West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Yes, I'm not sure if any railway would welcome Lord Lucan

 

I never cease to be amazed by the tone deafness of the PLC.

The WSR PLC will claim the credit for everything good but never take responsibility for problems.

Will claim getting a £850,000 grant as evidence of good management ignoring that they could have only run a truncated service anyway, and the hubristic trumpet blowing is in poor taste as other lines are forced to lay off staff. Somehow, the only people who have been victims in the S&DRT and WSSRT issues have been the poor victimised members of the PLC, obviously of course in the eyes of the PLC the members of the S&DRT or the 14 have suffered no negative impact during the course of this year.

Well clearly, as the WSR is so expertly managed and has negotiated the Covid crisis so well they don't need my financial support. I'll just have to donate to one of those badly managed lines like the Ffestiniog that made the foolish decision to run this year and have had to lay off staff since they clearly need my help.

 

He was always 'Lucky'

Robin

 

I am pretty sure that if he turned up and declared that he had decided to fund the restoration of 'sexy loco sitting in the shed for a long time' then many people would turn a blind eye to it. It is a bit like football chairmen, supporters don't really have ethics if it means winning the league.

The phrasing would be 'misunderstood' 'committed to the railway' 'passionate' 'not related to his railway activity' and 'yes we did our due diligence'.

Not if you were the Nanny he wasn't.

 

Has Lord Lucan been proven guilty in a court of law?

 

It was the finding of the inquest jury ("Murder by Lord Lucan"), which then in English Law amounted to a committal.

Patrick

 

I certainly dont think that The Police ever looked for anyone else

 

Too busy elsewhere...

 

Lord Lucan - would that be an SR 4-6-0?

 

Nope, that was Lord Duncan (30858).
Seem to be going rather off topic here.

 

Going back to the WSR, this report on the WSRA response to the restructuring proposals is positive

https://transformwsr.wordpress.com/2020/12/14/red-lines-and-two-hats/

 

I've stated this before, but if the WSR plc board get away with the liability that is a legally binding contractual commitment to carry out the next heavy overhaul of SDRT 53808, it will avoid a bill of some £250,000.

What really irks me is the intensive use made of the loco during 2019, when accounts were being prepared to write off it's overhaul provision in the accounts.

I have to obey forum rules on all this, but you can imagine what I would like to post on here over all this!

The implication is that the WSR plc has had free use of the loco for quite a few years and thrashed it last year particularly.

You can all draw your own conclusions. I've made mine. I don't like treading in dog **** and having to scrape it off my shoes.

 

Especially if it were a "big chuffer" too large for the purpose and unsuited to the civil engineering.

 

There has been comments in the past about 53808 being thrashed and you're stating this again now. There was no evidence produced before so do you have evidence now to back up your claim? I never saw 53808 being thrashed, including on long trains off the main line. It's very easy to use emotive language, so if you are going to let's see some facts please.

 

There is no need to claim that the PLC was "thrashing" 53808. Continuing to use it at all while intending to breach the contract to overhaul it was quite enough of a sin.

 

Have the WSR ever said that it would not overhaul 53808 when the time comes? The last public statement from the plc that I can find (28th August) seems to indicate otherwise.
"The Plc will now focus its efforts on raising funds toward the cost of the overhaul. Our initial indicative target is £228,000 (the SDRT will also be contributing in relation to the period when the locomotive is away from the WSR). The Plc Board will be examining options for fundraising very shortly and we will be publicising our approach to everybody to help us to secure the funds which will be put into a designated account specifically for this purpose."

 

I believe it has, although forgive me if I don't wade through and find it, it would be back in March time I guess, when all this first kicked off. Communications subsequent to that, such as the one you quoted, have changed the position though.

 

The Plc shouldn't be starting to raise funds towards the cost of the overhaul and to putting them into a designated account, it should have already done this from the beginning of the contract. Now there is the very likely possibility that the overhaul of 53808 will be delayed by years while the necessary funds are raised as the Plc is trying to do in two years what most organisations struggle to do in ten.

 

That seems very much to be the MO of the Plc, to say one thing, then say something different later on, leaving you wondering which one is the truth.

 

Bit like our current Government then.