West Somerset Railway General Discussion

The WSR and one or two other heritage lines found on NP appear to have a list of priorities. One quite high up on the list seems to be keeping the legal profession in business. Why else would there be a constant mention and involvement of legalities and regulations.
Other lines seem to manage very well without this need and even if needed they manage to keep it within the family circle.

 

Not for the first time in this thread! Its attention is so frequently diverted to matters of little consequence that I sometimes wonder whether that was what was intended.

For example, the contention that the 2018 Agreement between the S&DRT and the WSR plc technically infringed a provision in the Law of Property Act (and so voided the Trust's lease) deflected attention from the much more significant fact that the plc had entered into a contract with the Trust which it then repudiated by serving notice to quit.

Similarly, whether @Andy Norman has incorrectly claimed the protection of whistleblowers' rights is of monumental insignificance when set against the plc's reported abrogation of its HR policies and failure to address a complaint made in accordance with those policies.

If the HR policies in question were indeed laid aside 20 months ago (an assertion unchallenged here by those in a position to know) then the plc has long since ceased to be in a position to defend its abandonment of them as a “prudent decision” in order “to ensure that a common policy can be replaced by appropriate ones distinguishing between employees and volunteer.”

The West Somerset Railway, as a member of the HRA, is expected to observe the HRA's Code of Conduct. Is the HRA bringing pressure to bear on the WSR plc to put in place without further delay policies and procedures “to guard against harassment, bullying and unfair discrimination or treatment” in accordance with Article 2.3 of that Code? If not, why not?

 

I quite agree. But it may also draw a line under those problems.

 

Agreed. Let's keep the lawyers out. Nothing discourages donations more than the prospect of the donation going towards paying legal bills!

 

From Facebook:


West Somerset Steam Railway Trust


Membership Applications
The Trust advises that it will not be possible to process any further applications for membership received henceforward in order to prepare for the forthcoming AGM.
A welcome record number of applications has been received over the last four months, but our articles require Trustee approval before membership is confirmed, and time is needed for this process to be properly undertaken before the distribution of AGM papers shortly.
Membership applications received from now on will be processed, but cannot now be confirmed until after November 14.
Information provided by WSSRT at 15.15 on Tuesday 20 October 2020.

 

That sounds like good news to me. Assuming both @WSSRTcandidates and @ikcdab 's statements were true, then presumably a lot of people being compelled to join the Trust with threats over their ID card have not done so, and now can't.

 

Absolutely. I struggle to think that even at say the most acrimonious moments on the GWSR, Bluebell etc, that volunteers have had to consider having to blow the whistle and that they would be protected from retribution.

It sums up how messed up things are on the WSR in a nutshell.

 

..........and neither can anyone else, Alex.

 

I know, but given which "side" started first, I'm hopeful. Roll on the 14th. I think voting papers should be emailed out this coming Saturday IIRC?

 

But we lawyers are fluffy, warm-hearted types who never even step on cracks in the pavement.

And are reassuringly expensive.

 

If you were dealing with honourable people, yes I would agree, but someone's cosy empire is at risk here, so don't expect fair play.

 

A question you would think an officer of the HRA would know the answer to . However @Lineisclear has already been asked that very question twice. The first answer rambled on and completely ignored the question, we are still waiting for a reply to the second time of asking.

 

I think you make a very important point. Whatever happens with the vote, reconciliation is what is needed if peace is ever going to prevail. "Winning the peace" will be equally, if not more important to us candidates after we have won the vote/argument. This will mean listening, talking, and compromises on both sides of the divide, if trust is to be rebuilt.

 

Oh come on!

The 'goose that lays the golden egg' is the WSSRT's shareholding in the WSR PLC, which together with the WSRA's shareholding pretty much provides control of the WSR PLC.

I support this move - indeed I raised it privately back in March as a way of putting an end to the eviction of the SDRT from Washford.

But let's be transparent about all this.

 

Well that is what the PLC and their supporters claim.

However, the reality is that when the dust has settled there will be a 2021 and hopefully a 2031 season. Short term the railway has major issues with infrastructure and funding, long term there are issues that need to be addressed. Excluding people won't help sort those issues, trust will need to be rebuilt. Top down exhortations to 'work together, work harder plebs', is not a way forward, especially if there are further rounds of recriminations and attacks on those who have previously challenged the winners.

Bottomline, as the WSR stands at the moment the S&DRT, for as much as the cost and difficulty of moving is, are better off out of such a toxic environment. A place where agreements are not worth the paper that they are written on and where SM are happy to go to the press and attack groups like the S&DRT.

To my mind, trust is the one thing that the line lacks (ie you trust that when you sign a lease that two years later you won't be turfed out, you trust that fellow family members will defend you), and without trust there can be no future. Railway work is built on trust. So building trust between volunteers, supporters, casual passengers, groups, the local stakeholders is going to be critical. But also and most importantly, rebuilding trust between the different factions involved in the WSR. There is no magic bullet, it won't happen overnight and will be difficult. But look at it this way, who is saying and doing the right things here - is it the PLC and their supporters or the WSSRT10? Which approach do you think bodes for a better positive future for the WSR - the recent effort by Bailey et al in Steam Railway or the proposals put forward by the WSSRT10 on here?

And by extension, which set of proposals offers the possibility for a positive solution to the S&DRT and the potential for a positive WSR environment for the S&DRT to be in?

 

My apologies, Pete, I had slightly amended my post by way of an edit at the same time you posted.

Mike Sherwood of the WRSA has never stated anything in support of the SDRT at Washford or it's loco.

Chris Austin of the WSSRT has similarly stated nothing in support of the SDRT.

Ian Coleby has expressed his regret on here, but qualified this in that he thought Washford Yard with the building owned by the SDRT would make a good base for historic coach restoration - the same person on here who considers a signed agreement for a 50 year lease didn't need to comply with the formalities, and leaves the WSSRT as vulnerable on it's own 50 year lease with the WSR PLC.

The SDRT haven't thrown in the towel. And the substantial grant funding the WSR has now received changes quite a lot. No longer can the WSR plc board claim they can't honour the agreement with the SDRT over SDRT loco '88'.

A couple of years ago Ian Coleby received an award at a meeting of the SDRT which he attended in person. 2 years later he suggests on here that the SDRT premises at Washford could be used for something like accommodating the WSSRT historic carriages languishing in the open at Williton, as that is the only gloss I can consider reasonably attributable to his post on here back in February.

 

Just on the part highlighted: I don't think the recent DCMS grant makes a blind bit of difference to loco 88 in the way you suggest.

Firstly, the terms of those grants were that they had to be spent by March 2021, and that is outside the timeframe both of when the loco is present on the WSR; and when it actually needs any work doing to it.

Secondly, my understanding is that the bidding process for those grants was that they were awarded against a specific budgeted set of objectives, so unless work on No. 88 was in that list, it can't be funded. The grant wasn't just "give us £800k"; but rather "we need £50k to repair this track; £75k to pay these salaries; £60k for marketing support" and so on. I'm sure the DCMS will want to see evidence of those activities. (I don't know the specifics of that grant scheme, but in other large grants I am aware of, they are sometimes paid by invoice in arrears upon proof of delivering a specific objective - so in the hypothetical example above, you only get the £50k for track repairs upon showing evidence you have done it, at which point that amount of money from the total is released. Certainly that is my understanding of how large HLF grants work, and my guess is that these are likely to be administered in a similar fashion.

Tom

 

I suppose in theory it might free up some other money? Not feeling terribly hopeful though.