S&D Railway Trust

I have a feeling that we should treat this person more gently.

 

Because poorly-informed opinion = fact.

I don't think x will work (based on no real knowledge), therefore it won't.

Anyway, what colour is the new museum going to be?

 

Is there really any reason to think the S&DRT Museum & Signal Box can't remain just as they are?
Granted, some of the museum artefacts might move, but I'm sure there's plenty around to fill in any gaps.
I really don't understand why the Plc would want to re-take responsibility for the station when it was already being (largely) maintained & run by the S&DRT, unless that's all part of the negotiations & the lease costs.
It seems to me that S&DRT publicity of the Washford site generally might be improved, adding another gem to the 'string of pearls'.

 

Two points here, I think.

1. It would appear that the 'new' lease will be for the yard only, in which case it is difficult to see how the S&DRT could continue to occupy the old signal-box on the platform, or have any continuing Museum presence in the station building.
2. There are a lot of 'small' exhibits currently in the existing Museum in the station building. IMHO there is no equivalent place in the yard to put them, although a few could go into the Burnham SB (I still have the plans for a similar proposal circa-2012!) and maybe one of the larger covered vans could be used for the rest, but it would not be ideal.

There might be some argument for the WSSRT adding the 'Midford' exhibit to their portfolio of WSR-base museums, but it does need a lot of refurbishment work (none of which probably could solve the fundamental problem that the building is too small even for all the necessary interlocking, so the display has never been 100% accurate) and it needs to be managed and manned by people familiar with the prototype and the ideosyncracies of S&DJR signalling compared with (G)WR practice.

 

One good point is of some wagons leaving empty the yard to go to the mid hants if kilmersdon stays it will get more length to go up and down on.

 

Are you paying for the overhaul then?

 

What is the point of your reply. More run is a good point to make. The WSR may see this as a better attraction. For break van rides. I didn’t say it will be tomorrow. All groups are will be needing to look to the future and what it does with stations not just tomorrow. Why is who is paying for the overhaul a question to me.

 

Because you keep going on about it? It’s out of ticket and doesn’t work.

 

At one level I am very pleased to hear of 'City of Truro fan''s interest in SDRT loco Kilmersdon. It is only very recently out of ticket, and the last SDRT accounts and AGM report shows a healthy fund for it's overhaul.

It is a very attractive loco and probably with the sort of following 'Invincible' has within the IOWSR at Havenstreet.

 

1. If the WSR had any interest in Kilmersdon for brake-van rides, why would they have evicted the Trust?
2. How many extra people will come to Washford just to see Kilmersdon and ride the brake-vans, enough to make it an economic prospect?
3. IMHO the Trust will get far more long-term income from extended hiring of Kilmersdon to another railway then just the occasional 'steaming day' at Washford.

 

The SDRT is probably going to have expenses to move their stuff (although probably nowhere near as large as without the deal to retain Washford Yard). Whether they will need to raid the fund for the move - no idea.

Noel

 

overhauling a loco will not be very high up on the trust's immediate plans, they have the items they are transferring to the MHR to remove, and then to decide how they re work the remaining exibits into the smaller yard space, if i were a betting man, I can't see any overhaul starting until things settle down, as there will need to be working parties now at two locations, one to sort ut Washford Yard, and another to get the wagons at least through piped, and to set up an museum somewhere on site. at the MHR.

 

Sorry if I missed this is the thread. On a simply practical note with the 'new' agreement. Will the Museums visitors have access to the toilets on the station as in theory, they could simply want to visit the S&D site without travelling on the WSR and the station if not manned by S&D staff be shut in any case?

 

My understanding from emails and comments on the SDRT Facebook page is that, with lots of stuff yet to be finalised, the WSR Plc gets the station back that would inextricably include the signal box on the platform and the toilet block.

The SDRT continues to lease the Washford yard with its buildings but with some kind of shared access agreement with it's Landlord, the WSR Plc, that is fraught with difficulties in writing a new lease!

 

For all the hundreds of pages I've never seen what, rationally, was in it for the WSR plc (let alone whether it was a price worth paying).

Patrick

 

That question, or variations thereof, has been asked over and over, and we still await a clear believable explanation, if indeed there is one. But it would be better to focus on what happens in future, rather than how the PLC and the Trust have arrived at the present situation. One significant piece of information that has been revealed only recently is that the eviction notice forced the Trust to make some decisions that they had previously avoided.

 

Since when did reason enter into these questions?

 

I'm afraid I have nothing of any value to contribute to the discussion here but I thought this picture that I scanned yesterday may be of interest. It shows Washford as it was back in July 1977


Things have come a long way since then

Peter

 

As with much of this thread, it is all supposition/guesswork at this stage, but....

1. It would seem reasonable IMHO to expect that, if the Plc want to take over management of the station, then they will be planning to have it manned as far possible whenever trains are running. In which case no doubt the toilets will be available to all 'visitors'.
2. It remain to be seen whether the S&DRT will continue to use the yard area as a Museum activity and therefore need to accommodate visitors other than on special open days.
3. There may be a view formed that public use of the foot crossing to visit the yard when the station is not manned will be discouraged.