West Somerset Railway General Discussion

But, surely though, from the moment the PLC becomes the operating arm of a charity , it will lose the operating licence because it is no longer the PLC , but a new body that has taken over that role,
In such a situation, wouldn't the new charity, as owner of the operating company have to apply to ORR for the licence, or does the licence somehow, get transferred from the old PLC to the new operating company,

 

yu can change the name but remain the same company

 

You can become a operating arm of the charity without becoming a different company

 

It is quiet on that front, but I seem to recall that the option being explored was that the PLC remained in existence as the operating company, but the ownership transferred to the new controlling charity. If you do it that way, there is continuity of existence for the licence holder.

There are lots of things you can accuse the wider WSR of, but I would be staggered if they were to sleep walk into a situation in which a structural change automatically precluded the new entity from operating. You have to give them some credit for knowing what they are doing!

Tom

 

It would depend on what provisions were in the contract for assignment, if the new company actually took over the assets and liabilities of the old and if the surviving party (the S & D Trust) were happy with the assignment.
All things we have no right to know of course and at the moment all hypothetical.

 

If you recall, from hundreds of posts passim, the entire change was to be structured to preclude that eventuality.
@dunghill1 , yes you can, but that is not what the saying means. Note the use of inverted commas.

 

Minutes of a meeting of the PDG. Held on Wednesday 24 February, 2021.

Microsoft Word - PDG Minutes 240221 v2 (wsr.org.uk)

Good new regarding the re-opening of the railway:
''Justin Kerr-Petersen reported that this had been discussed in detail by the Plc Board earlier in the day. It seemed likely that the earliest date would be 17 May 2021 with pre-booked trains on the BL – Williton section. Work was progressing on the Seaward Lane level crossing at Minehead and a completion date in June was being planned for''.

<BJ>

 

Replacement tender for 7828 Odney Manor.

Work continues to replace the existing tender running with Odney Manor with a fully overhauled tender. The existing tender is reaching the end of it's useful life without overhaul so a new tender is being prepared in readyness.

So far work has been taking place over several years on the frames but yesterday the first part of the tank was fitted to the frames.

The tender is a Churchward 3500 gallon example, number 2061T, which came to the WSR from Barry scrapyard via the Pontypool and Blaenavon Rly. So far most of the small components have been manufactured, replaced or refurbished and put into store. The frames have been shot blasted and painted, the front 1/4 of the frames replaced and the front dragbox replaced with all new riveted platework.

The well tank of the tender is integral with the frame cross members which slightly complicates the assembly to ensure that it all fits correctly.

The tank well was welded up in Minehead shed, lifted out using our Atlas crane wagon, turned the right way up and fitted to the frames.

All pictures by Steve Ryall.

Next stage will be to start building up the new tank itself.

Andy.

 

Dmu 51887 which is in stone sidings opposite the mindhead Single Box , Any one Know if it will be restored.

 

Nice to see a sense of humour in the canoe photo.

 

Do you use any sort of corrosion prevention treatment (inside or out) on the new tank prior to fitting?

 

What has happened at Peak Rail over the last couple of years is another example of what can happen if various parties do not stick to agreements. I hope the WSR Board do mean "... strapped for cash just now.." rather than "...this year, next year, sometime, never..." while hoping the S&DRT give up and go away. Nothing good would come of that.

 

Having read the contents of B010/21 in the minutes of the WSRA's board meeting on 12th January last, I should like to know exactly what question was put to the Association's Trustees by Steve Williams in his capacity as a director of the WSR plc.

I have seen nothing to indicate a change in the plc's position that it lacks the funds required for discharge of its contractual obligations as regards the Seven's overhaul. The fact that a plc director asked the WSRA trustees whether any “fundraising for 53808” would be forthcoming from the Association suggests that the plc is still short of the funds required, as I can see no other reason for putting such a question to them.

It is worth noting that it is the Association rather than the plc that has made fundraising support for the Seven contingent upon an agreement for it to run upon the railway. This is not a case of the plc saying to the S&DRT that it will only perform its overhaul obligations in return for the formation of a fresh agreement to operate the locomotive. On the contrary, it is the WSR Association that has told the plc that it will only provide fundraising support for the locomotive if such an agreement is formed.

The message the response from the Association's trustees sends to me is that their willingness to provide financial support to the plc and thereby enable it to discharge its contractual obligations is, in this case, contingent upon the S&DRT offering a sweetener in the form of a commitment to return the locomotive for further service on the line. If that is, in fact, the impression the WSRA trustees wish to convey then their application of pressure to the S&DRT in this way is in singularly poor taste and reinforces my conviction that the locomotive's employment on the WSR should be brought permanently to an end as soon as is legally feasible.

 

Surely it's the same situation the S &D trust found themselves in when asked to support the WSR financially? To do so would have been outside the scope of its charitable objects leaving its Trustees personally liable if they did so. My reading of the WSRA objects is that the Association could not legitimately donate its funds to overhaul the 7F if all they were doing was to provide financial support to the PLC. I suspect it's not the WSRA applying pressure in poor taste so much as recognition that is the only basis on which they could legitimately donate the funds involved.

 

I'd suggest the reverse. (And of course, with all things WSR there is always the political dimension).

The PLC has asked the WSRA to fund something that the PLC should be funding. You could read it as 'why should we bail out the PLC for a mess of their own making and the line get nothing out of it.'

 

That could be a justifiable interpretation if it was possible for the WSRA to bail out the PLC in those circumstances. Personally I prefer to assume that the WSRA Trustees are well aware of the limits on what they can fund and were trying to be constructive.

 

I'm conscious that there are many who feel disappointed that the WSRA did not intervene in the row between plc and S&DRT. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that, I find it really rather a stretch to go from that to the view that the WSRA are seeking to make it harder for the plc to honour their agreement with the S&DRT in respect of 53808.

The WSR has been plagued for several years with conflicts and conspiratorial thinking. It is also clear that there have been significant differences of opinion between some of the organisations within the WSR "family", with tensions between WSRA and plc often prominent among them. To suggest that the WSRA and plc are actually somehow working together in an attempt to put pressure on the S&DRT simply feels false to me.

 

If the Plc had had the wisdom to approach the WSRA at the start of the "Run and overhaul" contract to enlist their support for the eventual overhaul, then I suspect there wouldn't have been a difficulty.

 

If so straight forward then why not just say that? Much as the S&DRT did when explaining why they couldn't bail out the PLC.

Of course, we know what happens when you say no to the PLC when they have their begging bowl out.