S&D Railway Trust

Good lawyers would regard themselves as at best a distress purchase


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Perhaps so, but aren't most such already busy with pro bono (mainly criminal and human rights) cases? From what I've seen, without familiar representation 'sympathetic to the cause', considerations need to involve substantial 'public interest' or 'legally interpretative' components, worthy of such attention, to cast appeal beyond the likes of Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne.

 

You should. Pines Express is an excellent magazine.

 

A point I was going to make.

My last visit during the winter steam up, got off at Washford to show my mate the basics of signalling but the station and museum was unmanned and closed. We popped into the pub and had a great carvery.

Previous visit was in October staying in Minehead. Caught the train to Washford with the wife, walked the mineral line to Watchet, sandwich and coffee then walked to Blue Anchor. Cream tea and train back

 

I'd rather go looking at the reasons for actions and reactions and then try to do something about it. Others may take a different approach.

Of course, on a forum like this, folks turn a simple query (in this case about why the S&DRT could not find a way to improve their financial contribution to the Plc) into a much wider discussion, resulting in accusations of being "brainwashed". I will always "be a Daniel" and will not just go with the popular flow. You'll just have to suffer my ramblings I'm afraid (or block me )

I will, if they'll have me, rejoin the S&DRT because in the past I have enjoyed being part of an organisation dedicated to preserving the memory of the Somerset & Dorset, a railway that was a big part to my childhood days and it was just wonderful to open one particular "Pines Express" to find a pic of my Dad at work at Blandford Station. I'd dearly like to see the S&DRT stay on the WSR as every visit I have made to Washford over the years brings back such fond memories of the old "Dorset" line.

Steve

 

Which would seem at odds with the S&DRT's press release claim that ".... during the last season, our shop and museum were open on all days that the WSR was running....".

OK, so it might be an 'odd day out' situation, but such inconsistencies ought to be avoided as far as possible when making public statements in case they come back to haunt you.

 

Sorry to disagree Steve but if the contract between the S&DRT and the WSR for 53808 is as has been bandied about on here with no running fees and the loco to be returned as received (fully overhauled, 10 year ticket) then why should the S&DRT 'chip in' anything? Are you saying that the S&DRT should have given free use of the loco to the WSR and then pay at least part of the overhaul costs at the end as well?

I'm also not sure how the WSR management can say now that there may not be funds available to complete the overhaul when there is still five years left to run on the contract. It's not as though that expense will be a surprise to the WSR management, the requirement to overhaul and re-ticket the loco in 2025 has always been there. It's halfway through it's ticket so the WSR company should, by now, have already set aside a significant percentage of the total sum required for the overhaul. It is not the fault of the S&DRT if they have not done so. Nor is it any fault of the S&DRT if the WSR company cannot afford the overhaul at the end.

At the end of the day there is a contract in place, agreed by both parties just like the site lease (or tenancy agreement or whatever). If it turns out that one party fails to honour that agreement then that party will have to bear the full costs of so doing. Before the WSR management think about turning round and saying "Sorry, we are not going to do what we agreed to..." they should take a long hard look at a certain railway to the north and see how much that sort of attitude has cost (and is still costing?) them.

Failure of the WSR management to manage their finances correctly is no fault of the S&DRT.

 

That would be because the question is no longer relevant. The PLC has issued its notice and solicitors are involved. Even finding the reason and possibly doing something about it will not change the damage done to the relationship between the organisations.

Well I'm sure they'll find your subs useful for the solicitor's fees....

 

No; I have worked with a number of commercial lawyers and all would take the view that disputes are to be avoided of feasible, and consulting lawyers in a dispute situation is in itself a distress purchase.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

It is legally questionable, morally indefensible and financially foolish if it removes such contributions as were already being paid - unless it is seen as a way of avoiding the cost of restoring a locomotive in 5 years?

The other common theme is the lack of financial viability of the Heritage sector based purely on operating income - with the exceptions of one or maybe two lines in the UK.

 

If such a reason and justification do exist, having them declared out in the open would be useful clarification. However most of us believe that the reason and justification are illusory, and we hope that the eviction will not happen.

 

No, the query on the forum was never about ‘why the S&DRT could not find a way to improve its financial contribution to the Plc’! It would make for an interesting debate but I would say that’s one for the Trust, although they do seem to have addressed it in their press statements.

There is no legal obligation on the Trust to make additional financial contributions to the Plc and there is no link to the terms and conditions of the lease.

The Trust can of course choose to do all manner of things to assist the Plc and its wider aims, which could include hard cash of course (within the limits of its constitution and its bank account balance!) but also different commercial arrangements, benefit in kind contributions e.g. manpower, sponsorship of events or locos, publicity, etc etc.

As people have said time and time again, the Plc has made a bad financial situation worse without having any credible commercial plan of what to do with the site and in the process alienated a significant group of supporters. I’ll refer again to my Derbys railway that fell out with a number of supporting groups and drove people away to another line. The old guard is still in power, money is being wasted on legal costs, the railway’s facilities are limited and revenue is declining. The WSR can still prosper but my goodness there need to be some major organisational changes.

 

No Andy: It was new money. Money from grant givers that you pointed the way to. I still remember the first meeting about it you brokered in the Lethbridge.
The Just Giving money was over and above the £119,000 from external grant givers. I do listen and you did good at pointing the way.

 

...and members are always welcome to write to me and ask.
The published accounts are a summary document and meet a legal obligation. But maybe I'll add a little more data for members this year.

 

Mike

Right, I maybe getting confused here. Previously its been stated from the WSRA (last time a few pages back from Robin) that the amount raised by the WSRA in 2019 was 1. Track appeal (via Just Giving) generated £187k. 2. £30k for 9351, 3. some funds for 4561, plus no-doubt the usual undefined odd amounts never spoken of. I haven't heard about another, additional £119k new grant funding spoken of. Item 1. the track appeal was what I was referring to in saying 'just one fund raising route from old money', the total last shown on the Just Giving website for the track renewal was circa £119k, (the figure you used at the start of our conversation, hence my confusion) I hadn't questioned the increase from £119k to £187k (the figure more recently quoted as the result), because if you add some gift aid, add the contribution from the WSSRT's appeal on the same track appeal and I assumed some additional money via the WSRA Fund Raiser it will be around £187k as the amount raised in total and the amount given to the PLC on the big cheque presentation recently.

What you appear to be saying here is that there is another £119k in additional "over and above" the just giving, track appeal £187k. And this additional £119k is from new money external grant funders which as you say we discussed about how to gain during my HPC work. If I've got that right now I think that:

1. The WSRA may have undersold its efforts in 2019 publicly, Unless I've missed it I have never seen it stated or promoted as an additional amount as grant funded 'new money' in addition to the rest, so perhaps others don't know about this as well and its worth shouting about.
2. This means its £187k + £30k + (some) and now also plus another £119k as well in 2019.
3. Given the restrictions in place because of the WSR structure and lack of support from the PLC in project completion, etc.This additional £119k is a good effort and worth shouting about (I assume KW needs some credit here as well).
4. I assume this new money is 'restricted' to particular projects as its from grant funders who usually give for particular projects. If that's the case can you share what those projects are, because again they will be worth shouting about to all as its not just another sum poured into the PLC black hole.

Andy

 

Andy - I’m not quite sure what point you are making here. If there is a difference between £119k shown for the track apppeal online and £187k handed over, that would most likely arise from people donating offline, ie directly sending a cheque to the WSRA. That seems more likely than invoking some double counting of the WSSRT contribution. Some funding platforms allow offline donations to be shown (I don’t know whether a JustGiving does or doesn’t) but in any case doing so requires the charity administrator to upload the figure from time to time. SO it wouldn't be unusual for £119k donated online to be £187k available to be handed over. (When the Bluebell raised money for OP4, I believe only about one pound in every five was donated online; the rest was offline).

More importantly, I don’t really buy the distinction between “new” and “old” money. If you promote an appeal and people donate who might otherwise not have done so, that is “new money” even if it comes from your existing supporters. Most people have one or a small number of preferred causes, and getting them to switch is not easy: easier to get people who are already pre-disposed to see the WSR as “their” railway to dig a bit deeper than to find entirely new individuals who may already be emotionally committed to some other cause.

In a way, this is illustrative of something I have long noted in relation to the WSR, which is a fervent hope that somewhere there is a “white knight” ready to ride to the rescue financially. There might be, but it is a high risk strategy: if anyone is going to save the WSR, it will need to be the existing supporters; they shouldn’t be relying on someone else coming and doing it for them. The saga of the large prairie showed that there is already money available from within the railway, given the right cause - what you would call "old money". The frustration was that it was then in essence thrown away. (Even grant giving bodies often want to see some considerable match funding from the existing supporters to be sure they are funding a cause that has popular support).

Tom

 

A perceptive comment as usual, Tom.

As a WSR volunteer of now 41 years, who has served as an officer of the WSRA, WSSRT and WSR plc, and is presently the WSRA Trustee with lead responsibility for fundraising, I can accept without question 3 things:

(1) the present WSR structure is a barrier to grant funding (not insurmountable, but it makes it unnecessarily difficult and therefore less likely to be successful). I am clearly sighted on the more sensible structures elsewhere.

(2) a strategy based on white knights is about as sensible as a strategy based on the existence of unicorns. (And given the position we are all likely to be in when Covid-19 is over, any white knights that do exist are likely to be busy rescuing fair maidens elsewhere than on heritage railways.)

(3) the realities are likely to be ever more starkly clear and when we are able to go forward those forming a barrier to progress through personal ambition, sheer bloody-mindedness or whatever are going to be increasingly visible.

Somewhere amongst these threads I have said that I regularly ask myself if my actions are best for our Railway. That is the only relevant question.

Robin
(Commenting personally and not as a WSRA Trustee.)

 

AFAIK after the SCC decided not to sell the Railway Freehold the then WSR Plc Chairman ( Professor
John Irven ) negotiated an amendment to the existing Plc lease which enabled the Plc to grant
sub leases up to a duration of 25 years ( I have stated this figure in a previous posting. )

Whilst I do not condone the wording of the Plc Press Release re ending the S&D agreement,
it would appear the sub lease of 50 years reportedly signed by a later Plc Chairman was without
substance.

Michael Rowe

 

You mean there are some on other railways too?

 

Tom

Thanks, I don’t disagree with what you are saying here, if the other readers could indulge me a little longer please in some thread drift, this is relevant to the S&DRT and the PLC’s demands for money in the end and I’ll bring it back to them. I’ll put some more context around what I mean about old and new money (my made up phrases), its important here in my opinion given the conversations I had with external grant funders back in 2018.

The WSR started looking at external grant funding from a zero base (meaning grants from external parties/organisations not private individual donations which is another currently weak but separate revenue stream), it has no background in looking outward and finding any external funding (new money) and attracting new people, only people who happened to turn up on the doorstep. It has stumbled over the odd grant in the last 40 yrs but there has been no strategy, capability or understanding within the WSR of its usefulness in bringing money and people to the WSR. Until now when it needed money it has put out an appeal via its own mainly internal routes to the people it knows in its members (Old money). This is historical it’s not the fault of the current management and The Coombes Review saw this in 2015. When I was asked to develop the HPC Bid in fairness to those concerned it was recognised by Mike, Robin and others that if we gained the HPC Grant it would not only bring new money and new people to the WSR it would also show that the WSR was capable of dealing with grant funding correctly thus showing others it was a safe place to invest.

When I started down this road I spoke to a number of grant funding experts such as Somerset Community Foundation who help organisations like the WSR attract grant funding, act as a mentor and distribute funds on behalf of around 80 separate grant funds plus HPC. The first thing they asked me was how the WSR is funded. I said “well for 40 years we have charged people to ride on the train, run some special events, our charities run some appeals to people we know and that’s about it”. Their jaws hit the ground, they could not believe that a cash consuming and growing monster like the WSR could have expanded and got this far without large amounts of larger scale grant funding (that’s a positive testament to the hard work of existing volunteers). They also saw the WSR as very investable place for their money, the statement: “this is great because you have a 20 mile long historical, legacy resource full of hundreds of opportunities for the community to come and engage and have many different experiences and you haven’t been funded to death already”. So everybody is happy and the £1 million pa figure is talked about by them, it just needed the WSRA to move it forward, supported fully by the PLC who are the ‘gate keepers’ to the resource.

The barrier to this, they saw is the WSR's structure, two competing charities, governance issues, and no clear trust/charity overview. I got around all of that with the HPC bid with some provisos in writing to them (later scrapped and unfulfilled by the PLC) because SCF/HPC genuinely wanted to help the WSR change, become a good investable opportunity for grant funding investors, therefore the HPC bid was far more important than ‘just’ the £96k. I think the future hinges on it because either the dwindling volunteer base of the WSR makes up the £1 million shortfall itself every year (old money) or the WSR finds new money to survive. Basically it means that either the WSR sorts out its structure and governance or it can’t attract enough grant funding to survive. It’s as stark as that.

My involvement with this was to prove to the internal ‘we don’t like change’ and ‘other people can’t come to our railway unless we let them’ nay-sayers (some of whom are still taking shots at me on here) that it could be done, hence why I worked hard to prove one person with no prior knowledge in this environment could do it (I gained £185k across 3 projects in 1 year from a standing start) and then the path would be set for others to take it forward in a more positive internal environment.

Regarding the WSRA track appeal via Just Giving I (and others) may if your view is correct have assumed it was donations from individuals as the PR coming out of the WSRA from Jan-Sept 2019 much of it via Steve Edges web-site gave regular updates giving a running donated total, finishing with it around £120k out of the £250k asked for. What you are suggesting is that in fact the WSRA may have ‘back loaded’ the £119k grant funding into the appeal figure so it wasn’t all individual donations. If that’s the case then the actual donations from individual WSR supporters is only around £30k after taking into account gift aid, the WSSRT, etc.

As Mike has said he has raised £119k from grant funding (still a great effort to be applauded) and we know the track appeal figure was £187k, either that’s £187k (double counting the WSSRT or not) from the Just Giving appeal, plus £119k grant funding or its £187k in total including the £119k. I’m not going to cast stones here on the rights and wrongs of how it was counted and shown on the Just Giving site but if the existing supporter base of the WSR were only willing to donate circa £30k that to me shows a worse picture than I thought given that the 4110 Group raised £110k from just one part of the WSR supporter base in 10 days and given the amount of money including a recent large one off donation I know the S&DRT have received unsolicited from its supporters in the last couple of weeks to pay for its forthcoming legal fees. I’ve heard internally that 40% of WSR Volunteers have quietly slipped away in the last year because of what’s happening, I can’t confirm that figure but if the latter £30k figure is right it may back it up.

I’m happy to say I’m confused now about how much money came from where and which of the above is correct, I’m sure Mike can confirm one way or another.

However it’s all detail, the bigger point is that as soon as the current PLC Management came along all of this opportunity was swept away and the HPC Project was diverted away from the WSR as the only way of all saving face, driven out by a management who to put it in another person words “demands money with menaces, doesn’t want to do anything in return, just have your money and if you don’t pay you are sacked”. If the grant funding route and of course the other revenue streams sitting around it were followed none of the broken agreements in the pursuit of money and in particular the S&DRT eviction would have been necessary. The sums the PLC are trying to extract from its own family are not in the great scheme of things large in the context of what could have been or even enough to save the WSR. It basically comes down to the same thing, the WSR on its current path is a busted flush and unless large and wholesale change happens very, very quickly there will be no WSR as we know it.

I’ve attached the WSRA Funding Strategy paper I wrote at the time that sets out more of my thoughts on this subject. I’m not going to say it’s perfect and I’d love people who have been on this path already to comment on it and pull it apart if needed, but surely this is a better way to go than beating up our own family until they leave us, taking the dog, cat, half the house and most of the furniture with them ?