West Somerset Railway General Discussion

If the SCC decided to go that way, who could blame them? ([When] looking at the Big Picture, including other needs: clearly, loss of the line would be a significant blow to the area as a whole, as an attraction; and to the vintage rail world, the loss of an entire, lengthy, preserved branch line, in a scenic setting to boot, would be an irreplaceable loss.) There clearly aren't enough grown-ups in the WSR 'world' to responsibly operate the line; if there were, they'd have already all sat down around a table, and worked out how to reformulate the WSR's structure - and, in the process, shown that they collectively had the maturity to put the well-being of the line as a whole over their personal viewpoint.

A while back, I said that if the members of the WSR 'world' wanted to know the fundamental cause of the line's troubles, they all had only to look in the mirror. I know all the above is a harsh and painful judgement, and it gives me no pleasure at all to make it (in fact, just the opposite), but I think it must be duly swallowed if the line is to avoid the SCC eventually deciding that sadly, there are better uses for the assets.

Noel

 

Thinking about the latest actions by "The Fourteen".

It's been stated or suggested that the aim would be a merging of the two charities, and that may well be the best final outcome.

But, if elected, would the new board also be able to have a more immediate impact by resolving to use their WSR plc shareholding in concert with the holding of the WSRA to either bring pressure to bear on the plc or to call an EGM to carry through some of the necessary changes?

What I'm unsure of is how independently a new WSSRT board could act without first seeking approval from it's shareholders. I do seem to recall though, in the context of what the plc board can do, that the shareholders are effectively powerless. This, of course, cuts both ways. It may mean the WSSRT can use it's shares as it sees fit, but it may still find that the combined holding has little influence on the plc...

 

There’s a distinction between what they can do and what they prudently should do. As is normally provided in any Articles of Association the company/incorporated charity is run by its directors/trustees. In theory the decision as to how to vote shares in the PLC would that of the WSSRT Trustees alone.
Other posters on here have pointed out that heritage railways are’nt like ordinary companies and businesses. The people who contribute funds and give their time have huge emotional capital invested in “ their” railway. The same is true of a membership dependent organisation like the WSSRT.
A sensible board would recognise that and at least explain why it is adopting a particular course .
Where I agree with many posters on here,in the context of the PLC , is that to be successful you have to be inclusive. Boards are not there to be popular nor are companies democracies. Directors/Trustees are obliged by law to sometimes make tough decisions that are right for the company even though they are unpopular. In my view that doesn’t mean you take your members, shareholders and supporters for granted. Sometimes sounding out their opinions can be very helpful In arriving at a decision.

 

Who said the board of trustees of the Steam Trust were likely to behave in such a way? And on what basis would you suggest that it might be reasonable for them so to do?

They are members who are, so far as I’m aware, in good standing wit the Trust, and who propose themselves for office within the rules, and to pursue an agenda. If their approach is wrongheaded, as @Lineisclear suggests, members are at liberty to vote otherwise. Why is expulsion a reasonable response?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Oh I'm so glad to see you accept there "...may be others who can help..." (my highlighting) but then you immediately raise the next so called 'problem' of " Depending on who replaced any directors removed the ORR confidence issue might be relevant..." That is typical of your responses. You always appear to do nothing but list what may be problems involved with doing anything other than what you have suggested

Until such time as I see you giving a balanced view of the situation and not just 1,001 reasons why doing anything other than what you and the members of the current board suggest would be impractical, impossible, just to difficult, etc, etc I cannot give any credence to your arguments

 

What is the WSRA view on all this?

Clearly it assumes that the WSRA will be willing to use its shareholding to influence the behaviour of the PLC but it doesnt seem to be a given at present

 

The steam Trust can do as they see fit. I don't think that the articles say they have to have a reason. In this power grab all is fair in love and war. It maybe the nuclear option but it is there. As I said it would put the problem to bed as there is no likely hood of the CC wanting to be involved in the same way as they didn't get involved in the ex6. I still haven't heard from @alfort if the WSRA agreed to this action as it would be them who would be the beneficial party and 2 of the trustees are involved or are they waiting for the coup to fail so they can say "not us gov" it would be interesting how many of the 14 are lined up to be trustees of the WSRA.


Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

It seems to me that in the same way that that the PLC board has been responsible over a number of years for allowing the railway to become run down, given that they hold between them sufficient shares to have de facto control over the PLC, there must be a question to be asked over the role of the WSRA & WSSRT in allowing this to happen.

Why even now have they not looked at acting together to use their holdings in the PLC to attempt to influence its direction?

 

The obvious answer has to be that there are some with in the WSSRT that prefer to play silly games, not because they love the PLC, But because they have personal grievances against some WSRA trustees and would even prefer to see the railway close before working with the WSRA.

 

This is the $64,000 question and wasn't it stated many pages ago that the Trust had no interest in influencing the plc through it's shareholding?

Quite why it feels it's future is not in any way dependent on the success of the railway I don't know, but I can see why having both blocks of shares available to use as one can do nothing but good.

 

So what you're saying is that the Trust is effectively a 'closed shop' and can expel a member for no reason, or tear up their application to be a trustee for no reason? And you think this is ok? Sounds like a lovely organisation, but then it does kind of fit with the ridiculousness of the whole WSR setup.

Keith

 

And then you have to ask, why , Why would an organisation that held a block of shares , that could influence the thinking of the PLC not use that ability? what were the trustees those with influence with in the group, told to make them throw themselves in with the PLC?

 

Just by burying your head in the sand doesn't make the possibility go away. This is the steam trusts trump card. Remember there is more to this than you are being told ask yourself why the Steam trust is not willing to join with the WSRA What are you not being told is the real question? The real prize is to take over the PLC its not the Steam trust they are just the mechanism for it to happen. Someone sees themselves as PLC Chairman and it wont happen.

For the record
I am not a member of the Steam trust
I have no influence of the WSR board.

 

I recognise this approach from watching "Yes, Minister". "To every solution, a problem" as Winston Churchill said about civil servants. However, John Bailey is a negotiator and negotiators don't get anywhere by alienating those who they are negotiating with. Also, in any negotiation, it is a foolish party that lays their hand on the table for everyone to see at the start.

 

Or alternatively, the PLC Board and their apologists fear that a combined WSRA and WSSRT might hold them to account and challenge them and their decisions.

Hence the shrill accusations of ulterior personal motivations.

Shooting the messenger and ignoring the message and why it is being sent. And who has their head in the sand?

Of course, you have no personal motivations in this issue at all...

 

No one disputes that nothing can proceed without the PLC board. However, the board is the biggest obstacle to reform. It has shown that it is completely unwilling to compromise unless forced.

This to me is the biggest issue and the rest is just skirting around the main problem.

A group of people want to go home.

There is a car.

The car driver is the person who drives the car. It isn't their car. The car is actually owned by someone else, but the car driver drives it. The others contribute to the petrol etc.

The driver is drunk.

The drunk driver is belligerent, objectionable and has banned a number of the group from riding in the car.

The others recognise that the driver is: drunk, objectionable and very likely to crash the car.

How to get the keys from the driver so everyone can get safely home (including those who had been banned from the car)?

 

A very pertinent question but you also need to work out how you are going to get the consent of the car’s owner.