West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I note that the 'Shared Vision'document isnt on the WSRA website yet, or on @Steve Edge 's site

Interesting

 

It does appear, however, that the problem is not so much that there are two charities, but two charities doing the same sort of thing and with the same charitable aims. Just as the overlaps between the Plc and the WSRA are being removed, there needs to be an exercise to do the same to the two charities. Logically, the WSSRT could concentrate on everything heritage and educational and the WSRA or its successor on fundraising and membership. However, I agree with you about the need of some rebranding in the case of the WSRA.

 

Thanks. So if your bridge inspections weren’t done because your pway team was furloughed then the system breaks down. To follow this through, ORR would look dimly on a line which said, ‘we haven’t done any inspections since March but we’re doing them the week before we start running services.’

If say a chain for the whole line was broken, ie not all bridges inspected, but some bridges had been inspected on part of the line, you still couldn’t run on the inspected part because the sms for the whole line is missing some links?

 

But hold on John, didn't the WSRA donate £187k to the rail renewal fund and £30k for 9351? If it can donate for rail and locomotives, I would say that's fairly broad.

Keith

 

I would tentatively suggest, in the nicest way possible, that John Bailey has been fed a load of crap by the WSR plc board, and fallen for it.

His cursory and in my estimation perfunctory assessment of the SDRT (in the redacted sections of his report) add weight to my view.

I have no doubt that JJP can turn on the charm when required; equally we have evidence of him swearing at Paul Whitehouse after just handing over a cheque for £187,000 (yes, 'aldfort', it wasn't a cheque exactly), and him confronting one volunteer with a challenge to a roll around (punch up) on the platform at Minehead, with Bob Meanley having to intervene allegedly.

 

Some pages back, someone drew parallels with charity funding in the church. It is certainly the case that one person might write a big cheque for the organ fund, or repairing the roof, because they are fond of the historical fabric of the church as a building. That person might not support the vicar's keenness to give food away on the local council estate. Or wish to fund a missionary working in some foreign country. To This person, the 'historic Britain' aspect is very important.
Another person may be convinced that the historic church building is just a roof where they can turn up for "family worship", bash a tambourine, and get up to serious god-bothering. They might well fund a missionary in Mogadishu, or contribute to the food fund, because to them, the active, present-day work of the church is important.
Neither of these people would be pleased to see their contributions wasted on a project which is fundamentally opposed to what their own interpretation of being a good Christian is really about.
The traditionalists and fundamentalists manage to co-exist. The clever churchwarden/treasurer understands all this, and appeals to the appropriate people at the appropriate place and time, and is then careful that donated funds are used as advertised.

Personally, one reason I do not fund the National Trust is that "We'll really try spend your donation on what we said, but.....once we've got it, its OURS, so stuff you" I have seen too much of what the NT actually do spend (some of the) money on, and I am quite certain it is not what the donors would have chosen.

Perhaps people on heritage railways, asking why they are not receiving hoped for donations, should actually face up to some of the obvious answers:
Saying "Again, we're nearly bankrupt. Give us money so we can carry on bollocksing things up for a bit longer" is not a good appeal.
Someone is acting like a complete dick and not everyone wants to support that.
Someone is using bullying tactics.
People are sending donations to a group they feel have been badly treated by the bully.
People are withholding, or re-directing funds simply because they do not wish to fund "MY railway"

 

Running short of cash at the end of the "off" season is a common problem in all seasonal industries. Whilst the owners will normally budget to cover this they may experience a sudden loss of income or unexpected costs which are beyond their reserves. That is why most seasonal operators have a standing, or seasonally renewed, overdraft arrangement with their bank which can be drawn on if needed. Raiding the reserves without a clear ability to replace them within a short period of time is a sure way to pile up trouble for the future.

 

It would be interesting to investigate how many heritage railways budget to rely on their overdraft routinely. As I suggested before if you are relatively cash positive throughout the year and have reserves you can be more relaxed about restricted funds. If you ‘ve reached your overdraft limit but can’t access cash in restricted funds you are clearly in danger. The restriction doesn’t help donors in that situation because my understanding is that the restricted funds would be reserved for creditors. In simple terms the restriction forces you into insolvency.

 

I understand the WSRA Trustees are very aware of the limits of what they can legitimately find. Like all charities it has to be demonstrably for the public benefit which, in the case of the WSRA, is education of the public. Rail renewal is probably stretching the Charitable objects to their limit.
The WSRA web site has a good example of the problem in that the appeal to help with Covid 19 costs is for donations to the PLC. If the Trustees were to allocate WSRA funds to such a cause they could be personally liable to repay them to the Charity.

 

I emailed the WSSRT chairman on 7th September requesting a conversation or meeting with him. He replied the following day saying the purpose of my request was unclear to him.

Communication is a two-way thing. I'm still hoping he might agree to talk eventually.

This member and trustee candidate would have preferred WSSRT matters to have been dealt with internally and calmly.

Barrie

 

On the other hand, has it occurred to you that if the restricted fund wasn't there, many of the donors wouldn't have donated at all - so the funds would still not be there?

The same would go with grant-giving bodies: they give money for specific objectives. If you were successful in obtaining a grant to re-equip the workshop with some new machine tools, would you consider it appropriate to spend the money on track renewals because that was the more urgent requirement? You'd pretty soon run out of donors willing to give you any more money.

The fundamental problem on the WSR isn't the restricted funds - which have, after all, been being used to fund track renewals, amongst the non-glamorous jobs. The problem is that the company hasn't been making enough revenue, and the charities haven't been successful in plugging that revenue gap. The company won't solve that problem by appearing to demand a right to funding for unspecified uses; and the railway as a whole won't solve it by just adding more letters into the alphabet soup.

Tom

 

Perhaps Tom we should distinguish Designated Funds, where money is allocated for a particular purpose ( or ring fencing as described on here) and Restricted Funds.
I’m also less pessimistic than you about people’s willingness to donate to a good cause. The contributions to various railway Covid ’ crisis appeals is a case In point.

 

Seems like a spoilt brat.

 

That distinction is important and valid. My experience in church matters is that, for normal day to day life while solvent, the distinction between designated and restricted funds is largely nominal. Any good treasurer treats both as dedicated to their particular purpose, and the question of dipping into them only arises in extremis at which point, as you rightly say, it is much harder to draw on a restricted fund than it is a designated fund.

From personal experience, most people most of the time do not register that there is a difference between the two categories. When treasurer, my wife followed her predecessor in trying to reduce the number of restricted funds because of the constraints they caused, leaving relatively few (fabric being the key one) in place.

However, and where I align with @Jamessquared on this matter, these are fundamentally matters of book keeping and internal organisation. What really matters is that if donors choose to give to a particular aspect of work, they can have confidence that their donation will be used for that purpose. @ross has illustrated the cost to the NT of their approach; there have been repeated discussions on NP (including on this thread) regarding the degree to which donations for appeals and general giving relate. The consensus, with which I wholeheartedly agree, is that fund raising for specific purposes unlocks cash that would not be forthcoming through general donations. It is a fortunate coincidence that this year has demonstrated that this boost to fund raising can also apply to appeals for cash for general expenditures to keep railways open in lieu of lost trade. However, the fact that such appeals will usually go into general funds and not specific pots shouldn’t blind us to their character as appeals, rather than general giving.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I hope you will excuse a reference to your ecclesiastical experience but I believe we are all singing off the same hymn sheet. I suspect the railway enthusiast donor is more likely to favour restricted donations whereas the general public may be happy to donate to a general good cause.
It’s about managing your fundraising to get the optimum balance.

 

Broadly, I agree, though I’d give more credit to the general public’s ability to respond to an appeal.

The balance is vital, but I think the strategy for fund raising is a pre requisite - and where we part company on the path to the recommended structure.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Being in a similar situation to 35B, as a church treasurer, I am fortunate in that 'restricted' donations are kept to a minimum. The Line Manager in modern parlance - is the Parish Priest. He keeps parishioners informed when any larger expenses need to be found, for example when exterior painting or new windows needed doing. (It is a 1960's structure). Consequently most donors will give to the specific appeal but generally my life is made easier as large donations and legacies usually come without 'strings attached'.
This emphasises, I believe, that good and focussed information passed on to prospective donors is essential and also how it is presented is paramount.

 

I stopped donating and ended my membership when I found out that the NT was using some of it's funds for donations to political parties. That's not exactly what I thought of as a valid use of members money.

 

I just don't see where a complete set of new charity trustees is going to come from. WSSRT have documented concerns about accession planning because of the lack of new trustee candidates in recent years. Coombes hoped to see new WSRA trustee candidates emerge to take the Association forward but where are they? I am one of only two 'new' WSRA trustee candidates and we are both former Reform Group members. That is not ideal, but where else are those alternative candidates with the necessary passion and drive?

I yearn for a structure headed by a member-based charity but cannot for the life of me understand how a third supporting charity entity could or would work. WSRA is minded to subsume into any new charity, but if WSSRT don't we just end up with the Association winding up and reforming as the new entity. Expense with no change.

WSSRT in it's own business plan recognises that it punches above its weight. This small entity achieves and is recognised as one of the three lead Railway Family members. I truly believe it would be a grave error to step back from this status and no longer have influence within the new structure. The existing expertise and assets within the Trust absolutely need to be vibrant components of any new single charity, whether created afresh or created by merger.

Each of the three main activities of the existing Trust could have a portfolio trustee with ring fenced funds. Economies are to be made in several areas, accountancy, auditor and AGM costs for example. Pooled resources bring strength to all areas of these similar organisations. There is much informal practical co-operation now, and there always has been. We need to grasp the nettle and develop that formally.

I am pleased to note from the latest Steam Railway magazine article a quote from Chris Austin, the Steam Trust chairman:

"At the end of the day, the members will decide whether or not they want to elect the trustees nominated."

I take that as notice that WSSRT members will be asked to vote for the candidates at the forthcoming AGM. Let's go further and ask those members whether they want their Trust to be a major part of a single supporting charity. Above all, let's get on with it and issue revised AGM papers and an AGM date!