West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Fine. But why on earth didn’t the PLC make that clear in their eviction notice rather than release the ridiculous ‘Cuckoo in the Nest’ statement. I dunno, it just doesn’t add up. Too much personal infighting across the whole of the WSR organisation is the way it comes across to a simpleton like me, and I guess I’m not alone.

 

If the Washford site is so critical, then I am surprised that on a 20 mile plus long railway line there is no space for an alternative location that the SDRT could relocate to.

This claim that it was for a PWay yard all along raises some questions.

Why eviction was the first and only solution to resolving the issue?

If Washford was needed out of necessity why were press releases issued calling the SDRT 'cuckoos in the nest,'?

Why did the WSR allege safety breaches as part of their justification?

Why did the WSR claim that the SDRT had failed to financially support the WSR as their justification?

It seems to me a case of an action seeking a justification. Finally, the figleaf of ORR has appeared to hide behind.

The dog ate my homework, no the cat, no, no, wait, I'll think of an excuse, just give me a minute or two. Oh yes, I need a PWay depot. Yes, I know I've got one but I need another one.

 

It's quite simple really. You have to go back to March when JJP told Railway Herald "We will get the SDRT out " or words to that effect.

That sort of stance and attitude is what has caused so much offence and lack of goodwill towards the WSR plc board and lack of donations. Eviction of a passive SDRT from Washford.

 

This is what John Bailey posted last Sunday morning. It took me by surprise, and prompted me to wonder whether I had misunderstood what the S&DRT had told me about the circumstances in which the Notice to Quit was given. To check the position, today I spoke by telephone with Ian Young, the Chairman of the S&DRT.

I suggest that if he has not already done so, John Bailey should speak to Ian Young about his post above.
After he has done so, perhaps we can have a discussion the rejoinder I made later that day, as set out in part below:

And then, perhaps, we can also have a better informed discussion about this part of John Bailey's more recent post:

I think it's right for John Bailey to have an opportunity to discuss with the Trust Chairman his post above about the basis on which the Notice to Quit was issued before I make any further comment.

No doubt, if John Bailey holds to his assertion that the Notice to Quit was issued on the basis of breaches of the Extension Agreement by the Trust, he will also be good enough to confirm for us the date on which the written notice of breach required by clause 26 of the Extension Agreement was given to the S&DRT, and what breaches of that Agreement were alleged in it.

 

It's really unfortunate, because I'm glad @Lineisclear joined here to help us understand these issues, but having just read that, some of which I think I missed first time round, Mr Bailey seems to be changing his mind about exactly why it is the S&DT have to go almost as much as the Plc board, and is thus appearing nearly as incoherent. If the eviction was based on alleged breaches of the agreement, why wasn't that explored in the report? If the eviction was based on the need for a P'way yard, why wasn't that explored in the report?
This, by the way, @FrankC, is why the matter is not "closed".

 

Question for @Lineisclear

Have you visited the Washford site?

The line drops away at 1 in 74 towards Watchet and 1 in 63 towards Blue Anchor and has poor road access.

Yet it is said to be suitable for a PW yard

I am no railwayman BUT I can see the obvious hazards to shunting at such a site, more importantly so can the ORR

 

Yes I have had the enjoyable privilege of going round the Trust’s museum.

Other posters on here asked for the reason for the Notice To Quit hinting very clearly that they did not expect a reply. I repeated the information that was already in the public domain but now face criticism for the reason. It’s not my judgement as to whether or not the site is suitable but that of the PLC Board and it’s their responsibility to make it. It may be right or wrong on operational grounds but that’s for railway operational experts to opine on.

 

I’ve spoken to Ian and explained in writing the reason why I reached the conclusions I did.

 

I'm a Railway operational expert.

Washford is a terrible choice as a P.Way depot for the line. There are much better options.

Robin White MCILT MIRO

 

The Plc have given a number of unsatisfactory reasons for the eviction. During meditating, I'd have thought first port of call would be establish the *actual* reason, and whether those objectives could be achieved in a way without the evicting being necessary at all. I'm just surprised that wasn't the approach taken is all.

 

I wonder whether the WSSRT leadership has been instructed by the plc to delay its own AGM to a date beyond the date of the plc's AGM?

 

The problem is that people don't (on the whole) want to give money to a railway that is in the hands of people who seem to be uninterested in running trains. I'm certainly not keen to support people who bully the S&DRT into leaving their premises despite a 50 year lease that was so recently agreed, even if John Bailey does see a convenient legal loophole for the plc.

 

Nothing gives the idea that the Railway has closed for good, as sight of weed grown tracks, with some volunteers weeding by hand in a valiant effort to stem the tide of nature, and the apparent saga about not even being able to move anything out of Minehead. Down in Cornwall, the Bodmin and Wenford also threw in the towel as regards summer 2020, but at least have been using the shutdown to carry out a lot of improvement work. I have far more confidence that they at least will reopen.

 

From which I infer that you continue to maintain that the Notice to Quit was issued on the basis of alleged breaches of the Extension Agreement. In that case I repeat my request that you tell us when the notice of breach required by clause 26 of the Extension Agreement was given to the S&DRT, and what were the breaches it alleged.

You told us in post #31295 that the Notice to Quit “is expressly based on the terms of the Extension Agreement”, and in post #31283 that “the PLC accepted that both parties were bound by the Extension Agreement”. If that is case then the plc must have given the Trust notice to remedy containing details of the breaches of the Agreement on which it now relies, and the Trust must have failed to remedy such breaches for at least three months after delivery of that notice. Only when those requirements of clause 26 had been satisfied would the plc acquire the right to terminate the Agreement unilaterally.

According to the information I have received and verified to the best of my ability, no such notice to remedy was given to the Trust. In view of your accusation that I have represented rumour as fact, please do me the courtesy of providing the details I have requested, so that I can see for myself what the true facts are.

 

This really is the elephant in the room, the elephant that those in support of the Plc not only deny is there, but accuse others who point out that you have to sidle round the walls to get from the door to the window of "wanting the WSR to fail". This is the total and utter failure by the Plc management to manage a very important aspect of their business, its relationship with the public in a way that shows it as an organisation that people would be happy to give money to. Their attitude comes across far more as "Sod the public, it's our business and we'll run it the way we want to. We don't have to care about you because private companies and charities are not democracies. Oh, but do contribute to our appeal or the railway will die".

 

The problem that we supporters face is that nobody, not even you, has suggested a solution to the WSR's problems that doesn't involve either what you call infighting or involve getting behind a Plc board that is manifestly failing. I have nothing personal against any of the Plc board, the only one I have "come across" is the Chairman, on his appeal video, and I rather warmed to him. I am simply going by those of their pronouncements and actions that are in the public domain. What I can see gives me no confidence that the Plc is doing anything other than running the line into the ground and if I can see that, so can others. Where is the evidence that they are doing a grand job, other than the unsupported word of the likes of @FrankC ? There's plenty of evidence in the other direction, no trains, a hole in the track, a lack of PWay staff on the ground, an appeal, that despite rolling in the results of several earlier appeals, is still only half-way to its target, the railway looking closed and derelict. Tis all may be a false impression, but, in that case, please, please someone, anyone publish some evidence outside unsupported assertions that it is.

 

I echo the thanks to John Bailey for spending time on here and trying his best to explain things. However in post 31404 John Palmer has quoted two of John Bailey's statements that seem contradictory: that the basis for the eviction is (a) alleged breaches of the Extension Agreement (is that another name for the renewed lease or something different?) or (b) because the PLC needs the Washford site for a new PW depot.

Either could be a valid reason in principle, but which is it? And what about the flaws in both: that the law requires an alleged breach to be raised with the tenant, who is allowed time to respond; and that the Washford site is a pretty poor one for a PW depot?

 

Do many P-way volunteers live near Washford? It seems to be in the middle of a long single line section without passing places, with poor gradient profile in either direction, and poor vehicle access. Whilst it sits roughly halfway along the route, is that actually beneficial? Or would that be more like a "one size doesn't fit anybody" solution. If nothing else, there will have to be a light engine movement at the beginning and end of every shift unless loco stabling is provided on the small site.
It will be entirely in keeping with the rest of this saga if the WSR end up with a P-way yard that is at best an awkward compromise, just to cover up another embarrassing error.

 

There were a number of rumours, but nothing authoritative stated either here or any other public forum that I am aware of. I am therefore grateful to you for confirming that fact.

Like others, I am then struggling to understand the relevance of the invalidity of the lease as a ground for termination when it has not previously been mentioned as such at any previous point. Without getting into legal ins and outs that I'm not qualified or informed enough to assess, I do appreciate that the validity could affect how any formal legal process might adjudicate on the matter, but believe that to be a consequence of the eviction, not grounds for it. @John Palmer and @jma1009 both express better than I could do some of the consequences that follow.

As for what this all says about the WSR plc, so stoutly defended yesterday by @FrankC, I'm afraid I despair. A minor jewel on the WSR, well kept and a always a delight to see from the road when driving west on the A39 is going to be converted into a working site, where the current location has already developed a well-founded reputation for being an eyesore. It is at a summit, in the middle of the longest single line section on the railway, and with such poor road access that I would actively avoid going there when driving. All of this is being implemented under a "behind closed doors" approach, and supported by an approach to publicity that makes Alexander Lukashenko look emollient. The matters in this paragraph are not the responsibility of @Lineisclear, but I include them here because they highlight just how poor the decision making by the current leadership is.

@FrankC wants us to accept that there is an excellent team working flat out to save the WSR. I believe him that they are working flat out, that they are individually of high calibre, and that they are trying their damndest to save the WSR. However, based on what they have achieved this year, I cannot accept that this makes them an excellent team, or that they are capable of saving the WSR. They have triggered further acrimonious conflict, failed to earn more than a fraction of normal trading income, and undermined the credibility of the WSR to those who might have been persuaded to donate to appeals. That suggests utter failure to me.