West Somerset Railway General Discussion

There could be the potential for a conflict of interest but there are rules governing such things and I am sure the Company's Auditors would see that they are obeyed.

 

The Company AGM is likely to be a virtual meeting, severely limiting shareholder involvement. The temporary Companies House general meeting rule relaxation applies until the end of September, so this meeting qualifies - just.

 

They will want to upgrade the line anyway to get the big locos in for galas etc that attracts the bums to the seats.

 

But the track has to be repaired / renewed anyway. At which point, the question isn't about the expense of an upgrade, but whether relaying to standard [X] is significantly more expensive than relaying to the lower standard [Y]? There will be some extra expense that would be calculable per mile: for example, if standard [X] requires 28 sleepers per panel and standard [Y] requires 24, than that is an extra 16% cost for sleepers - but that is only a small component of the whole cost, which will also encompass rail, ballast, delivery charges, machinery etc. I'm not sure there is a really significant difference in the total cost between relaying to "red route" or "blue route" standards assuming you are doing each section as and when it comes up for renewal.

Bottom line is that if you had a "blue route" line in good order, rapidly upgrading to red route would be very expensive. But if you have a life-expired section of line, the marginal additional cost of red vs blue is a fairly small amount of the total cost of the upgrade.

(Under bridges would be a different question, but bear in mind part of the equation is a dynamic load, and the hammer blow at 50mph - say BR-era line speed - is four times more than the same loco at 25mph).

Tom

 

I am sure I read among the responses to the Bailey Report that there were some matters to attend to that are outstanding from the ORR visit. Whether this is trackwork or administrative it did not mention. But it seems this might be another reason for not operating this year.

 

Maybe not, but there again how many people with these views exist within what might be loosely termed the supportership of the WSR? BL is in no way the whole of the railway but it might be representative of the whole, equally again it might not, the proportion of the total number could well be much higher. And if they are large enough to be seen as influential or indeed supportive of certain actions being taken and so lending these actions a false legitimacy? You cannot escape banter, look at the pages of this forum, but sometimes things extend into what could be called toxic. And the WSR is frequently decried for being toxic.

 

I don't see many people complaining about the Dukedog, NL tank, on the Bluebell, or the A4 on the MHR, S15 on the NYMR or King Arthur on the GCR, or the various Bulleids dotted around the country.

It is ironic that the same people who demand authentic GWR branchline want to run inauthentic red route GWR locos over the line.

Odd that the authenticity of a 5101 Praire wasn't enough to keep it on the line, or that locos such as the 4f that worked the nearby Burnham on Sea branch wasn't authentic.

Authenticity is a selectively used argument to provide cover for the indefensible treatment of the SDRT.

 

The WSR had a S160 on hire for a season recently. So they are obviously not too fussy about GWR authenticity.

 

Umder different management, though.

 

Actually the GWR did operate S160s during the war though didn’t they.

 

There is no problem with having a bias towards hiring GWR engines, that's as you'd expect from being an ex-GWR branchline. But there is a problem if that bias gets in the way of honouring contracts and generally not appearing to be ethical.

More than that, "blue" engines that can pull WSR sized trains over WSR sized hills of WSR length witout neding to be opped up with water at every station. Oh, and exclude GWR 2-8-0s too for track reasons. The pool of potential locos really is quite small then. Manors and prairies converted to tender engines are pretty much all that fits the bill!...

Just in case this is a genuine post, generally "Privately owned" in this context means not owned by a railway. Sometimes it means owned by an individual as distinct from a constituted group.

What a jolly interesting question!

 

You are quite right in what you write. In any organisation it is difficult to dislodge the existing directors. Hence why one hopes that adequate due diligence is carried out before directors are put up for election or co-opted to the board.

 

Actually the scope of the auditors is limited in this regard. They seem to ensure that the accounting standards are complied with and that the accounts give a 'true and fair view' , however beyond that their remit is limited.

 

Ahem 7802, 08,12 and 19 were built a bit before 1950

 

7802 - January 1938,
7808 - March 1938,
7812 - January 1939,
7819 - February 1939.

 

Rebuilds from moguls I believe.

 

Yes, same as the Granges, driving wheels and motion were recovered from the withdrawn 4300 Class.

 

Maybe the WSR PLC believes that it is fighting a war and is adopting a scorched earth policy.