West Somerset Railway General Discussion

We would.

As the Trustee who has had most to do with fundraising in recent times, and whose personal connection with and admiration for 53808 has been explained and I trust is well known, a significant aspect of this is indeed the WSRA's charitable objects. But also a not-inconsiderable feature is to think of the fundraising 'sell'. If I am speaking as a WSRA Trustee to a potential donor, how would I 'sell' the benefit of making a donation to a loco due to leave the Railway as opposed to some other vehicle or facility of benefit for the West Somerset Railway for the long term?

 

The problem with this approach is that while some parts of the overhaul have a definite cost to the Plc, like the purchase of materials and the cost of contracted out works, much of the cost of the work is actually an opportunity cost in that it is the cost of paying staff that the Plc would have to cover anyway: they would simply be doing something else if they were not working on 53808. Whilst the Plc will need to find the cash for the first type of expenditure anyway and it makes no difference to them whether they spend it directly or hand it over to the S&DRT for them to spend, cash for the second type of expenditure would be much harder to find.

 

I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure I totally agree!

Let's say (for the sake of argument) that the overhaul is costed at £250k, of which materials/contractors amount to £150k and labour £100k.
If the PLC gives the SDRT £150k to, as it were 'go away', it leaves the PLC with £100k of labour available to do other things either for themselves or for others. If the PLC are paying those staff anyway, then it makes more sense to have them working on PLC locos or on projects that will earn the PLC some money rather than working on a loco that is going to move elsewhere as soon as it's finished.

Maybe I've missed something or I'm being too simplistic!

NB: figures are for explanation of my point only - I have no idea of the likely overhaul costs or the materials/contractors/staff split!

 

You have missed something. The WSR have an obligation to return 53808 in an overhauled condition. It couldn’t just give the SDRT £150k to go away, because that wouldn’t be enough to complete the overhaul. It would need to give them the full cost of the overhaul - £250k. In fact probably nearer £300k as the SDRT would have to pay commercial rates to get it done elsewhere , which would be more expensive than the WSR in house team.

 

No I didn't miss that - you need to read my previous comment (#36298).

What I am suggesting is a 'way out' for both the PLC and the SDRT that doesn't give either side everything that they want, but doesn't cripple either side either.
Let's face it, it doesn't look like the WSR is willing to pay for the overhaul, so is it not better that the SDRT takes some cash and runs, rather than get into very expensive legal action which would probably end up with both parties losing out and the barristers winning (sorry @Robin Moira White !)

 

Andy,

Thank you for sharing and attempting to start a discussion about the general going's on at the railway, especially so as many volunteers and railway supporters are obviously not around or able to be at the railway to see what is happening. A tender build may not be the my topic of choice, but its interesting to see how much work goes into building one.

And its much more interesting than seeing the drum banged over, and over, and over, and over........ again about the same topics. Surely the drum must be worn out by now!

 

Yeah, I mean how dare people be concerned about part of the WSR family being evicted and the PLC honouring their agreements.

 

Maybe the moderators should change this thread title to 'WSR Intensive Political Discussion'? Because anything about general WSR going on's is completely ignored...

 

On the contrary, it encompasses all aspects of the WSR, the good stuff such as the tender, and the bad stuff such as the eviction and concerns about 53808's overhaul.

It is a discussion thread for all things, not just a propaganda thread for the PLC (you can go to facebook for that).

If people are talking about the PLC doing damage to the WSR it is because the PLC is doing damage to the WSR. Blame the PLC not the people talking about the PLC.

 

Sadly some people only use it as an anti plc thread.

 

And some people only use it to moan about what other people are posting.

Nothing is stopping you from posting pro-PLC material. Almost a year later and we're still waiting for the reasons as to why the S&DRT have been evicted.

 

By the way you were so quick to respond to a positive railway activity taking place, it would suggest you dont like anything positive taking place on the railway that may have some involvement of the PLC.

There is other WSR related items, good and bad, that can be discussed. A particular topic doesn't have to be driven into the ground via several thread pages, other threads manage it perfectly well

 

I was indeed quick to respond (by liking it) to Aberdare's post because it was fascinating and really interesting to read about the difficulties and the solutions to the problems of the tank.

And your contributions on the recent posts on pway work, Seaward Way, thoughts on the TnT service were what? I must have blinked and missed them, or maybe because you weren't overflowing with forelock tugging praise you must, by your own argument, really hate the WSR.

It's weird, when there is positive news you contribute nothing and then you complain there is no discussion about positive moves on the WSR.

 

That seems a tad unnecessary. It's not like almost this time last year(!) when shills for the current management were trying to supress the airing of their dirty laundry. More the fact that everything that's been said on the subject has been, several times over. If and when there's new information that adds to the story then that will of course be discussed, but it's not unreasonable to complain about going over the same ground again if you just want to keep up with what's going on at the WSR. I'm just surprised that we need to go over old ground to keep having controversial things to talk about here, things have been suspiciously quiet.

In that spirit, why not have a read of the latest PDG minutes for something new to chew over. I noted that volunteer recruitment has gone back to the Plc. This is frankly ridiculous. Not that the Plc are in charge of recruitment, but that it has changed yet again. Why is this still such a problem? On the GWSR I suppose technically recruitment is managed by the Trust, but that distinction is frankly irrelevant to all intents and purposes, as all the people who run recruitment are not only Trust members but also volunteers on the railway, who by necessity work for the Plc, so it's all the same. I don't understand why one body managing it is better than the other, it's not like they get a commission! Do they use different people, processes or methods? If so, then that is the point of contention, not whose letterhead should appear at the top of the recruitment form!

Secondly, there is clearly a mistake at the top, as it says Steve Williams was representing the WSRHT. He was not, reading the minutes he was clearly representing the Plc... Every single reference to his name was either something related to being PDG chair, or a Plc matter.

 

If you were a conspiracy theorist, and having heard from various people that have had membership cards withdrawn, you could argue that the Plc is possibly vetting those who choose to volunteer...
I could be totally wrong though.
A certain part of Somerset does seem to do things rather strangely.

 

Mm, I wonder if I'd be on a naughty list? I do hope so...

 

It could be that some of us don't spend each and every day on Nat Pres reading and contributing to the same repeated topics, hence why we miss some parts of the discussions that take place on here. Blink and you've missed 5 pages on 53808's future overhaul, 3 pages on the weight limit of the railway, 1 page on PLC directors, and another 2 pages on what Dick Turpin had for lunch on this day in 1731...

By the way you respond with a rather aggressive and confrontational tone, I wander if you are perhaps Piers Morgan hiding behind that profile?

 

Yes - although my understanding is that the discussion of funding the overhaul of 53808 flared up because of the note in the minutes of the WSRA about caveat to funding raising.

Re-volunteering, it does seem an odd thing to be bothering about considering the other priorities.

Seaward Way still seems a bit fuzzy to my eyes, 11.ii says that they hope to have the local consultation finished by the end of May, and 7 says they hope to have the work finished at a date in June. That seems quite a quick turn around but I assume doable.

You don't have time to read and post positive things, but you do have the time to complain about what other people do post. Right...

Considering Piers Morgan doesn't like it when people talk about things he doesn't like, the similarities are closer to your home than you think.

What do you think about the topics discussed at the most recent PDG?

 

Alex, whatever went on at your school, stays at your school

 

I am still puzzled as to WHY the LC work has to go out to (public?) consultation anyway. What benefit and/or changes are likely to arise from that process?

It is an existing LC where AIUI in essence neither the road nor the railway will alter in any fundamental way. There will still be barriers across the road, but just operated by the signalman rather than automatically. The relevance of the one (?) extra signal will probably not be understood by many consultees anyway. As I see it, the key benefit to most road users will be that it will then be possible to carry out at least shunt movements without needing to lower the barriers at all, although I've yet to see any detailed info from railway - neither public nor distributed to volunteers - which explains the proposed new method working in detail.