West Somerset Railway General Discussion

So much for not having enough motive power to satisfy an incoming railtour and 2 passenger services...............

 

And for those of us without access, what does this say?

 

That both Manors are in use on the railtour.

 

It says the WSR are using 7828 and 7822 to take over the incoming rail tour from Bahamas. Something that 53808 could've done on its own...

 

“What has the WSR to lose by trying ?” you ask wrt a new Chair and Board.

IMHO at this moment everything. A new Board etc now would as a minimum cause a significant
interruption and more likely chaos. The result almost certain ‘enforced’ receivership.

(The WSR does not have a charity that can step in as per the Llangollen. The way back from
receivership AFAIK would have to be via a ‘newco’ ? )

If the railway survives the 2021/2 winter and commences services in the 2022 Spring then
thoughts of change make possible sense.

However where are these new directors, let alone Chair ?

(As an aside: There is I submit an argument that says the last successful WSR Plc Chair
was Dennis Taylor but perhaps his retirement coincided with the onset of changing
times/markets/clientele etc etc )

No, I am sorry; the best chance of WSR survival rests ( whether you like them or not ), in the
short term, with the current Plc Board.

Michael Rowe

 

This outside observer sees this as a choice between a rock and a hard place - the existing board may be as you describe them, but the appeal progress alone suggests that they are not exactly world beaters. I would also have to believe that any change would be so disruptive that even a world class board could not make a difference.

As much to the point, if I were a shareholder, I'd be concerned about the implications for succession. In the thick of a pandemic, what you ask us to believe is that the board members are indispensable - precisely at a time when the chance of being unavoidably taken out of circulation are unusually high. That rings alarm bells - and I'm very conscious of @aldfort's repeated pleas for volunteers to step forward - and the lack of signs of take-up.

 

This is not asked in an aggressive sense - I'm just interested: so what is the reason you don't feel happy answering these questions yourself? We know not who you are, where you come from or whether you represent anyone other than yourself (and those who "like" your postings). So let's say I'm "a good journalist" - I'm asking! If - for some reason - you don't want the world and his dog to know, then send me a PM.

Frank Courtney (Director, but asking on his own account) who lives in Chippenham and doesn't have a dog.

 

So the volunteers were entirely responsible for tomorrow’s planning without any Plc Board involvement ?

‘Sidmouth’, I remember your past posting i.e you had only visited the WSR twice ( each time something
terrible happened. I commented at the time that it had undertones of Joyce, Phoenix Park and unstated
happenings ) You also said at the time that you would not be concerned if the WSR ceased to exist.

You cannot now even bring yourself to agree with ‘Big Al’ without stirring the pot.

Very sad, Michael Rowe.

 

My attention was caught by the following observation, part of a submission to the Rother Valley hearing by Stephen Oates of the HRA :
"The majority of heritage railways are organised as trusts supported by commercial
operating arms. As trusts, they have a significant educational role, with many being
educational charities. Several have secured Arts Council England status as fully
accredited museums."
One could read that "supported by" as implying the Trusts receive income from their operating arms but, as we know, the cost of maintaining infrastructure will usually out run such income. No doubt the relationship between the bodies varies to some degree but I get the impression that many are operating with a setup similar to that which applied at the Llangollen where (roughly) the track and other infrastructure belong to the Trust with the locos and rolling stock belonging to the operating company. (Yes, I know it was slightly more complex than that, but I am using it an approximate example.) The result was that the majority of assets were protected from the insolvency of the company. It also enables the Trust to raise funds towards the maintenance of the infrastructure much more easily than a trading company can as it can apply for grants in area that are not readily open to commercial operators, and can also claim the tax rebate on donations.
Is my understanding of this practice correct and, if so, why is it not considered a reasonable option for the WSR ?

P.S. For those that missed it the HRA submission makes interesting reading and can be found at "https://gat04-live-1517c8a4486c4160...er_from_the_heritage_railway_association_.pdf" (with thanks to @jnc who posted it originally.)

 

In case anyone is interested, here is an exchange between myself & the WSRHT Acting chair.

I have removed my name & email address, also the WSSRT acknowledgement when I first wrote

Dear Mr ................

Thank you for your email to our WSRHT Information address. I am very happy to respond to the points you raise.

Firstly, I am not sure what point you are trying to make about the use of the Trust shares in the PLC. We are always mindful of the need for the company to operate in terms of good governance and to date, there has been no evidence presented to the Trust that this has not been the case. If you feel that there is evidence of lack of good governance, I would be happy to receive it and consider its implications. When we receive the PLC 2021 AGM agenda and papers, the Trustees will determine how to vote as a major shareholder (as has been the case on previous occasions).

With regard to the four individuals as volunteers on the WSR, the Trust was not in a position to take any action against them because we had no authority to do so either in relation to their volunteer status or their involvement with the West Somerset Railway Association. What the Trust did however do was to ask the PLC to formally investigate the events both before and leading up to the Trust 2020 AGM and to determine whether any action was required against any of the individuals as a result. The PLC determined that there was a case to answer in relation to the railway into disrepute.

We understand that a disciplinary process has been underway for some time. We are aware of the outcome for some of the individuals and are awaiting confirmation of the completion of the whole process. Therefore, I can categorically tell you that the PLC has not "meddled" at all in Trust affairs. The actions of the four individuals in relation to the impact on the Trust and Trustees was both serious and totally unwarranted and you should be under no illusion that this behaviour was absolutely unacceptable in the context of a small charity and good decent people who are trying to do the best for both the charity and the WSR as a whole.

Steve Williams
Acting Chairman
On 16:23, 4th Jul 2021,
Dear WSRHT,

As an armchair member I am watching the situation on the WSR with interest and concern.

There are two issues with the trust that I am particularly interested in.

1. The Trust holds a significant number of shares in the PLC. The trust has however stated that it does not intend to use its votes. I note that the general recommendation in the wider world is that shareholders should vote, and I also note that the WSRA has made decisions about how it will vote at PLC AGM's. It seems to me firstly that the Trust should be concerned to ensure the 'Good Governance' of the PLC and by saying at least that it might vote, may have a positive effect on the board. I might also suggest that as a major shareholder it would be polite to vote on issues such as approving the minutes, annual report and accounts.

2. The PLC has taken disciplinary action against 4 WSR Volunteers who put themselves up for election at the last AGM. Whatever your views on the situation I can see that the Trust may have taken action against them after the meeting, however I am concerned that the PLC is in effect 'Meddling' in trust affairs and has no standing over the issue. I note that when the WSRA had its internal issues the PLC did not get involved until after the former trustees declined to comply with the recommendations of a HRA Adjudication, however the current situation is nowhere close to that.

Yours Faithfully

John

 

Oh dear. That may well have a bearing on my impending renewal.

 

johnofwessex said: ↑
In case anyone is interested, here is an exchange between myself & the WSRHT Acting chair.:
(apols : the quote system couldn't cope with the long post !)

Apart from the extraordinary action of passing his organisation's potential disciplinary problem over to another organisation to deal with, which seems to be totally unwarranted and somewhat underhand, why does Mr Stephens think that the action of the four members was "both serious and totally unwarranted and you should be under no illusion that this behaviour was absolutely unacceptable in the context of a small charity and good decent people who are trying to do the best for both the charity and the WSR as a whole." AIUI the four merely organised a number of people to put their names forward as potential trustees. An action which is completely legal, is fairly common practice, and is within the constitution of the Trust. That the existing Chair and Trustees didn't like it is understandable, but it is the nature of democracy, and should have been accepted without demure. The reference to "good decent people", implying that the candidates were not, is quite uncalled for and suggests that the writer has lost all sense of proportion. Time to retire perhaps ?

 

Seeing as no one from the board or PR department seems able to post a link (other than on the lovey-dovey faceache site) here's some actual news about what's been happening with the crossing. Just waiting for the mechanicals now:-

https://www.rsprail.co.uk/west-some...Jv9GYoefEgilgOuYA0q1MOT8Y2oGyX87SNwlnHRuuH1wY

Clicking on any of the photo's at the bottom of the article lets you see a few more.

 

Thanks for that. PR is not a word that is understood at the WSR. They can't understand why we might be interested, but they do want our money!