West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Ah ken Lallans gey wiel, but ah didnae ken thae words.

 

@Matt37401's post and your response prompted me to think about this a little bit more. And while I am weary of reading to much into incidents that took place a long time ago and my memory of things is fuzzy maybe faulty, I do think that it does have some wider relevance and the complexity of the issues involved.

I think that everyone acknowledges that volunteering can be a very positive thing. It can provide a sense of purpose, it can also help embed people in a social network, generally the people you volunteer with will be interested in many of the same things as you. It is good for preventing people getting socially isolated and it can fill an important void in people's lives.

It seems to me that sometimes, for some people the railway becomes the be all and end all of their existence. All their energy is concentrated on this. The railway becomes their life.

Now, in someways, for railways, this is a good thing, they are the people who will turn up every week and volunteer, they are the people who will be there in October or in February, They are the people who will fill the roster. Need a fireman for next weekend, you know they will be there.

For a harassed person putting together rosters great.

My take on it now is that the attitude of those on the railway was that as long as people turned up, did their job etc, they didn't care how people behaved to one another. The bottom line was 'I need someone to do x,y,z'.

The problem is that volunteering becoming so central to someone's life can become toxic and manifest itself in toxic behaviour.

Looking back with what I know now, I would characterise many of the people involved as damaged goods. Certainly, socially awkward, with fairly limited social interaction skills, and with some other issues. Matt mentioned whispering campaigns. I recall witnessing someone being the victim of one. A guy turned up to volunteer, he introduces himself, the woman he was saying hello to says (and I am paraphrasing as I can't remember the exact words) 'I know who you are, I've heard all about you. Sadly I've been rostered with you tomorrow and I am not looking forward to it.' This was to a guy she had never met, never worked with, and that just isn't how you respond when someone says hello I'm x. But clearly others had been in her ear about this guy (who seemed perfectly harmless to me).

There was a bit of a pile on culture. People who were perfectly ok individually would join with others and collectively behave badly towards people.

I've talked about how for some people the line was their life. I remember talking with one of the worst bullies and I asked him what he was doing for xmas, his response was that he was going to spend it on the railway. It stayed with me, because it was such an alien idea. My silent reaction was 'my god you really don't have anything outside of the railway'.

As I have said, it is a very small minority who act in this way, and the majority do not behave in this way. But it only takes a few to make a toxic environment. But a toxic environment can poison the whole place and drive away a lot of people, not just the bullied but those who don't want to be part of a place where such behaviour is tolerated, ignored and to a degree rewarded.

I can understand that when rosters are thin and people are needed. But I think more thought has to be given to how people behave, being reliable doesn't give you a free pass if you treat others badly. Where I worked managers needed to manage people better.

Those who are being pushed out, marginalised, being made to feel unwelcome need to be supported.

And this is where it gets complex, I think that paradoxically, the people who engage in bad behaviour actually need support. To understand that treating other people badly is not an acceptable way of responding to your own issues. And at the same time, that just because you turn up every weekend, or all summer, doesn't give you a free pass.

We often talk about the toxic culture at the WSR, I don't think purging the line of people who have baggage is the way forward. But what is important is that on all sides, the recognition that toxic behaviour is wrong. Being 'plain speaking' is often a coded way of saying 'rude' and not really acceptable these days. Sweeping it under the carpet won't produce change either.

There is a further point - it was mentioned about how the role of managing railways is getting bigger and bigger. I would argue that the 'pastoral' side of management is one that is often forgotten about and needs to be given more time and thought, not just in the formal sense of having clear and functioning HR systems and rules to deal with things if they get out of hand, but also the informal side of intervention before small scale issues get out of hand. This is another reason why IMO roles need to be broken down into smaller roles, so this kind of important but tangential work isn't forgotten about.

 

I think that this deserves more than a 'like' as it goes to the heart of many of the issues we have

 

Yes, I agree.

 

Many years ago I read a comment in Railway Modeller about those who were long time well known modellers who were knowledgeable and expert in the hobby. It was suggested that they knew all there was to know and they were important and it would be a bad idea to upset them.
I see a similarity with the WSR.
I accept what Monkey Magic's latest post says but have reservations about the "baggage". It depends what is in the bag!
There seems to be those who give the impression that they are indispensable - well we all know the answer to that! Moreover there are those who have been there since time began and therefore can have very inflexible ideas of the lines future. Then we have those who some people consider "trouble makers". We have seen some posts from those with that viewpoint - all removed from NP - but I am sure there are many others who think along those lines who do not post here for whatever reason.
So, as far as I can see, the contents of the bags are more important that the actual bag.

 

@Monkey Magic states that "purging the line of people who have baggage" is not the way forward. I quite agree. But that is because purging is not the way forward. It may be essential to close off a chapter - as happened with the X6 - but it should be a last resort and with the heaviest of hearts.

However, the role of baggage goes the other way. Those who have it have an impact on others. Being aware of that impact, and deciding to act in a way that avoids that impact is important. @Andy Norman yesterday wrote something to that effect, and I hugely respect him for having the self-awareness to acknowledge that about himself, and then to act in accordance with that.

 

Ideally, for the railway to move forward, it needs all current board members of the PLC to agree to step down, and move aside, as soon as the membership and shareholders give their vote on the way forward, and the respective chairs of the charities to agree to accept the memberships vote, ideally both should in light of their backing the PLC , agree to step down also, that way, the agreed way forward can be finalised and progress made , by new people who can work as one railway, What should happen in my view is that the two charities merge, with a new board of trustees, the shareholders of the plc are then asked to agree to the transfer of the operating company to the new charity, at this point a sub committee is formed to oversea the change, to ensure the change is done with agreement, of everyone, the PLC board then resign, their job is taken over by the new sub committee, this includes appointing the right people with the right skills and approach in the right jobs, and once everything is transferred after say 1 year, then new elections are held for the committee, but time limited to 3 year maximum, with a third of each board having to offer themselves for re selection every year, and a ban on any committee member standing for 3 years after serving a full 3 year term.

 

Really? How often has @aldfort written about the difficulty of persuading anyone to stand for election, and you're proposing to put a term limit in? It will limit good people, do nothing to deal with those who need dealing with, and require loopholes (co-option, anyone?) to actually get people into important roles. The issue is culture, not rules.

As an aside, I sit on a church PCC. Under the Church Representation Rules, as an elected member of PCC, I can only serve a single 3 year term, with a required gap of 1 year before I can stand for election again. Yet, entirely legitimately, I am entering my 8th consecutive year on PCC thanks to having been co-opted once, and now been appointed by that PCC to an ex-officio role. Term limits are only a partial answer.

 

I suspect that many potential directors and trustees are deterred by the toxic atmosphere that has affected the WSR in recent times. And probably not just potential leaders, but potential supporters as well. Although the WSRA no longer highlights its membership numbers, I have the impression that it has lost a large proportion of the 5000+ that it enjoyed a decade ago. And how many volunteers and potential volunteers have decided to go elsewhere?

To take the railway forward, it probably needs a leadership that combines new blood with some existing leaders who can contribute their experience and expertise. I think that the Northern Ireland Peace Process and Good Friday Agreement shows that it is possible, albeit very very difficult, to get bitter enemies to sit down and co-operate. So there is hope for the WSR.

 

A lot will depend on how the new GM approaches his post. He has been appointed by the PLC board but must be seen to be all-inclusive. Once he's in post he should be allowed to get on with his job without interference from either the PLC or the old/new charities, unless he's going badly wrong.

It is ironic that John Bailey was asked to intervene as a consultant in this dispute because when he first became NYMR chairman that line was in a bit of a mess (not quite as bad as the WSR, admittedly!), with an umpopular GM in charge and causing a fair amount of ill-feeling - it was in need of someone to act as a calming and uniting force, which it found in the present GM, who I am proud to say I encouraged to apply for the post and helped him formulate his application with some inside knowledge of what he needed to say at his interview.

 

First off, I'd like to thank everyone who has posted recently; a productive and considered discussion, so different from the kind of futile finger-pointing one often sees in WSR-related threads.

Last night I was thinking that the members of all WSR organizations need to turf everyone who's currently in a leadership role anywhere in the WSR. I know that in some sense that's not 'fair', because some are more responsible than others, but I think the WSR desperately needs to draw a really hard line under the past, and move on - and a uniform defenestration is the best way to really get that message through.

Yes, the WSR's structural issues have been a source of troubles, but the largest problem all along has been people. Setting up a different set of boxes on the structural org chart (the current fad) isn't going to help that much if it's still all the same people running them.

In fact, I'm mildly surprised that someone who's a senior respected figure in the heritage rail world, someone completely un-connected with the WSR, hasn't shown up and said to both (all?) sides, 'Let's try and work out a deal; if you all will bail out, the other side will too', and vice versa. I've seen that kind of thing work (not a mass defenestration, I mean, but a trade of voluntary departures).

The thing is, I think most of the current combatants really do care deeply about the WSR (they're not in it for the trivial 'power' to be had here), and so an approach which gets them something they think is vital for the line's continued health might be something they could accept.

Mind, I'm not saying kick anyone out of volunteering at the WSR; that would be wrong. But they'd all have to go back to being ordinary volunteers, and put others in charge.

Noel

 

The issue with a "defensestration" of that sort is the transition: you still have to maintain, at a minimum, a board of the plc that between them have the range of skills necessary in engineering, operations, finance etc to continue to satisfy the regulator about the ongoing safety of operating the railway. Where are those people? The number of people who have (a) the aptitude and (b) the desire to be heritage railway directors is not huge; and for what is meant to be a voluntary and enjoyable job, I suspect there are probably more amenable opportunities out there if that is what you wish to do.

(As a side issue, and related to the issue of term limits: the issue of institutional memory shouldn't be under-estimated. I don't mean in the sense of people bearing grudges, but rather that often knowledge of "why things are as they are" is often held in the heads of a relatively few people. Sometimes there are plans that - and I mean this for entirely benign reasons - aren't written down but which are being broadly followed, but where the continuity might be lost of there is a high turnover of directors or senior staff).

Tom

 

Thank-you for your most helpful post. That's the fullest explanation that I have seen of the rail-grinding incident.

The infrastructure had been upgraded in the mid 1990s to take the heaviest locomotives and operate longer trains. Arguably, the WSR moved up at this time into the Premier League of heritage railways, although a little lower on the scale than the NYMR & SVR. It is also arguable that it has now suffered relegation to a lower division.

It appears from Post #31926 (Page 1597) that the track was in good condition around 2000, but could not subsequently be kept to the highest standard. WSR finances would have been in a healthy state in earlier years, with published passenger numbers increasing from 127K in 1994 to a peak of 226K in 2009. Since then, passenger numbers have steadily fallen, which will not have eased the task of finding the money needed for track maintenance - or anything else.

With so much focus during the past decade on internal strife and more recently on the pandemic, there has perhaps been less attention (both from the railway's leaders and its supporters) on what the WSR business strategy should be. There seem to have been periods when cost savings were stressed, but also an expansionist phase around 2016/7 when the "Southern Gateway" ideas were put forward for major developments at Bishops Lydeard. Presumably, the Board's thinking was that improvements to facilities would attract more customers and allow it to return to the healthier commercial situation of earlier years? More recently, retrenchment is the order of the day. Apart from the banishment of the heavier locomotives, the strategy for 2020 (before the pandemic struck) seemed to be based on fewer operating days, shorter trains and more diesel operation. Assuming that the railway is able to get going again in 2021, I guess that this approach will remain for the foreseeable future.

 

Re reading some recent threads, another thought has occurred to me. There's a lot of focus on director/trustee roles; deservedly so. Yet it isn't necessary for someone to be a director/trustee to have real power (think of those who argue that a GM shouldn't be a director), and they would not be affected by this kind of term limit.

The focus has to be on how the WSR can have a culture that supports and rewards those involved, which respects them, and which values their input.

It is for that reason that I am deeply dubious that structural organisational change driven by the body that is most associated with the grievances at the WSR can ever deliver a sustainable future for the WSR that will prevent further fratricide within the WSR "family".

 

You are quite right in one respect, that there is absolutely a need to create a level and transparent playing field when it comes to recruitment of directors and trustees to the main WSR organisations. No more should somewhat secretive co-option and then 'rubber stamping' at the AGM be the default position, as it has been in some quarters for several years now. I appreciate that this might have been another aspect of our campaign which has been overlooked in the last few weeks and dozens of NatPres pages, but in our original "Pulling Together" statement, we said that, "We recognise that when the above reorganization is achieved many fewer Trustees will be required. Those of us who wish to remain Trustees in the refreshed organization undertake only to do so if recommended by the appointments panel to be established as part of the Bailey recommendations."

So to be clear, those of us now standing as WSSRT Trustees, would ALL stand down, upon the completion of the merger (if approved by members....). We would then like to see the setting up of a 'cross-party' appointments panel, with clearly defined terms of reference as agreed by members of the combined charity and all relevant stakeholders. Then, anybody could stand to be Trustees of the new/combined charity. Including existing and future WSSRT Trustees and members, if they wanted to put themselves forward. Including existing and future WSRA, or S&DRT, or DEPG Trustees or members, or PLC director and shareholders - whatever badge(s) are being worn at the time, if they wanted to put themselves forward. Including anyone!....providing of course that they meet the eligibility criteria for being a Good Trustee, as set out by the Charity Commission.

We have to move to a more inclusive and transparent system of governance on the WSR. No more, as it has been said, "vying for position".

 

Anything is possible if the will is there.
Conversely, it is very easy to talk yourself (or others) into defeat.

 

Not only unfamiliar, but not even sure of the meaning of the word. Luckily I share a house with a native of Ayrshire and they translated for me. However, I don't think the game is lost, whatever was said in that post.

 

Ditto

Very handy if you want to watch Rab C Nesbitt & want to know whats being said

 

A few random thoughts on leadership roles on the WSR.

Firstly, the more organisations you have, the more directors you need. We've already explored how there might be advantages in having a Bluebell-like structure with 3 organisations, but if you already know that recruiting a decent number of people willing to take on the top jobs is problematic for you, that make be a factor in deciding to go for a 2 group structure.

Secondly, as has been noted, @aldfort especially has pointed out in the past that getting people to come forward for these roles is tricky. So lets just reflect on the fact that when some brand new candidates came in with a vision for the WSR going forward, they were subject to abuse and harassment culminating in some standing down. Among them were at least a couple that, from where I was sitting, looked very much like the WSR's future to me. That really is exceptionally poor, even for the WSR.

Thirdly, even aside from the torrent of abuse that the latest round of candidates got, how is the WSR organised to allow people to rise up the ranks? If the railway is struggling so badly for those at the top, perhaps it is worth examining whether something could be done further "upstream" so to speak. Maybe some of those stepping stones are occupied by paid staff? On my own railway I see a clear path of how I can work my way up pretty much as far as I want to go right up to the board if I wished. Even within a single department there are several roles between "foot soldiers" and being head of department. Currently I'm quite happy in those sorts roles in both departments I'm a member of. It gives you a taster and appreciation of management higher up and helps address the issues identified by @Jamessquared of institutional memory. It also makes some of those higher up roles easier to fill, or retain people in them, because at each level, whatever you're "head" of, you have a "management team" who you can delegate certain tasks to.

Fourthly, given that there are, or ought to be, so many roles between foot soldier and director (and my personal view is that everyone one the railway should maintain "foot soldier" status no matter how many other responsibilities they add) then there ought to be a way in which some of the current cast, whilst standing down from those figurehead, strategy setting leadership roles, can still contribute more to their railway than simply by turning up on the day.

Fifthly, I don't view co-option as a "loophole" or something to be mistrusted on principle. Linking back to my third point, there ought to be a visible path of progression from foot soldier of a certain department right up to the relevant director for that department. Directors ought to be accountable for specific roles. And if you have specific roles, then you should be appointing specific people to those roles. Just hoping that you might get some folk turn up willing to be a generic director doesn't feel like a great way for going about things to me. You identify a need for a director to cover a specific brief, and you advertise for that. You may have someone in mind, who is likely to already be in a role slightly further down the chain, and once satisfied, you co-opt them. I would slightly diverge from @Lineisclear 's view that operating company directors shouldn't have any direct democratic oversight at all. I guess you could sum it up as directors should be co-opted in, and voted out?

Finally, just an observation this one, triggered by @WSSRTcandidates 's post above (the tone of which I approve of whole-heartedly) where "badges" were mentioned. I don't know how, but somehow, the WSR needs to move away from everyone being defined by what organisation on the railway they align to. To this outsider is just seems to damaging, because it perpetuates divisions that otherwise might be less clear-cut, by drawing really quite thick boxes around things. If your structure is such that everyone is a member of everything that is pan-railway, then this should be less of an issue. I don't view our GWRT trustees as "Trust people" any more than I view our GWSR Plc directors as "Plc people", because all the Plc directors are Trust members and all the Trustees are all technically Plc volunteers. The two boards are just managing different aspects of the railway, rather than managing different organisations. Before anyone jumps on me about legal obligations of directors or trustees or whatever, yes I know!!! but that really shouldn't stand in the way of anything I've said. I'm fed up of hearing "first duty is to shareholders", it is meaningless in all practical sense.

 

To be fair to @Lineisclear, I don't think he is biased towards the Plc board per se, it's just he and the Board think alike, they are all "top-downers" and so naturally suspicious of a different, "bottom-up" approach.
This is the danger of calling for a new organisation, with new trustees: it's not going to do any good, even if the new trustees don't come with any "baggage", if they all think the WSR should continue to be run in the way that it has always been run, with control vested in a few people at the top, regardless of the structure that they are at the top of. It seems to me that the WSR has always been a cliquey railway and those cliques have always fought. The first AGM I attended descended into chaos as the "Running into Taunton" clique shouted at the directors. I was slightly horrified, but not surprised, to see that resentments still seethe about that, decades later. Later, when I volunteered, taking my tea-break in the mess-room, I would listen to the train crews slagging off one of the other drivers whenever he wasn't present and the then GM all the time. He was referred to as "The Menial Damager". So if one of the current cliques just invites a few new faces to join their clique to run the railway, it's really not going to make much difference, however much you change the structure.