West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Presumably because they seem to think the existing plc would have to be wound up and a new LRO required for a new entity. Surely better to keep our plc as the operating company but fitting differently within a new structure?

Methinks they're jumping the gun with these ideas and need to start at the very beginning around the PDG table before floating any ideas publicly. Making ill-informed stand-alone assumptions at this stage is definitely not the route to a good outcome. Nobody should underestimate the utter and overriding importance of getting this right. One Railway, One Chance.

Any news of the mooted independent chairman for PDG? Hope he or she is in place in time for September's PDG.

 

A look at the share register for 2018 (on the Companies House site) shows that 45% of the shares are owned by 18 shareholders. The remaining 55% are held by the approximately 7, 500 other shareholders. (No I didn't actually count them!) The 4 'institutional' shareholders (WSRA, WSST, SCC, DEPG) account for 20% (included in the 45%). Given the nature of the 55% (why on earth has the Worth Valley got 50 shares - £5 worth?) surely a shareholder led rearrangement is a possibility? The PLC has to survive to preserve the LRO so any transfer of the LRO, or replacement by a TWAO, will result in a further period of closure to traffic. How can the railway possibly survive that?
Pat

 

Bailey seemed to think it was possible. I have no reason to doubt a senior officer of the HRA on that point, but whether it is desirable or the only way, hmmm.

 

Transferable but expensive and long-winded? Surely, to be avoided if at all possible.

 

I do find it hard to believe that it is the only way. It would be interesting to know from @Lineisclear why he favoured that particular approach, was there anything that merited it in his eyes over and above the familiarity with the NYMR structure and how to move it towards that model?

I wonder if the WSRA trustees especially who are particularly keen to get on with the process (all credit to them) were involved in or had advanced sight of the latest statement?

 

Curiously the last line of the update reads:
Either way is fraught with challenges and it will need all groups to work together in a spirit of cooperation and compromise, before the final proposal is put forward to PLC shareholders
No mention, it seems about Memberships of WSRA or others that may be included in the discussions being consulted. No surprise that the WSSRT, apparently, wish to stay independent of it all.
It all seems quite PLC orientated.

 

I fully sympathise and what you have said all makes sense.
The transponders are certainly used on bulk trains in Canada but I can't remember seeing them on many wagons on manifest freights in 2016. [ @athelney will have a better idea.]
About 15 years ago as a train planner I was talking a TOPS clerk at Donny through the process of adding or deleting special handling codes by TK procedure, about 20 years after I had last used it in anger. I got the manual out and it was all there. ( We didn't have that trouble with Freightliner at Crewe or Knottingly, they had their own tame ex TOPS clerks in their Control Office.)
The other advantage of TOPS or TSDB is that it isn't written in a language that is familiar to modern hackers, which does aid security. Also each persons hash log in is set to a certain level of access. If you try something on a higher level than you are authorised to touch, nothing happens except the blocked transaction prints out on the Network Rail operations desk... Expect a sharp phone call and the threat of a form 1 for certain activities! ( A2 alternative terminal header is one I can remember.)

Sorry for the thread drift. Any more comments about TOPS and can the moderators move the conversation to a new thread?

Cheers, Neil

 

I think this is another example of the statement being a little contradictory, or at best not presenting a coherent position, thus:

"Hence, the PDG can help to identify the most popular meritorious, popular and potentially significant ideas for the board to consider recommending to shareholders. This will also allow support organisations to consult with their membership."

Although the reference to membership and support organisations does feel rather cursory to my mind.

 

They were probably left to the Worth Valley Railway in someone's will.

 

Nice to know that the WSR's shareholders take a close interest in the WSR then...

 

Just a thought.
Could these also be used as gags for some of the posters on this thread?

 

Made in Bridgnorth? Really?
Pat

 

Maybe for whoever thought the cuckoo nest quote was a good idea?

 

As one of the people who was in TOPS from the start at Southampton it was a major step forward in data reporting , yes it did just have to be imputed manually ......I also worked for Canadian Pacific on their version of data collection from box cars and you are correct , the bar code system did work , but if the scanner read it wrong of the bar code got damaged, then yes you had to manually walk the consist and determine the faulty numbers { or sit in the car at the crossing at the end of the yard with a flashlight } so disadvantages for sure ...CPR now use the Umler system of RFID readers attached to the box cars etc ...more accuracy..but I don't work for them anymore ...lol .

 

Nostalgia items for the future?

 

That was my reaction, and simply felt wrong - so much so that it made me wonder about the spirit behind the statement. Especially having demonstrated the ability to acquire pro bono advice, I’m struggling to see why relatively straightforward asset transfers should cost a six figure sum, or why TUPE transfers within the “WSR family” would be expensive.

I also wonder whether the focus on how the NYMR achieved its current structure is the best example, though I recognise the benefit of using John Bailey’s experience. Knowing little of the detail, I’d have thought the restructuring of the GCR 20 odd years ago might have been a more apt pattern to follow.

I think the September PDG (and I like the rebranding so long as it’s allowed to be real) will be a very interesting test of spirit, but I fear stalling tactics.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Bailey Report (4.10) states "The essential operating licence lies within the plc and would not be transferable."

A new operating entity would therefore need a new licence involving a fresh start- up application it seems. Expensive and daft.

 

As I was in nappies 20 odd years ago, could you elaborate please (or point to somewhere that does)?

 

It seems to me that the likley difficulty is with the shareholders, given that there appear to be a large number of deceased/untraceable shareholders and getting the necessary consents or powers to transfer those shares to the new controlling organisation