those 'in the know', and by the SDRT).

Cheers,

Julian

 

It would make sense to some to hold 88 back until the removal from Washford actually starts.

 

Not if a contract's been signed by the S and D trust and Mid Hants for 88 to start work there later this year.

 

Sigh.........................

 

Of course, even if I assume that this story is untrue it is an indictment of the PLC management that it has gained currency

 

If untrue, it is, but would also be an indictment of close observers of the WSR scene that it has been believed

 

Indictment for what? Believing the Plc management might act spitefully?

Heaven forefend! - I wonder where on earth they could have got that idea?

 

Indeed. But when the effect of commentary is that only the worst is suspected?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Once bitten, twice shy.

 

A lot will depend on what sort of relationship both sides want with each other when this is all over, when 53808 has moved to Ropley, and the trust, if it has to has relocated elsewhere, or remain at Washford, if they do, clearly much work will have to be done rebuild the trust and relationship , if the future is a clean break, then its in both parties best interests to make it as pain free as possible any playing of games by any spiteful people will only rebound on them.

 

There are genuine concerns that SDRT loco '88' is not getting the attention it requires currently. And to get it back together and promptly for it's move to the MHR.

If the WSR PLC board are not careful a further looming PR disaster might ensue.

 

I don't believe the PLC board will care. As far as they are concerned they are winning. They have decided not to pay for the contractually agreed overhaul on '88'. Do you have a written agreement that the locomotive will be prepared to leave Somerset in time to meet its obligations in Hampshire? Not worth the paper it was written on even if it exists. Petty bullies continue to be mean and petty indefinitely. If I were responsible for the 7F I would get it removed. However getting access to it could be made an interesting exercise. You stand to get your noses rubbed in it even more.

 

Par for the course.

 

So you told us last night. Does this need repeating every night? I do not suppose anything has changed in the last 24 hours. Personally I would far rather hear of such concerns from the S&DRT itself when they feels it appropriate to share their concerns with their membership. That way I can be certain that these concerns are real and not part of someone's apparent hidden agenda.

Peter

 

Alas, human nature doesn't seem to work that way; the fact that the SDRT may have to leave is proof that some people don't get that "playing of games by any spiteful people will only rebound on them". The best rule I've ever come across for ordering human conduct is the Golden one ('Do unto others'). I wonder how many people who are part of the WSR Family would like to be treated the way the SDRT is being treated by the PLC - booted out of their long-established setting. It will be ironic indeed if the worm turns, and that fate comes calling for them too.

Noel

 

Could the PLC deny the S&DRT access to their locomotive and if so, on what grounds?