West Somerset Railway General Discussion

While the statement purported to have been signed by the three parties, do we know that it was true ? Given the background, it's a reasonable question.

 

It is not only the PLC that is concerned: the WSRA and supporting organisations have their own memberships that cause ripples. Hence, it seems, is the crux of the distrust and undercurrents.

 

I'm not clear what you're saying. Are you raising the possibility that one or more of those who are supposed to have subcribed to the Joint Statement had not agreed to it going out over their names? I find it very hard to believe that such was the case.

 

Some people are happy to imagine conspiracies everywhere.

 

But was it not the case some while ago that a PLC issued a 'Joint Statement' signed by representatives from other bodies, who then claimed afterwards that they had not seen all the supporting material that went with it ?

 

You said the same when stories about volunteers having their cards removed were reported here. Are you still denying that it happened?

No matter what the PLC does as it drives the WSR into the ground you'll find a way to excuse it.

The problem is this.

The WSR is a sinking ship, in normal circumstances it would be all hands to the pump. The problem is that at the WSR is that as fast as everyone bails the PLC have been driving the ship into more icebergs after ignoring the warnings about icebergs everyone has been making. Moreover, after each holing the captain has thrown people overboard as punishment. Some on board seem more interested in keeping their seat at the captain's table than they do about the water pouring in.

So the question is why would any sane person get involved since there is so little that can be done to change either the organisation or the culture? If the events of the ex6, S&DRT eviction, WSSRT aren't enough to persuade those involved with the WSR that things need to change, if Coombes and Bailey produce reports that suggest ways forward which are promptly ignored the moment people realise their little fiefdoms are under threat, then what hope is there for an outsider? After all look at the hostility to criticism that crops up all too often.

This is not an example I use lightly but the WSR resembles someone in the late stages of an addiction. No matter how many interventions friends try to stage, no matter how the friends try to steer the person away, at the first opportunity they are back on it. In the end there comes a time where the friends say 'enough is enough, if this is the way you want it to be then so be it.'

 

More to the point the ORR are increasingly interested in the 'Competence' of management teams.

I suspect much of what is in the public domain, especially over Washford does the PLC no favours.

 

Frank C regularly contributes.
Ian C

 

One of these days, Ian, you will have to have a proper "chin wag" with Chris Austin and perhaps have disclosed to you a lot of stuff concerning the WSSRT (as was) from his personal perspective and private correspondence matters relating to Washford and the SDRT and it's eviction that might shock you.

Cheers,
Julian

 

Julian,

Can you share this with us?

 

OK, I'll be crystal clear. I am not confident that all trustees / directors were aware of the statement, nor was it discussed collectively, prior to the publication.

Just a personal view of course.

 

I'm sorry, but that's got to be one of the weirdest replies I've ever had to a post on this forum. Firstly, the WSRA are a supporters' organisation, they are not in charge of the railway, nor are they a company, or an organisation that resembles a company. The expression "the management", in common usage, applies to the appointed officers and executive directors of a company, not the board of trustees of a charity. Secondly, as @flying scotsman123 points out above, the WSRA have very limited control over the way the WSR is heading and even less over its day to day management. Thirdly, the fact that no Plc management have "waded in" is once again a diversion, as no one was saying either that they had, or should have. Every regular poster on this thread knows who the regular apologists for the Plc are and, in any case, it doesn't matter who is expressing the points of view, it's the points of view themselves that count.
I fail to understand how you were supposed to make a reply to @martin1656 's post before he had actually made it, nor why the fact that I picked you up on that reply was invalidated by the fact that it was a reply to that post. I then went on to reply to the points made in your post about the lack of constructive suggestions, only to have you come back and say I was being diversionary. Did you actually read my post all the way to the end?

 

To be fair to the Plc management, a lack of competence is as traditional as the steam locomotives and the enamel signs. It's not for nothing that we have the saying "what a way to run a railway!"

 

The latest news about the SOS Appeal on Mr E's website is headlined "SOS appeal fund boosted by significant energy savings".

Having read and re-read it carefully, I fail to find anything in the text which actually mentions or defines 'energy savings', so what is the Plc talking about? The 'savings' on coal from not running any trains perhaps ?

I note also that it is still considering a share issue as a possible option, and talking about 'getting back' to being a 'Red' route again.......

 

Not correct, sorry. The WSRA (registration number 02968284) is a company limited by guarantee rather than by shares. It is also a registered charity. The trustees are directors of the limited company and are subject to all of the fiduciary responsibilities as directors in addition to their responsibilities as trustees of the charity.

 

Mr E did add "[further details about this project will be published soon]" to that news item. Maybe re-read it a little more carefully still, Chris

And, as since pointed out here, those details have now been published.

Steve

 

Thanks for the clarification. I thought it likely that the three representatives whose names appear beneath the Joint Statement were treated as having authority to lend their names to it without prior reference back to the bodies they represented. In that case it would be unsurprising if there were little or no collective discussion of the draft statement's contents within those bodies prior to publication.

I don't think this dilutes my criticisms, first of the individual WSRA and WSSRT representatives for aligning the bodies they represented in support of the plc's eviction of the S&DRT, second of the WSRA and the WSSRT themselves for their failure to row back from that supportive position. For me at any rate the perception created by the 1st May Joint and Position Statements was that all three of the railway organisations with 'West Somerset' in their title were united in their condemnation of the S&DRT and by their subsequent silence remained so.

 

Good to see some basic housekeeping being done to consolidate the gas and electric bills into a cheaper overall package. What I don't immediately understand is how future savings can be classed as contributions to an appeal, however savings are excellent news and any cash back deals are a welcome bonus.

I hope the extensive commercial nous supporting the board are looking to do the same on water consumption, communications (fixed line, mobile, internet). insurance and any other consumables.