West Somerset Railway General Discussion

The train will run forward to Dunster West siding where the Minehead 03 shunter will be on hand to assist with shunting the stock and getting the steam loco to the other end.

 

Ah, a nifty good use for that siding Just a shame it'll be a case of "so near, yet so far".....

Mind you, were it not for the level-crossings, it might prove more interesting for visitors to do it actually at DR itself.

 

Thanks Ian - that's the kind of thing I had in mind when referring to "clever shunting at Dunster" but its good to have it confirmed.

 

I think you rather prove @martin1656 's point. I think it is sufficiently clear that he is not attacking the WSRA management, but the Plc management, so your leaping to the defence of the WSRA trustees looks very much posting "something to try and divert the attention away from The (Plc) management".

My experience is that the only thing that unites posters from both "sides" on this thread is when someone tries to offer solutions or anything constructive when they both pitch in to shoot them down. I don't know what you are trying to imply with your last paragraph, but apart from one or two posters, who specialise in the nudge nudge, wink, wink type of post, most posters on here are simply aware that the current WSR management appear as worse than useless and come on here to express their dismay. Picking out a minority and trying to make out that it is representative of the majority is a tactic beloved of the more scurrilous type of tabloid newspaper.

 

Has North Star left the WSR yet for its loan period on the NYMR?
I have seen that it has moved to the loading yard on the WSR but not heard anything more.

 

I think that there are problems with getting transport organised.

 

Yes, motorway roadworks are causing problems on the approved routes.

 

So this million quid is for legal fees?

Good luck raising that...

 

Can I mention one thing again, this question of "the management".
Some folks on this thread talk as if there are a queue of well quailified folks at the gates of the railway offering actual hands on management help. There are not.
So I'll renew my appeal for WSRA trustees. If you can add something and are a member then please consider standing. Some of you know it's my long held dream to have actual contested elections for trustee at the AGM so that the membership can chose the trustees they think will do the best job. The nomination process is open to those with the suitable membership qualifications.

 

A noble cause, however I think there are two flaws in that. Firstly, it is not the WSRA management that is really at fault. You wholeheartedly endorsed structural change, and expressed how disappointed you were when it was canned. I don't think changes on the WSRA board would have been able to make anything more happen on that front, do you? And although many might think the WSRA could have been stronger on the Washford affair, I understand it was pressure from the WSRA board that resulted in mediation, even if the result of that was not what many here wanted. So being elected to the WSRA board is not going to do much beyond what you already do, which is a limit of the current structure.
Secondly, to get around a limit of the structure, several people did stand for election elsewhere on the railway. It didn't go very well did it, with candidates being harassed into withdrawing their candidacies or else chucked off of the railway.

 

If, as an outsider, I may speak slightly in @aldfort's defence, he is "only" WSRA chair, and his influence is finite. He is nonetheless right that it is a step that can be taken and help provide an example of good governance within the WSR family of organisations.

 

It isn't 'sufficiently clear' who he was attacking. A blanket 'the management' comment made at a post made by a WSRA trustee can very easily be considered an attack at the whole management of the WSR, whether that is PLC, Association or Steam Trust. As far as I have seen, no WSR Plc management have waded in on here, or made comments elsewhere to divert attention. My comments were made after Martin1656's criticism, which makes your first sentence a bit invalid. If I made the comments before Martin1656's post, then I would probably (reluctantly) agree with you.

I could say your post is doing what Martin1656 has criticized, and is currently trying to divert attention away from the issues I raised in this post, but then again, this thread is just a never ending merry go round most the time, one person makes a comment saying a party is doing nothing wrong, 2 minutes later they are giving them a good grilling about the same topic.

 

Maybe that is part of the problem?

Whilst they may not agree with much of what is written here, their failure to 'engage' here in any overt way is taken as another sign of their (alleged) lack of interest in the views of any supporters of the WSR who may appear leas than 100% supportive of the Plc. Is not NatPres part of 'social media'? If so, why use some parts of social media - eg a FB page - but not others?

 

I would wholeheartedly support Mike's call for persons of ability and goodwill to join us on the WSRA Board. Beacons become all the more valuable in dark times.

Robin

 

<delurk>
Thanks for this information. I expect there'll be some very special temporary working arrangements. It sounds as though stock will need to be propelled across the level crossing. And that there will be two trains in section at some point. All perfectly manageable but I wonder just what the arrangements will be.
<lurk>

 

I'm not going to go into detail about the arrangements, but there is no need to propel over Dunster West crossing as there is sufficient distance between the crossing and the siding to avoid this. Also there will be a PIC who will authorise all movements.

 

Thank you. I think I understand the plan now.

 

Let me take you up on that from the standpoint of an S&DRT supporter, and draw to your attention the terms of the Joint Statement issued by the WSR plc, WSRA and WSSRT on 1st May 2020, with plc Position Statement attached, and in particular the following passage:

“Following discussion, the WSRA and the WSRST expressed their support for the PLC, while regretting the concern caused to the members of the S & D Trust, which seemed to be partly as a result of the S & D Trust’s unwillingness to engage in discussions. It was agreed that the best way to minimise those concerns was to use the services of an independent party, which is provided for in the terms of the lease. The PLC explained that it has already been in talks with the Heritage Railway Association about such an approach, and was waiting for their final agreement on assistance. It is hoped that the S & D Trust will take up this opportunity.”

It is apparent from this extract that the approach to the HRA for appointment of a facilitator of discussions was an initiative taken by the plc before it convened its meeting with representatives of the WSRA and the WSSRT, so it is hard to see how it can be said that mediation resulted from pressure applied by the WSRA board.

According to what is said in the 1st May 2020 statements, the plc gave an account to the WSRA and WSSRT representatives about supposed shortcomings of the S&DRT, and those representatives accepted that account without reservation. There was no question of them saying “Well, we've heard the plc's side of the story, let's see what the S&DRT have to say about it.” Instead they gave their immediate and unqualified support to the plc, accepting without demur what the the plc had told them, as set out in the Position Statement referred to in the Joint Statement that they signed.

The meeting that led to issue of the 1st May Joint and Position Statements was convened by the plc, and as such looks to me like a calculated effort on its part to get other member organisations of the WSR 'on side' as regards the eviction of the S&DRT. The most generous comment I can make about the WSRA and WSSRT representatives who signed up to those Statements on behalf of the bodies they represented is that they appear not to have realised that in doing so they would be supporting the viewpoint the plc wished to promote as regards the eviction. I prefer to believe that this was why they acted as they did because the alternative explanation for their conduct would seem to be that they actually agreed with the plc's claim that the S&DRT's eviction was appropriate and justified.

It subsequently emerged that a good deal of the justification for its actions that the plc had set out in its Position Statement was, at the very least, open to question, but I have seen nothing from either the WSRA or the WSSRT suggesting that they repent of the support for the eviction process that they gave to the plc by subscribing to the Statements issued on 1st May 2020. So, whilst I treat the conduct of the WSRA or the WSSRT as being less egregious than that of the WSR plc, I note that they remain on public record as having supported the plc's eviction of the S&DRT, and in view of this I am very glad to see that the Trust's ties to the West Somerset Railway in general are to be severed.

 

The only good news from this very sad saga, is that the S&D Trust will be able to plan its own future, away from what has become an very toxic place, the trust has already started to develop a way foreward with its new host organisations, What is wrong with the WSR? the various structures and competing interests, you have three organisations, the PLC, WSRA, WSRSHT ,two of whom have their own agenda's and on top of each, a power base, that wants to protect its own influence and power, at the cost of the third, of course, it suits the present PLC board because it enables them to set one against the other, to prevent them joining their shareholding, and unseating certain people, hence why you saw members having their company cards withdrawn because the cosy co existence of the PLC and WSRSHT , was put under pressure, if change had taken place, Its not the general rank and file, many of whom are dedicated to preserving the WSR, But certain people, who for whom, its become their own power base, and they will fight to preserve their power, that's what I find unacceptable, and this seemingly cult of personality, that those in charge can not be questioned, the wheels have not yet fallen off, but are wobbling , As i see it, the old structures have to fall, before new ones , hopefully more inclusive , with a clear mission statement can take their place, past lessons seem to have not been learnt, most likily because , some people can't admit they got it wrong, business is littered with failed businesses , who fell because past mistakes were repeated, over and over, and warning voices ignored because those bosses took those warnings as a threat to their own positions.