If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

S&D Railway Trust and Washford Matters

Discussion in 'Heritage Railways & Centres in the UK' started by Andy Norman, Feb 24, 2020.

  1. Sidmouth

    Sidmouth Part of the furniture Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    8,575
    Likes Received:
    5,762
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alderan !
    out of interest have you considered being a conservative mp ?
     
    Paul Grant, beavis, mgl and 6 others like this.
  2. Alan Kebby

    Alan Kebby Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2019
    Messages:
    697
    Likes Received:
    853
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Brighton
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    The question is, do you wish to?
     
    Monkey Magic likes this.
  3. ross

    ross Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Messages:
    869
    Likes Received:
    2,140
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Titfield
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    If your immediate response to all this is a bullying response that it will cost an awful lot to remove buildings including their foundations, "that could be a very expensive obligation" to threaten that it would be cheaper to just give up all those assets, I think you have been keeping bad company. Are you forgetting that the WSR PLC also has a very expensive obligation that has to be met?
    Seriously, I think you should leave the PLC to reap its bitter harvest, and get as far away as you can before your reputation and moral compass are irreparably damaged
     
    free2grice, 61624, nanstallon and 3 others like this.
  4. evilswans

    evilswans New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    93
    Location:
    Woking, Surrey
    Have Netflix ever been in touch about doing a documentary drama on the wsr, could a possible way to make some extra money...

    But honestly the way this has all been handled from the start has been a farce and an utter joke. From the updates to the accusations, honestly, terrible.

    I don't see a way out of this, everyone that has supported all of this, shame on you, remember you're all just as bad as the so called man at the reins. And then we get to the use of 88 and then say yeah we can't afford to keep our end of the agreement on this, again shame on you.

    But my biggest worry is that if the knight in shining Armour does admit he out of his depth or its not going the way he's planned, I can't see anything changing. You've supported him so far in what's happening, way to many egos at play.

    Hang your heads in shame, this isn't what preservation is all about

    Matt
     
  5. 61624

    61624 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,230
    Likes Received:
    2,199
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I'm surprised that, as a lawyer, you miss my point entirely! Deviation shed was a secondhand shed when it was erected (I was one of those who helped put it up!) and so a building demonstrably suitable for railway use should have intrinsic value should the Trust decide to sell. Therefore it could be sold to help cover the cost restoring the site to the waste ground it once was or moved elsewhere for further use by the Trust. I don't see either the foundations or floor as a major challenge to a suitably sized excavator, and I for one hope that it is not left for one of the "WSR family" to use it as ill-gotten gains and benefit from it.
     
    ross, nick glanf, Piggy and 4 others like this.
  6. Pete Thornhill

    Pete Thornhill Part of the furniture Staff Member Administrator Moderator Friend

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    5,897
    Likes Received:
    3,619
    It’s funny you mention clairvoyants as Mystic Meg sees it somewhat differently. That post is one of the best ever on the forum…. For all the wrong reasons….

    Let me get this straight, the board couldn’t talk about plans because they didn’t know what the end result was - knowing they had no money?

    It begs the question - why the rush the eviction? If in the short term there was no prospect of the railway doing anything with the site was there a need for the trust to be gone so promptly?

    The communication from the SDJRT, mentions the need for legal action to gain a stay of execution, surely if your version of events is to believed, such action would be unnecessary, as the board has known for a while that it has no short term use for the site, especially if you haven’t got the cash for a Washford project in the first place.

    The more cynical might suggest that there is a plan, one which is controversial, and if that is the case, I don’t think it’s doing the railway any favours given it’s present situation. Your attempt at defending the actions of the board just casting further doubt in my opinion, very cloak and daggers it seems.
     
  7. Snifter

    Snifter Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2014
    Messages:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    3,660
    Gender:
    Male
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I recall that the 6+1 had plans for the Washford site that underpinned their approach to SCC to buy the freehold. We know that another bid to purchase the freehold was made by the Dear Leader, bypassing all stakeholders and the PDG. It seems that having been rebuffed by SCC, all sorts of excuses have been created to justify the action. We have had "cuckoo in the nest", the ORR directing the plc to relocate the P-Way yard to the most inappropriate location on the line, claims that there really is a plan but we can't tell you, and according to a recent set of minutes, the steam trust being approached to do something at Washford.

    Why supposedly intelligent individuals continue to back the current incumbents is the most bizarre point in this whole saga.
     
  8. martin1656

    martin1656 Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2014
    Messages:
    14,857
    Likes Received:
    9,176
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    St Leonards
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I see one again people who we assume are level headed supporting something that just can not be supported, Sorry but the PLC have got this decision wrong since day one, when someone didn't like being told no, but more damaging, is that there were some, with in the railway, who never accepted the presence of another railway on what they envisaged as a pure GWR line, its entirely possible that they had the ear of the chairman, who may have agreed with their view, or been swayed by it, and have always wanted to remove this interloper from their line, Well they got their wish, but its a bitter taste they have left, because it has the potential to bite them very severely on the backside, because of the backlash, the unwillingness to donate, and the lack of goodwill that will be shown towards towards the railway especially as it is experiencing financial pressure, and needs as much help as it can get,
     
  9. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    16,711
    Likes Received:
    13,679
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Thank you for the admission that the WSR plc has neither effective plans nor funds for the use of the Washford site, and thus that the grounds for eviction of a tenant holding a valid lease were entirely invalid.

    I have been appalled by the behaviour of the WSR plc over Washford since this scandalous abuse became evident. I have however held back from direct support of S&DRT to date because I lacked positive motivation to support the trust, based on my interests. However, I shall gladly support them with muscle or money if they are faced with the choice of allowing WSR plc to benefit from its abusive behaviour or leaving the site in the state it was in 40 years ago.

    The WSR focuses on the post nationalisation era; it is a tragedy that this includes not just railway practice and appearance, but also a seeming attempt to revive the world of Peter Rachman.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
    Fish Plate, nanstallon, jnc and 5 others like this.
  10. Monkey Magic

    Monkey Magic Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,228
    Likes Received:
    6,469
    Location:
    Here, there, everywhere
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Then you have two choices - give the S&DRT the extension of the lease they have been asking for in order that they can remove their assets. Or pay the money for the assets.

    If you don't have the money then you can't have the shed and trackwork. It is that simple and you should have thought about that before i) starting the eviction and ii) continuing with the eviction.

    If I were a cynical person I might think that all this delaying is a cynical attempt to try to gain control of the assets by the backdoor.
     
    ross, nick glanf, nanstallon and 10 others like this.
  11. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,869
    Likes Received:
    5,098
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    But...@FrankC said in post #3880 "...We do have a short term need..." {my emphasis}, although admittedly he did not say what or where it was. Will this turn out to be yet another situation where the Plc and Trust views on the facts will differ ?
     
  12. Pete Thornhill

    Pete Thornhill Part of the furniture Staff Member Administrator Moderator Friend

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    5,897
    Likes Received:
    3,619
    Yes, but no money to see their plans though, meaning in reality no use.
     
    jnc likes this.
  13. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    10,526
    Likes Received:
    7,335
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Deviation shed was erected over forty years ago, largely by volunteers. Time has moved on. I doubt anyone would consider dismantling and re-erecting a building today unless there was very good reason. The materials cost of steel framed buildings is proportionally a lot less than it used to be. You still have the foundations to provide and the significant additional cost of dismantling.
     
  14. 61624

    61624 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,230
    Likes Received:
    2,199
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    As I've previously posted, I helped assemble the roof of Deviation shed, so I have good grasp of the challenges. We're not talking about the NYMR, though, where the immediate response would be to hire in contractors to build a shed. There are still smaller outfits with a diy mentality who would tackle such a project if they wanted one and a suitable s/h building was available. In this case, the owners have to remove the shed which would be mostly down to volunteers, I would expect, so the cost is not going to be astronomical. If someone wants to re-use it I'm sure that they'll get around the problems,
     
  15. John Palmer

    John Palmer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    638
    Gender:
    Male
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    @Lineisclear is correct in saying that under the terms of the 1991 Lease of the Washford site the S&D Trust had to remove its track, buildings, etc when the lease came to an end, though only if required to do so by the plc. However, to suggest that abandonment of these assets to the plc might be the Trust's most economical option is to condone the behaviour of the plc that forced consideration of such a course upon the Trust in the first place – outrageous!

    What I find more surprising is that @Lineisclear has confined himself to an analysis of the Trust's position as lessee that completely disregards the wider legal context. In 2018 the plc contracted to extend by 50 years the Trust's lease of the Washford site. In 2020 the plc breached that commitment by giving the Trust Notice to Quit Washford. The Trust has treated that breach as one rescinding the contract, and may now make a claim against the plc for damages reflecting its loss arising from the breach.

    The Trust may conclude that its interest in getting the plc to carry out its obligation to overhaul the 2-8-0 is better served by not pursuing such a claim against the plc, the more so in view of the signals that the plc may be a man of straw. In no way does that detract from the principle that the plc is prospectively liable to the Trust for losses caused by its breach of contract, nor does it alter the fact that, if the plc were to threaten action for an alleged breach by the Trust of an obligation as tenant to restore the site to pre-lease condition, the obvious retort coming from the Trust would be “Fine, here is our counterclaim for £n00,000 in damages for breach of the 2018 contract – how do you like them apples?”
     
    ross, Bluenosejohn, Piggy and 8 others like this.
  16. jma1009

    jma1009 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    1,532
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    ynysddu south wales
    It appears to me that it is in the interests of both the WSR PLC and the SDRT for the WSR PLC board to:-
    1. make some decisions about these matters
    2. without any more messing about
    3. quickly.

    The SDRT need to know whether the WSR PLC board wants the covered accommodation and track in the yard at Washford, and if so the proposed timescale, and proposed payment terms. It is unfair for the SDRT to be left in an uncertain period of awaiting a decision or resolution. I also consider it foolish on the part of the WSR PLC board to be unhelpful.

    Remember that the 6 month extension to the Notice to Quit expired on 10th August. All it would take is one short open letter to extend again the Notice to Quit or rescind it. Less time involved than it probably took Frank Courtney to type his post 3880 yesterday evening. And if other parties might be interested in the retention of the covered accommodation and the track and pay for it instead of the WSR PLC then those other parties need to sort this out with the WSR PLC pretty quickly.

    Cheers,
    Julian
    (SDRT member)
     
    Bluenosejohn, jnc, 35B and 1 other person like this.
  17. gwilialan

    gwilialan Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,501
    Likes Received:
    3,657
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Out there somewhere
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Why would anyone want to see the Plc profiting from its (possibly illegal) actions against the S&DRT?

    Why would anyone trust the board to have the site as is now and promise to pay later? (Just like they have done with a certain loco?)

    Even the WSRA insisted on having title to a couple of coaches against the boards inability to pay its dues in order to meet the governing charity regulations. So even a major supporting organisation lacks any confidence in the boards ability (or intention?) to pay.

    I suppose that seeing who supports or opposes these actions will at least help identify identify those who have the interests of the railway at heart as opposed to those on ego trips, with personal agendas or who just don't care.

    (Probably a pointless question but are there actually any Plc assets left that could be used as security?)

    Or perhaps... If members of the board are so sure they are in the right and that their actions are legal and proper perhaps one of them might be persuaded to put up a certain loco currently under overhaul at Tyseley as security?
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2021
    nick glanf, ghost, ross and 6 others like this.
  18. Paul Grant

    Paul Grant New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    196
    Location:
    Fife
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Have you or any of the loose collection of sentience making up The Board considered NOT booting out the SDRT for reasons other than the sort shoulder shrug bus drivers give when they drive off knowing you're there.
     
  19. D1039

    D1039 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,356
    Likes Received:
    2,090
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    North Somerset
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    We’ve been this way before. I think the position is the trust needs not to invalidate the running agreement if it is to hold the PLC to its financial obligations to overhaul it

    Patrick


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    35B likes this.
  20. Alan Kebby

    Alan Kebby Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2019
    Messages:
    697
    Likes Received:
    853
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Brighton
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I wasn’t suggesting the trust would invalidate the current running agreement in any way (doesn’t it run out next year anyway?) I just meant that the chances of any new agreement being made for 53808 to run on the WSR again are now surely zero.
     
    D1039 likes this.

Share This Page