West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Those are the directors of the Association, not the PLC

 

I no longer have any particular interest in Minehead Matters, but

I would take a good deal of convincing given what has been put in the public domain that the railway has a future.

While I do not see it as a panacea clearly were the structure to be reorganised in the way suggested by @Lineisclear which is broadly similar to most other heritage railways it would assist with fund raising and address issues about accountability of the board.

Clearly this is not a cost or risk free option but nothing suggests that the current situation is sustainable.

@Robin Moira White has been involved with the WSR for almost all her adult life and it runs past the bottom of her garden so clearly she has more interest in it than most, hence her comments and questions.

 

The problem is this, you have 3 organisations, the steam trust, the WSRA, and the PLC, and a degree of past animosity between each, neither really trust the other, the PLC, and the steam trust, seem to have had a revolving door between each's board room, with directors and trustees seemingly being in one, then in the other, the trust's large shareholding, is used to ensure the WSRA can never threaten the status quo, this in part because the WSRA at one point went rogue and tried to buy the freehold and give it power over the railway, now the real power is the PLC and its in the hands of someone, with a rather worrying past as regards regulations, and running a transport operation, Its unfortunate that Robin, was identified as being a threat by some on the railway, but Clearly they saw a reason to get rid of people who asked questions, questions the board, and others would rather not be answered, and in doing so, IMHO, brought not just their own railway into disrepute, but the entire movement, in how they went about it, and should be ashamed of themselves for it,

 

Correct, now go back 4 pages and join the dots.

 

I understand that they were told that they may be in breach of charity law which could lead to the loss of their house.

 

I have previously been advised as a trustee that if I disagree fundamentally with a decision my options are limited to resigning or remaining within the board, and that this is especially so if the decision gives rise to legal exposure.

IF that was the discussion, then the response makes sense, but a huge amount would be buried in the detail of legitimately private conversations

 

Surely, though, they should have understood the limitations of what a charity can do in support of its published aims, and if gifting financial support to the PLC crossed those boundaries, then why didn't someone say, stop, we can't do this, in this manner, and found a work round that would enable help to be given without putting the charity into breach.

 

Presumably those Trustees who didn't resign did not agree with that interpretation of the law and/or may've sought their own legal advice on whether the charity is acting lawfully. I've no idea who's right.

 

There was an earlier discussion about what the WSRA's charitable objects are, and (from an outsider's perspective) whether or not the WSRA contribution would be inside or outside of those. That can be summarised as "it's a grey area", especially when as outsiders we do not know the details. We also do not know what advice was on hand, or the finer terms of the decision - I note that the report of the November Trustee meeting references this decision, and also that "agreed conditions" are in place; again suggesting that the choice was not black & white.

In that situation, opinions can legitimately vary, and so can the responses of those who lose the vote. As a trustee, I have been outvoted on matters that I've regarded as important, and had to consider how I would react if I was on the losing side of the vote. In the example I have in mind, I strongly believed (and still do) that I was right and the majority wrong, but that the choice was one on which opinions could legitimately vary. As such, I have accepted the majority decision, and now consider myself bound to help make it work.

What is most concerning is that, if the resignations were a result of this decision, a board has split and the WSRA has lost good people from leadership as a consequence. That suggests that the messages of unity are at best over stated, and point yet again to the wider WSR having difficulty in accommodating differences of views.

 

Resigning as a trustee doesn't protect you from the fall out of actions taken when you were a trustee.

 

As an onlooker WSR seems to generate more discussion than any other railway. What most others seem to have is a coherent business plan and restoration plan bougt in by all groups, which you may agree or disagree with but there will always be someone unhappy, can't please everyone. What seems to be missing at WSR is a visible coherent business and restoration plan bought in by all parties, until that gets sorted we will have pages and pages more discussion. What is a shame there are obviously a lot of people concerned about the future of WSR not engaged with it.

Sent from my SM-A556B using Tapatalk

 

The amount of "discussion" any one railway gets is often more to do with the number of volunteers or visitors who have a particular gripe about it. Much of this thread is the same (small) group of people making similar comments.

 

To change the subject and get back to "operations" on WSR. Has anyone any results available for the test runs of "ovoid" fuel? Is there a future for these on the railway and what are the costs involved?

 

I suspect that as other Forums/facebook/Whatever is available there may be some 'go to' sites to discuss The Twatlington Tramway or whatever & Nat Pres may well have the joy of being the 'Go To' place to discuss the WSR

 

Maybe, but the WSR has a peculiar set of poor culture (possibly in the past, but possibly not) unhelpful and inefficient governance structure and communications which I would describe as inconsistent, veering between its all fine and we are in serious financial trouble. At the very least this last is going to raise questions.

 

Interesting news from the Severn Valley:

https://svr.co.uk/news/severn-valley-railway-unveils-plans-for-bold-restructure/

What a stark contrast to the WSR...

 

"‘A CCBS will bring us many benefits. It should mean the SVR could claim Gift Aid on a large proportion of ticket sales. There’ll be significant savings in both compliance and administration costs. We’ll be able to avoid prospectus costs on any future share issues and potentially avoid having to pay business rates. These factors will add up to hundreds of thousands of pounds every year that can instead go to maintaining and improving the railway itself."

What a great idea, it's a pity that some folk were bent on preserving the same old self-serving structure. Just as ye sow....... and all that.

 

Interesting to hear that whatever WSR management say, this sort of structure is possible and could benefit heritage railway immensely

 

Possible, yes, but not straightforward! In any event conversion to a community benefit society requires a 75% voting majority of PLC shareholders. The stumbling block can be that shares in a CBS must be one vote per member not one vote per share. The decision can also be influenced by whether the PLC has a provision in its Articles that on dissolution ( assuming there’s anything left after creditors have been paid) remaining assets do not belong to the shareholders and must be transferred to another entity with similar purposes.