WHHR trains never to be given access to WHR metals for timetabled services

While its always good to be opimistic, its hard to see anywhere for negotiations to go.

If, as the press release and the result of the negotiations seems to imply, the WHHR consider their working proposal the only way forward then said negotiations would seem largely academic anyway - for the forseeable future timetabled trains from Tremadog Rd simply wont be possible with the current signalling setup. While there is an intention to re-signal with ETS, as shown by the purchase of block instruments from Ireland, its hardly a a major priority even if there was the time and money to do it.

Chris

 

As far as I can make out from what I've read (I'm not up there on the ground), Mr Hewitt's idea of negotiation is to throw his toys out of the cot and issue inflammatory press releases every time he doesn't get his way.

This is unlikely to be be productive when you're not in a very strong bargaining position in the first place. I suggest he takes a leaf out of the LibDem book, calms down and compromises if he really wants to get into bed with his big brother.

 

Maybe the WHHR should have a go at rebuilding the Gorseddau instead ? They could create a formation past Tremadog as part of the by-pass works.

;-)

Richard

 

Please not - a better option would be to tidy access from Porthmadog so that can be walked throughout. The extension is a great walk. Ditto walking access from Porthmadog to Bedgellert needs sorting as it is currently blocked by bypass works and Osprey protection zones. Also be nice to arrange access up the Croesor tramway to Croesor village. May seem off topic but its all about making and marketing Porthmadog a tourist destination.

 

Except when they choose to ignore their "policy" that is...
http://www.caernarfonherald.co.uk/caernarfon-county-news/local-caernarfon-news/2010/05/27/access-row-brews-between-rival-gwynedd-railway-companies-88817-26528850/

So, who is going to be the first to remove their end of the connection? There seems little point in it being there now.

Alternatively, the whole matter could be referred to independent arbitration with a full and public review of who said what to who - that would be very interesting.

 

With respect, Mr Lewin did not, AFAIK, issue a press release or send a letter to the local media, but was responding to a query from the local newspaper.

Regards

L

 

and what a waste of hard won funds that would be on both sides once the lawyers get involved.

 

I have to agree, the situation is now such a total mess that the only way out is a full public review with independant arbitration. We must not forget how much we owe the public for the finacial support they gave to the project. If i knew at the beginning of this project what i know now i would not have participated in the funding.

 

No press statement was released. There is a positioning statement to be used in the event of a press query.

 

How is it a mess?? - until there is something worth running (Russell & the ex WHR coaches) in full working order to an accepable overhauled & equiped standard the whole thing is just acedemic. Surely the Gelerts farm folk should concentrate there efforts on just that rather than sounding off prematurely.

When/if that situation arises it is time to talk.

As a vague parrallel - did'nt BR say that steam was banned from its network after 1968?? - fast forward to 2010 & what do you find? - mainline steam almost everywhere on the ex BR network!

Where the necessary hardware continues to exist almost anything remains possible.

 

Public review with independant arbitration?

Why would that be necessary?

The FfR/WHR have duly built the railway they set out to build and, presumably, the agreed outputs required by the funding providers have been/are being achieved or we would have heard about that. On that basis the 'public' have got what they 'wanted' from the project.

The matter of the WHHR is surely a local matter and best resolved by further negotiation. The 'toys out of the pram' approach seen espoused by the recent 'draft' press release cannot help the situation though, can it?

All I know about the agreements between the WHHR and FfR/WHR is what I read from various sources but, if I was involved with the WHHR I would be concerned for my organisation's credibility follwing the press release.

 

Some TCL people continue to make this claim but TCL as never owned the trackbed it was never in a position to offer anyone the trackbed. At the time TCL was buying up WHR share and debenture certificates but it was later established in court that the 'transfers' were invalid.
Peter Johnson

 

I meant to comment about an earlier offer that would have changed WHR history completely if it had been completed. In 1963 the receiver, A. A. Thomas, was willing to sell the trackbed to what became the '64 Co for £750. His death in July 1964 put a stop to it. The story I heard from someone close to the '64 Co at the time was that Thomas knew that he was seriously ill and told the society, as was, to draft a contract and give it to him to sign - with his signature it could have been completed. If a contract was prepared it was never given to Thomas before he died. The '64 Co officer who was dealing with it is still around but he won't talk to anyone about the WHR. In the circumstances, not having the £750 need not have been a show stopper - getting the contract would have been a powerful incentive to raise the money.
Peter Johnson