S&D Railway Trust

You are assuming there wouldn’t be any willing buyers for the track and buildings, happy to dismantle and remove from site themselves. That would be the lowest cost option for the trust, in fact they could actually make money.

 

My interpretation is that,assuming the lease is effectively terminated, the PLC is not obliged to compensate the Trust for any assets it chooses to leave behind. I realise such an unfair outcome would cause outrage but if it is the best financial outcome for the Trust it is one that would have to be taken seriously.

Perhaps so but the Trust should be considering all actions. The shed and track are assets too and I find it hard to believe that they are not realisable assets. You have, perhaps, not been associated with the NYMR long enough to appreciate the Deviation Shed is a repurposed secondhand building albeit fitted with new cladding some years after its transfer to Grosmont. The less there is left unsold or reused on site the less there will be to renove.

 

Why are you suggesting a 'scorched earth policy' ? That sounds inflammatory to me. The Trust simply wants to protect and retain its own assets after the plc reneged on a long-term contract, freely entered into by both parties.

 

It should not be forgotten that at least some of the trackwork and components of the sheds at Washford are S&DJR relics of historical interest in their own right. It is possible therefore that simply 'abandoning' such items upon departure from Washford without securing an appropriate future for them would put the Trust in breach of its own Charitable Objects.

 

It continues to astound me that some hitherto well-respected so-called railway professionals should continue to have their reputations sullied by association with this thoroughly rotten WSR PLC board and its increasingly long trail of incompetence and immorality. This includes one locomotive engineer who I previously held in such very high esteem. What a shame that the otherwise exemplary career of the aforesaid individual should be sullied like this in the autumn of his years. As for the others, let us hope that their business associates, customers and future employers do not look too closely at this forum, or at the events of the last three years.

 

I hope that they do. Ditto the SCC.

 

I imagine all of the items on the site are classed as assets and I cannot see how just leaving them there for someone else's benefit without any recompense would be acceptable behaviour. Can @Lineisclear really be suggesting that it is proper behaviour for a group to be kicked off the railway but then expected to leave its property behind for the benefit of those that have kicked it off? Where are your morals John?

 

If they wish to save their honour they should resign from the Board now.

 

BTW, could the last few pages of posts be moved to the S&D Railway Trust and Washford Matters thread?

 

Because it’s been espoused on this Forum on a number of occasions!
. Of course the Trust should seek to protect the assets it has created over many years but the Lease, as far as I recall, says that on termination they must remove them from the site. I’m not sure of the relevance to the reference to the NELPG deviation shed with which I am , as you would expect, very familiar. Like any lease facility the landlord retains the freehold and , as is normal, on expiry or earlier termination the tenants obligation is to restore the site to its original condition.
If there are buyers for the track and buildings that would offset the liability of the Trust but it wouldn’t change its obligation to remove them at its expense.
There seems to be an assumption that the PLC must compensate the Trust for assets left behind., If , and I agree it’s a big if, the lease is validly terminated the assumption that the Trust must be compensated for the assets it has created seems to me to be fallacious.

 

Or copied there?...

 

Isn't the Landlord the County Council?.

 

Ultimately yes. However the original lease and it’s questionable 50 year extension were entered into between WSR PLC as long term tenant and the Trust who were effectively a sub tenant. Superior tenant night be better description than landlord but the principles are the same.

 

@Lineisclear (John Bailey) can I respectfully suggest that you look again at the 1991 Lease for Washford from which all else results.

Your assumption/interpretation is not actually in accordance with the details of the lease and it's extension.

My previous post got a bit delayed and out of sequence due to an edit. Apologies, and please have a look at it again.

 

As suggested I was basing my comments on a somewhat hazy recollection. I would be delighted to be proved wrong!

 

The point being that the SDRT could then require the buyer to remove the track / buildings itself as a condition of sale. Quite normal procedure when selling these type of assets. I’d suggest this was the least cost option for the SDRT.

 

The following are my personal thoughts:

I have spent a considerable amount of my time over the last 6 months protecting the historical artefacts that are currently in the custodianship of the SDRT. It has been a time of considerable heartache to see the work of generations slowly dismantled and the steadfastness of our volunteer workforce over that time has been absolutely fantastic. As per the last blog I am continually amazed by their continued support and their commitment during these very difficult times.

The statement issued today by the chairman on behalf of the board has been subject to a fair review and reflects the current situation. As per the last sentence we await the reply of the WSR plc board.

 

With respect John, you seem to be the only person pushing that line. Everyone else is basing their discussion on the statement that WSR has a desire to buy the building/trackwork.

 

It would not take a clairvoyant to recognise that the hiatus in the Board’s response has been because we needed to be absolutely united in our response and actions. I recognise that some posters here would like instant responses - and speaking personally, so would I. However it is crucial we are speaking with one voice. We anticipate responding to the Trust’s letter (referred to in the statement posted here) in that context.

It is the case that the railway has been short of siding and potential covered accommodation, for the last few years. It is also well known that we have been exploring a number of options, both more widely and in relation to Washford, should it become available. That includes possible relocation of the Infrastructure Depot, but may alternatively involve carriage accommodation and possible restoration accommodation. We do have a short term need, but we recognise we have possible obligations to the Trust and also we currently have very limited direct financial resources for development.

I am afraid I need to add that in this present situation I cannot answer further questions or make further comments. If we wish to improve our relations with the Trust than we cannot do this by negotiation through this forum - or any other.

Frank Courtney