West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Wow @1472 , that really is a staggeringly unhelpful comment. Talk about stirring the pot!

And what on earth is a "working volunteer"? How can you be a volunteer without working?

 

May be stirring the pot, but probably quite true.

I have yet to see any of 'The Ten' appear in any photos that have appeared over the last few months that feature volunteers working. How do 'The Ten' know what the volunteers want if they don't engage with them, because I'm pretty sure alot of people, whether a volunteer or non volunteer, stay well clear of Facebook and National Preservation for obvious reasons. Face to face dialogue may be best (although granted its going to become more difficult from Thursday).

 

It is pretty simple - what have the 10 done that renders them unsuitable. NB - rocking the boat does not count as a valid reason.

Did someone not say hello to you in 1983 when passing on the platform? Do you not like someone's choice of hairstyle? Did they invite you for a fight on Minehead platform?

And here is what is fantastic, if volunteers really hate the 10 so much, then there was absolutely nothing to stop them joining the WSSRT or the WSRA and voting against any measures the 10 propose.

Checks and balances, who'd have thought of it.

 

I believe "The Ten" have been speaking to some of the volunteers, though obviously I don't know how many. As for appearing in photos; how many volunteers have been able to do any work at all on this particular railway over the last few months, and how many photos have appeared of any of them? There have been a few of the event at Minehead, of track weeding and of work on the S&D loco before its departure, but even in those how many faces are recognisable?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as they say.
On the issue that is most urgent right now, deciding how to vote at the WSSRT AGM, all parties (including the PLC!) have clearly stated their viewpoints and objectives. That gives the lie to the "Trojan Horse" claim, and with that exception no-one seems to be alleging underhand secret plans like those that have been attributed (justly or unjustly) to the PLC Board.
BTW, remarkably there is one more area that all parties seem to agree about: the changes to the name and objectives of the WSSRT as covered by items 8 and 9 of the AGM agenda.

 

And that is another fundamental problem in my view. Because you do not need to join an overarching support organisation to volunteer, volunteers are actually lower down the pecking order in terms of deciding strategy than any other stakeholder, and makes the support organiaionts that do exist feel like "others". Which seems like madness to me.

 

So what? I would be much happier with volunteers whom I know are 'working behind the scenes' to progress and promote various WSR activities, than those who are more interested in 'media opportunities'. As has been said before, there is more - much more - to being a volunteer than just 'getting down and dirty' actually on the railway (meaning no disrespect to those who do the latter anyway). Been there, done both

 

Given that currently the Trust's Articles place no limits on the number of Trustees then, unless any of the individual nominees garner more 'No' votes than 'Yes' votes, it will be quite feasible for all of them to be elected.

 

And as a consequence of the nature of the choice before Trust members, the questions of who are "winners" and "losers" will arise in terms of both specific candidates, and of the groups to which they belong. It will therefore be important, whichever way the result goes, that the "winners" focus on winning the peace, not continuing the election battle.

 

If only it were as simple as that.
1. There is no guarantee that the WSSRT functions would continue. The objectives of any new body will be set by the trustees of that charity. And these might be new people who may very well decide (for example) that coaches are not a priority and no funds are allocated.
By the way, @WSSRTcandidates have not answered this question yet.
2. How can you say more sources of funding would be available? Its pure supposition and overlooks the success the trust has had fundraising to date.
3. A 20% shareholding does not give control of the charity. You might win some votes on a one by one basis, but it is not strategic control.
Ian C

 

The view from Station House today - take 2.

 

I havnt seen that CCT(?) before

 

I watched the webcam footage of arriving at Williton, 7820(?) with a short engineers train.
It is currently (at 1418) stood just beyond the second starting signal.
Very nice to see some action both Steam and Diesel!

 

If its 7820 there is a big problem - it should be in a shed in Gloucestershire (could be Foxcote though)

 

It's a shame the cam at Crowcombe is down. And also the south williton camera which has not worked for ages.

 

Nice to see a proper pair of Locos, none of this Hydraulic rubbish

 

I seem to recall reading that that run-down batch of coaches stored off-site in the open that were discussed a couple of weeks ago were obtained in good part through the efforts of a leading member of The 10. (Too lazy to hunt for it; if my memory is failing me, I hope someone will correct me.) My assumption, if so, is that they'd actually be likely to get more attention if The 10 are elected. (Certainly, the existing leadership group doesn't appear to have done much for that group of coaches - although I guess they are all Mk I's, so nothing of great importance.)

Noel

 

TRAIN APPROACHING SEAWARD LANE CROSSING NOW !!!

 

Noel, that wasn't my point. My point was that in a new charity, the ten cannot promise what its priorities will be as none of us may be trustees. A new charity may decide it has no interest in coaches and its priority is locos. So the ten are wrong to say a new charity will carry on the trust's existing work. In fact the existing trustees have done some protection work on the coaches which are a mix of toplights and collets. No mk1s.
Ian C

 

1. (and second quote) I think the Charity Commission would be seriously unhappy about the assets of the present charity being handed over if the charity (brand new or merged) acquiring them did not retain the same responsibilities towards them.
2. It has been stated on this thread that at the present rate of funding many of the WSSRT's coaches will have rotted away before they reach the front of the queue. It has also been stated that both external awarders of grants and individual donors will be much more inclined to provide money for the WSR as a whole if there is a single charity. Allocation of the money will be determined by the granters/donors and/or by the Railway's needs at the time. Even if the WSSRT's coaches are not top prioroty at a particular time (like now, with the backlog of track maintenance) their long-term prospects should be as good or, probably, better under a combined charity.
3. True, but it is not at all clear how the alternative plan would give the volenteers and armchair supporters any more influence.