West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I got:
Notice general meeting (25kb)
WSRHT Articles 21 Master (331kb)
Proxy Form 2021 EGM (127kb)
Notice general meeting (25kb) (again)

No accompanying letter. If it's the one in the link posted above, that mentions several changes previously voted through in November, including 'arrangements for membership'.

 

If you look at information there is a railway from watchet to the hills. How much is left that could be put back as an extension it’s not easy to tell from google earth on this one and I’m not sure if I have found the route.

 

http://www.westsomersetmineralrailway.org.uk/

 

You should have got 'EGM chairman's letter to members" which is the explanatory letter. If you didn't get that, please reply to Don Fraser as there may be others in the same situation.
Ian

 

That would be the West Somerset Mineral Railway, derelict for many years, built over in lots of places, interesting from a historical and industrial archaeology viewpoint but totally not for restoration. Some can be followed on foot, eg parallels the WSR from Watchet to Washford, some parts shown on OS maps behind Cleeve Abbey and up through Roadwater. Inclined Plane up to the mines on top of the Brendon Hills. Fragment of track survives on Watchet West Pier. Check it out on Streetmap.

 

Are the current articles available on-line somewhere? If so, can you post the link, please? Then members can compare old and new versions.

I'm slightly surprised there isn't a quick guide to the clauses that have changed, e.g. "para 14.4 - add "up to a limit of 12 persons"; para 12.34 delete "subject to approval from the Membership Committee"... etc

 

They are online at https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/01079916/filing-history
Bottom of the first page (on my phone anyway)
Ian

 

The last thing the WSR needs is an extension. It has enough problems with its current length.

 

If you pm me your name, I can check what happened.
Ian

 

There's no difference in section 10 between the current articles and the proposed 2021 articles so I am a bit mystified by this statement.

 

Probably a constraint in the use of Zoom, and the particular licence the WSR is using, where you can have interactive meetings for a small number of people (ie everyone can talk) or broadcast conferences for a much larger number of people (but it’s a one-way conversation).

I’ve got around that in the past by using sli.do which is an interactive chat/polling tool run during events that allows people to comment or question things going on in the video stream, and is free for up to 100 participants.

Simon

 

I’d also ask what the likely attendance is. Certainly when I received the email, my heart initially sank at the combination of a very terse email and lots of attachments.

When I looked at the letter, and then also the revisions, my reaction was to relax and see this as the enactment of the decisions made last year. I don’t expect to attend, nor do I see these changes as ones that should be regarded as contentious.

The wider issue lies in the way this demonstrates the fractiousness around WSR politics. The combination of a not brilliantly worded email, and a pre existing mistrust by some of others, leads to an objectively unnecessary spat like this.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

As far as I'm concerned you can make that "deep mistrust" and you can add, highly suspicious of their motives and with a complete lack of confidence that they will do the right thing for the railway rather than themselves.

And with regard to the revisions, all that was said in the letter was "Directors have also taken this opportunity to update the notice periods for meetings, arrangements for membership and the qualifications for Directors. The changes need to be approved by members by Special Resolution at an EGM" (so no details of what those changes actually were @ikcdab )

It also makes me very suspicious where changes are supposed to be 'minor' and only affecting a few paragraphs but then, instead of just amending those paragraphs, they propose to issue a whole new Articles document. So yes, such is my lack of trust that my instant reaction was 'so what else are they trying to hide?'

Not really a good sign when you feel that way is it?

 

Mentimeter is another good one you can do in real time. https://www.mentimeter.com

https://www.mentimeter.com/features/live-questions-and-answers

 

I agree. But I put the old and new versions through a comparison tool, and found nothing that rang alarm bells to me.

I would however have preferred that the communications were clearer, and did not appear to be based on the approach of a bank communicating changes to T&Cs. However, given the size of the organisation, I'm not going to get too upset about that given that the information was provided.

 

I have no input in the the issues (but do not want to see the railway fail) but I do find myself just getting more and more confused with the organisation of this line.
Is there somewhere that shows a set of simple organisation charts, how they all interact with each other, and who is responsible for what?
If it has no names then fine, although I guess names help to understand who is in more than one organisations management.

 

It is rather confusing isn't it! It doesn't help that the set-up was organised with a particular way of working in mind that never actually occurred (mainly running commuter trains with steam at weekends), but the set-up never changed to reflect that. I haven't got any diagrams, but this is my understanding having followed all this for some time now:

The council - own the trackbed, except the triangle at Norton Fitzwarren, and are responsible for paying for the maintenance/renewal of the level crossing at Minehead, as the road was built post-preservation (but not a lot beyond handing the cash over AIUI). It has a shareholding in the Plc, can't remember the % offhand, 5%?

The Plc - originally set up to operate the railway, it holds the operating licence. It also owns most of the rolling stock, employs people to run the railway along with directly recruiting volunteers.

The WSRA - originally set up as the supporters' body to support the line, gained charitable status in the '90s(?). Produces the magazine, owns the dining train and a couple of locomotives; 4561 under overhaul and Ditcheat Manor at Swindon. Also owns the triangle land, and runs the steam rally on that land. It formerly owned the Williton restoration business and the shop at Bishop's Lydeard, but sold them to the Plc a couple of years ago. It has a ~10% shareholding in the Plc. It has several thousand members but unusually you do not need to be a member to volunteer. Several years ago the "Ex-6" trustees attempted to buy the freehold to the trackbed off the council without informing the Plc, along with some dodgy behaviour with a local councillor. They acted despicably when people questioned their actions, and were eventually voted out.

The WSRHT (Formerly the WSSRT) - originally set up as the body that provided the steam engines as a charity, back when it was envisioned the line's purpose would be public transport first steam trains second. When that didn't happen it became more or less moribound until the '90s(?) when it was re-invigorated as a charitable organisation. They look after the gauge museum at Bishop's Lydeard, the smaller museum on platform 2 at Blue Anchor. It also owns most of the GWR carriages on the railway with an ambition to restore them into a full rake of GWR carriages for the line. So far they have done 1. Up until recently it always had a very small membership. It too has a 10% shareholding in the Plc. Because of the latter 2 facts, it was subject to a takeover attempt last year by people unhappy with the management of the railway, which is in effect the Plc being the dominant organisation. The attempt failed. Some of the people leading this attempt, who gracefully accepted defeat, are now being threated with withdrawal of their Plc ID cards which allow them to volunteer.

The Bailey report recommended a restructuring to a place of affairs whereby there was a new charity which owned a commercial operating company to run the railway. This was welcomed by the WSRA, rejected by the WSRHT, and sort of accepted by the Plc (albeit their idea of a new set-up didn't appear to be terribly good for redressing the major issues) and then later rejected.

Hope that helps, corrections gratefully accepted.

 

Then there's the PDG who were set up following the sneaky attempt by the 6+1 to buy the freehold. Their main purpose is to be the focal point of any future discussion over the purchase, should SCC choose to sell. I don't recall seeing the most recent purchase enquiry in any PDG minutes so their purpose appears to be unclear.

 

Knew I'd forget something!

 

Either Mr Liddell-Grainger reads NatPres religiously, or someone's been whispering in his ear. Either way, poor publicity https://www.somersetcountygazette.c...dunster-minehead-october-due-crossing-delays/