West Somerset Railway General Discussion

The same outcome is perfectly possible, in a much shorter timeframe, by combining the two existing charities (subject to consent of their members). Charitable Objects can then be expanded accordingly.
As we have said, the answer to too much complexity is not "more complexity".

 

I am confident that “perfectly possible” is an over optimistic assessment as is the assumption that it can be achieved quickly and without damaging the railway’s prospects.

 

Only guessing at the moment, but I have feeling - from what little has been published so far - that the yet-to-be-done refurbishment work on the crossing may well include something like that. I'm hoping that all the technical facts will be appearing on WSR-TV before too long....

 

Thank you

 

Did no one foresee this coming, ? i think a mentioned it some time back, that the PLC would try to "engineer" it so it was they (the current board) who control the charity,
Like one, or two others on here, i am beginning to wonder, whilst the HRA did try to be an honest broker, the PLC, in the board, was not , and this was their plan all along.

 

Why am I reminded of the Trump solution to gun violence .... being more guns?

 

Define "control". The plan, as I read it here (I've not seen the consultation paper) may be morally dubious to those of us who think the exercise of control by the plc has been at the heart of the WSRs problems over a sustained period, but I doubt it's illegal in itself. The devil will be in the detail, as I imagine that the Charities Commission will want to be satisfied that this is a genuinely independent charity, and that HMRC will want to be satisfied that it won't be a form of tax dodge.

 

In what way could it be a tax dodge? for instance, would the PLC, if converted to an charity, have a lesser tax bill? could a company invest, in said charity, as a way of tax reduction, and to give it a controlling say in the way the charity is run?

 

Some late evening reading which might clear up a few thoughts about the lines future and the crossing:-
https://www.wsr.org.uk/news.htm#2176

 

Indeed, but....

"The opportunity has been taken to upgrade to a full barrier crossing which when operated will close the road and footpaths completely. Other changes will allow some rail traffic shunting movements to avoid use of the crossing completely, making such movements quicker with no disruption to road traffic..."

..is still very vague on detail, which is why I'm awaiting the WSR-TV material.

 

I think we would welcome a more detailed explanation as to why "perfectly possible" is not perfectly possible, why it is over-optimistic, and why it would damage the railway's prospects.

 

I read Lineisclear's post that you quote and felt that it was not what I would expect a neutral party to post. I have no dog in this fight but somehow smell a stitch up.

I would welcome an explanation of why Lineisclear is so set against the Candidates plan.

 

I disagree strongly with @Lineisclear on this, but stop short of considering it a stitch up or worse. It was clear from the moment the redacted report was issued that the thinking in the report was "top down" in it's nature, and that "bottom up" thinking such as that behind the plans of the @WSSRTcandidates would not be preferred.

I am less keen that John should provide an explanation such as that demanded, than I am that the very frank commentary provided by @aldfort should be amplified and provide an understanding of why this approach is considered best for the WSR.

 

I'm not clear on what detail you would expect on a public access forum. Please send me a PM if there is something specific you are interested in and I'll see if I can help.

Frank Courtney

 

That does still leave us wondering whether, even without Covid, regular train services could have run this year. Also, how do they make 1992 to 2020 "more than thirty years"?

 

A graduate of the School of Creative Accounting perhaps?

 

As a member of both the WSRA and WSSRT, I am still waiting to be asked my view on the way forward, or see any sort of proposal for revising/integrating/further-mucking-about-to-no-effect with the various charities and structures of the WSR. It is "perfectly possible" that all members of the WSRA and all members of the WSSRT will all vote to amalgamate the two charities in a "common cause-common goal" approach to move forward positively.
It is also "perfectly possible" that this proposal will bring about a new, even more stupid chapter of infighting, jealousy, factionism, tribalism, and jostling for position, power and influence, while the railway everyone claims to love continues to suffer.
Sadly, I know which of these possibilities is more likely

 

If we are elected, make no mistake, you would be asked for your view on the way forward. We have always said that members would get the chance to discuss it, then vote on it. It would be for the Trustees of the WSRA to ask their members the same thing, if they felt it was in the best interests of the WSRA. If, then, the members of the WSRA and the members of the WSSRT both agreed to a merger, and it happens, what is it about that democratically-achieved position that would be the basis for an "even more stupid chapter of infighting, jealousy, factionism, tribalism, and jostling for position, power and influence"?

 

You misunderstand me. I say one possibility is the path of peace and joy to all, amalgamating the two groups. The other road is one of misery and strife by not amalgamating the two groups. Both eventualities are perfectly possible