West Somerset Railway General Discussion

That depends if the sdrt are willing to forget about the cost of the upcoming overhaul which is owed to them by the wsr.

 

Isn't the point that there is an agreement that the WSR should pay for the overhaul. They can't/won't pay. As a result, on top of the costs associated with having to move from Washford, the S&DRT is going to incur a significant additional cost in funding the overhaul itself. All the time that the loco is not running the S&DRT is losing steaming fees as a source of revenue.

So yes the S&DRT is secure in that it has a location with the MHR/AVR/North Dorset, however, the elephant in the room is the overhaul of the 7F and the costs associated with it.

Even if the WSR survives it shows little indication that it will honour the agreement.

You can donate to the WSR, a line which has kicked out the S&DRT, threatened others, purged itself of dissenting volunteers, wasted time and effort on failed reform efforts, bungled the Seaward Way crossing renewal and given every indication of not intending to abide by its agreement to pay for the overhaul of the 7F.

Or you can donate to the S&DRT, or the lines associated (MHR, AVR, North Dorset)

as @John Palmer says, the moral case is obvious and clear that the S&DRT is the organisation that should be financially supported.

 

With regard to the apparent ongoing requirement for £1m per year to cover running costs, is it my imagination that not too long ago, JJP was boasting that he had managed to turn round the dire finances of the WSR which he claimed to have "inherited" from the previous incumbents?

OK, Covid has derailed everyone's plans, but the current planned appeal seems to imply that the shortfall is a permanent issue rather than a temporary blip.

Either I'm misremembering, or the statement wasn't quite as accurate as JJP claimed...

 

I don't think there's much doubt that the lack of investment goes back many years with the cumulative result of the need for a substantial capital injection. Certainly a surplus of £3ook or so was a huge improvement on a reported prior year loss of over £8ook but it masks the real issue that is not unique to the WSR. Many heritage lines cannot realistically generate enough surplus from their activities to fund the essential capital investment required EVERY year to maintain the railway's viability. For a line the length of the WSR, with all the infrastructure costs involved, I think its generally accepted that it needs additional income over and above operating surpluses of around £1m each year. That can come from grants, donations, bequests, sale of shares and appeals which places a huge premium on effective fundraising. As identified in an earlier post the particular problem the WSR faces is that its current structure is not designed to maximise fundraising potential.

What I really cannot understand is the attitude that because people disapprove of the decisions of current PLC management they will withhold financial support from the railway. Surely the railway is more important than the PLC? If, because people are unwilling to visit and buy tickets, and to donate, the PLC were to become insolvent it seems highly unlikely that anything recognisable as a heritage railway could emerge from the ashes. If you really want to save the railway far better to hold your nose, if you must, and give it your financial support. For instance why not buy shares in the PLC? That way you help financially and your voice can be heard as a shareholder.

A boycott of support risks not changing PLC management but facilitating the disappearance of what WSR supporters want to preserve. Focus on the railway not its current management. That way there will still be something to build a different future on.

 

I am very fond of the WSR

I want it to survive

But if I give it my money do I think it will be well spent? No.

Do I think that the management teams are willing to address the issues that led it to be in the situation it is now in? WSRA - seem to be, PLC & WSRHA, not.

Do I think the WSR is well run? No.

COVID masks the WSR's underlying problems in terms of structure, accountability & management. I suspect that it may have brought the crisis forward but crisis there certainly would have been.

 

It's about the nature of the disagreement, how deep it goes, and what that means for trust. If NYMR ran an appeal that was about it's ability to survive, I'd look to give despite my reservations about it's approach, because I recognise that the leadership at NYMR are doing their best, and the difference between us is about how to achieve that.

At WSR, I'd struggle to make that case. There is something else about what's going on that sits really ill with me, and which comes down to a fundamental question of trust - do I have the confidence that the body asking for my money has the ability, desire and will to use that for the best interests of the log term future of the WSR? After a couple of very abrasive years, in which there has been minimal communication, no sense of vision, & existing relationships and arrangements have been dismantled, I'm not sure that I do have the desire to give money to an appeal that relies on the same individuals I do not have confidence in. While the hint remains, however implausible, there may be a strategy to force personal takeover by collapsing the company, I also have the issue that I'm not sure I want to donate money to invest in an asset that someone may then take at below value for their own sake - because it won't actually deliver what I would want to contribute to.

That is before we get to the question about how effectively my donation might be used, given the corporate structures at WSR, and the inability of the core operating body to actually maximise the value of anything I may give.

Those are strong winds to have to contend with when fund raising, and ones in which stronger ships might well founder.

If I give, which for a variety of reasons not relevant to this thread is relatively unlikely, it would be through one of the supporting charities, most likely WSRA, as being the nearest way to ensure it is used as I would wish.

 

I am sure you are correct and is that not what many on here have been saying for a long time?

However I suspect that there will be many potential supporters/donors who feel that (a) the PLC is acting in a way which gives the impression that it considers itself to be more important than the railway and (b) they can not trust the Plc not to waste any donated funds. How they can be persuaded otherwise remains difficult to see, given the current impression that the Plc is simply blundering/lurching from one crisis to the next....

 

Changing the subject for a moment.

Does anybody know why the PLC has decided it has to get involved with WSHRT issues by disciplining 4 Company ID Card holders when as far as I am aware the WSRHT have taken no action on the matter?

 

All very well but the problem is the current management has effectively engineered its own demise . Ergo ......

 

Do we actually know what the disciplinary action is stated to be for?

 

All of that is true. However .. I, like I suspect many people in a similar position, have more demands on my wallet than I have cash to spare. (That includes both railway and non-railway causes, large and small, that are in different ways deserving).

So I can't support everything: what I do support therefore has to meet certain key criteria. One is about trust: do I think the money will be wisely spent? Do I think it is transformative? And do I think my donation will be used effectively such that the largest possible amount of my donation is used for what I want to support?

Sadly the WSR - whole railway - fares badly on all scores, and certainly far worse than the other groups I donate to on either a regular or ad-hoc basis. Foremost is the complete rejection of any moves towards a better structure. The WSR plc has said that they cannot afford the legal changes that that would entail, yet in the same breath are talking about a major share issue that would likely have at least equally significant compliance costs. So I don't trust the railway to spent a donation wisely when they are clearly demonstrating an ongoing inability to get their house in order.

Do I think a donation would be transformative? Absolutely not: the railway has been very opaque as to what it wants the money for, and in as much as it has said, it just comes back to "ongoing support". I'm not so naive as to think that other railways aren't in basically a similar position, but perception counts: if I donate to a "restore the station" fund, I realise that next year we will probably have a "restore this carriage fund" but at least I can be confident that the station has had an overhaul that will see it in good stead for another 50 or 100 years. I don't get that sense of transformation from the vagaries of the WSR appeal. My worry is that large amounts will be absorbed paying for things that, rightly or wrongly, I think should be covered from operating income.

And value for money: I'm not buying shares in the plc, because I want Mr Sunak to chip in his 25% of Gift Aid. And for the charities, I want to know my donation isn't eroded by administration costs. Co-incidentally, I got the combined Bluebell accounts for 2019; and in the section for the Trust (our charity bit), against an annual income of £1,215,669, there were "Administration" and "Fundraising" expenses of £10,549. The accompanying comment read "Of note are the very low levels of administrative and fundraising expenses, in total less than 1% of income. As these costs are broadly covered by the interest on monies held on deposit, supporters can be confident that virtually all their gifts are spent for the direct benefit of the Bluebell Railway." Could I read an equivalent statement in any of the WSR charity accounts?

Tom

 

At the minute, the PLC is the railway. The PLC controls who can/cannot volunteer, it controls the train operations, it holds the LRO, it holds the lease of the land/buildings, it controls the commercial operations.

Why would anyone want to give money to a railway (plc) that is so power hungry that it cannot countenance any kind of reform, interferes in the affairs of a separate charity, evicts a long standing tenant group and backtracks on its financial commitments to a loco they have had 8? years worth of work from, and when a volunteer/donor questions a decision they are removed from operations and sidelined (see Andy Norman).

Why not go to a railway where your vote/opinion actually counts for something, management is transparent and accountable, your donations will make a difference and most of all it is enjoyable to be a member and/or volunteer.

 

I’m off to do an 8 hour shift at work shortly, tomorrow I’m doing 12 hours, I work bloody hard so that myself, my partner, the guys I work with and their families have a decent standard of living, I don’t have a lot of spare cash at the moment so I’m rather choosy about what I like to spend/donate my surplus cash on.

As someone who has an interest in railways give me one good reason why the WSR with its recent general ineptitude is deserving of any of my spare hard earned cash?