West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Let's keep a status-quo so we can have more of the same...

 

"You should follow my advice ... no, not like that!"

It also reminds me somewhat of some religious groups who say: why spend your time making the real world around you better, when you could be focusing on the paradise that awaits us around the corner that will somehow magically Just Happen

 

Endorsed and recommended to the boards signed M Sherwood.

Good luck on that with 4 of the 10 on the WSRA board after the AGM. Being behind the latest move to become trustees on the steam Trust. I applaud Mike Sherwood for trying to do the right thing for the good of the railway. We may not often see eye to eye but I am 100% behind him on this. But I feel that he will fail and it won't be for the lack of trying.



Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

Interesting read, Thanks go to Steve for publishing it on here, As ever, it has no answers, only more questions,
I agree that a new charity is needed, but lets be honest, about it, some of the old faces will have to be part of it, to ensure a smooth transfer, and to bed things down, now the question , Can old enemies work together for the good of the railway? Thats going to be the only way, short of revolution, if they can't, then that only leaves revolution.
The PLC, have to realise and accept, they have made mistakes, and again, can they gracefully step aside,? , if not, then that leaves only one option, to remove them at AGM, or EGM.

 

Really?

When the 4110 group had all/most of the money pledged, didn’t the board then refuse to sell it to them? They instructed people to give the pledged money to the WSRA instead so they could buy it.

The WSRA then only managed to raise a tiny fraction of the purchase price, and so off 4110 went to the DSR.

Had the 4110 group been allowed to continue with the purchase, they may well have been able to match DSR’s increased offer, and 4110 might still be at Minehead.

 

".... ...."

Fine - as an ideal.

However the author appears to have the view that 'new charity' does NOT equal WSRA + WSSRT. OK, but in that case how will a new charity be created "as quickly as possible" and faster than by a merger of two existing charities? In what way will any new charity actually be 'new' other than if it discards all existing Trustees from both existing charities on the basis that they "come with baggage" etc? In which case, who will fill the vacuum thereafter?

On the one hand, the author claims that the Plc now has a "strong cohesive Board" (pardon?) committed to implementing the Bailey Report - which, as I read it, means a single over-arching Charity with a subordinate operating company. On the other hand, he seems to suggest that the Plc will not acquiesce in a take-over by a merged WSRA + WSSRT charity - but would not the latter also be in accord with the Bailey Report?

Is this document a step forward, or merely 'more of the same'? I don't know, I suppose only time will tell...

 

How long until it’s retracted?

 

...well, at least it's not redacted

 

And what happens to the WSRA and WSSRT? Do they both transfer assets to the new charity (in which case what difference to a merger practically?), or remain purely to satisfy people who wish to remain as trustees over their little fiefdom?

 

The latest document includes the phrase "hostile merged charity". Why would the merged charity be "hostile", and to whom? And how would the Bailey brand-new charity be any different if it inherits the present charities' aims (which it must do if they are themselved to be wound up)?

Edit: corrected punctuation.

 

I’m thinking more of the definition of insanity, do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.

 

WSR ..... Will Someone Realise ? WAR ........ Will Anyone Remember ?

 

As I said in my post, all questions, no answer's, To be frank, perhaps revolution may be the only answer, clear away the old completely, if a merged charity came out of it, and those who are not acceptable to the membership didn't get elected, surely that's the members verdict, it may not please those with a domain to control, but let the members speak, I see nothing wrong with the trustees of both charities if they merge, setting out the aims and then standing down, and offering themselves for re election, rather than saying no one can stand.
Part of me does wonder, this new charity, is it only if the PLC gets the leadership ,, it wants in charge, of it, ie most likily its selves? because, if you look at it, they won't accept a merged existing charity because they fear it will be hostile towards them, and want to hold them to account so therefore they must want one headed by someone who they see as an ally , possibly someone who they can control.

 

So a robust defence of an approach, but no clear vision of what it may lead to, or clear statement of how it will be converted into reality.

In the context of what was said not long ago by the plc, an effective choice of letting the long grass grow, or risking the uncertainties of revolution, knowing that the plc will with the blessing of both charities’ chairman use its power as landlord against those who try.

Heads, and the existing arrangements stay for too long, with tolerance of a corporate direction that has proved incapable of delivering operations this year; tails, and the promise of better but at the cost of more fighting. Hobson’s choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

How long before the Council as the railway's landlord's decide this can't go on, and gives the PLC notice to quit and then offers to interested parties to tender for the operation of the line, ? for instance, could the council turn to say the P&D, or the SDR or any other management team to come in run the railway on it'd behalf, if it runs out of patience with the WSR plc?

 

Of course, it's not what Mr Bailey says that's interesting, it's what he doesn't say, most notably, when this Evolution is supposed to happen. No-one has expressed a view on this timing, except the Plc who have said "sometime, but not now, wait until we have the railway running again". Of course, then everyone will be really busy, so that won't be a good time either. The choice of alternatives is very apt, though. First we have Evolution, a gradual process over many generations, so slow as to be hardly noticeable. Alternatively, we have Revolution, a rapid upheaval that is over very quickly, whether it succeeds or fails. Can we afford to wait for evolution to take place?
The other main point of note is oligarchy versus democracy. John Bailey is on record as pointing out that neither of his preferred organisations, charities and private companies, are democracies. This "shared vision" is a vision of the bosses, the chairmen of the three respective organisations. It is not democratic. It is more of the same model of having a few people in charge and the rest to do as they are told. The challenging organisation comes largely from the rank and file of the volunteers and the attitude of the bosses reads very much as "how dare they?" This "them and us" attitude goes way back in the WSR. I've only ever volunteered on the WSR, so perhaps a poster from another railway can say what it's like there, but I would really not be surprised if this isn't the root cause of the West Somerset Disease.
All in all, a disappointingly biased document from someone who was supposed to be impartial.

 

Wasn’t it Edwin Starr who asked what war was good for?

 

Absolutely nothing.... HUH!

 

A radical suggestion! It would not be easy, because a new Light Railway Order would be needed before trains could run again, but they're not going to be running for a while anyway. Considering the many pages of discussion of the validity or otherwise of the PLC's eviction of the WSR Trust, can anyone state with authority what grounds might entitle the Council to evict the PLC if the Council were so minded?