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

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

  1. Fred Kerr

    Fred Kerr Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    8,239
    Likes Received:
    5,250
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Freelance photo - journalist
    Location:
    Southport
    Shades of Ribblehead and the S&C closure methinks !
     
    Greenway, 35B, Matt37401 and 2 others like this.
  2. 60044

    60044 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2016
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    785
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Salisbury
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    It has long been the practice of those with a pessimistic nature to use the excuse"it'll cost too much" to avoid tackling a problem and the best way to deal with them is to find out what it would really cost Quite often there's a pleasant surprise!

    The LNERCA had a particular critic who was fond of using this argument to advocate repanelling our Gresley coaches in plywood rather than teak - when it transpired that teak was affordable he changed his argument to "it'll split". 25 years on he's running out of arguments!
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2020
    TseTT, 2392, ross and 2 others like this.
  3. martin1656

    martin1656 Nat Pres stalwart Friend

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2014
    Messages:
    17,609
    Likes Received:
    11,223
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    St Leonards
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Either way, this has got to come to a head one way, or another, either by testing the legality of the eviction notice in the courts, and bankrupting the WSR in the process, and forcing change , because whats happening is because of the structure of the railway clearly is wrong, and personal animosity has made the future unsustainable in its present form, no one wants to see any preserved railway fail, but it can't go on, and now clearly there is no Railway family, despite what some wish, after the X6 that should have been the time to look seriously at how do we , as a railway come together, but if anything, the railway has moved further a part, personalities may change, but attitudes on the face of it don't.
     
    BrightonBaltic likes this.
  4. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,103
    Likes Received:
    57,432
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I can't find a source for the £1m figure, either for the wheels alone or the whole overhaul.

    There was a post here: https://www.national-preservation.c...lway-operations.508987/page-1135#post-2542330 quoting £450k needed to overhaul the loco; although that comes from a local newspaper, one assumes that it has some basis in an official statement and wasn't just made up by the journalist.

    The following post to that one from @Aberdare goes into some detail about the work that was done on the loco, and what was needed (but presumably not done by the WSR). In particular, the boiler had a full overhaul at Crewe, after which it ran 15,000 miles. Continuing: "Fortunately the WSR recovered about half the cost of the boiler overhaul in free hire [...]"

    There was a loss made of £142k when the loco left the railway. I read that (but am open to correction) that a sum in the order of ~£280k was spent on the boiler overhaul, and the internal mileage rate for 15,000 miles was equal to ~£140k, resulting in ~£140k loss on what was spent in actual cash on the boiler repair, minus the nominal cash accrued as mileage rate. Clearly, the loco would have needed to run a much larger mileage firstly to recover the full amount of the boiler overhaul, and then put enough "in the bank" for the next overhaul, but it sounds like time ran out with the loco withdrawn for mechanical reasons (thereby curtailing its ability to accrue against an overhaul fund) while there was still considerable life left in the boiler.

    Tom
     
    marshall5 likes this.
  5. Andy Norman

    Andy Norman Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2015
    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    4,393
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Somerset
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Yes that sums it up. All in my opinion. The £1 Million quote was put together by the CME (who now also seems to be gone from the WSR although he still shows as a PLC Board member) based on taking 44422 to his commercial works and being completed as a full commercial overhaul. As those who know the cost of overhauls will see £1 million gives you a shopping list and then some, the list I saw back a year ago now was extensive to say the least, in effect it was for a 'new' 4F and included another boiler rebuild, new tender, etc. This is par for the course and aligns with the reported £700k WSR loss which the chairman said he turned into a £600k profit in just one year, there is a seed of truth in it all but.

    Needless to say the 4F owning group were asked for the £1 million, they didn't have it so an eviction notice was given. The theme emerging is the same, a demand for money which if not paid results in an eviction, its the same as the S&DRT and the same as others, some of whom are not going public and remain unknown.

    The welding for the 4F's wheels was quoted as circa £25k, from memory (@Aberdare will correct me if I'm wrong here because he will know), it effected 2 of the 3 pairs. Some of the cracks could have been original casting cracks but some were new cracks and did need attention. The welding quote was a risk because it wasn't guaranteed the alternative was some new wheels being cast (4?). At the time I thought it was a toss up either way, given the way the WSR usually repair engines (very well and to a high quality) I would have said it usually would have gone the new wheel route but that's not to say that is the right answer for another railway.

    The 4F was in the workshop jacked up, wheels out and with repairs started under the excellent eye of Aberdare (Andy), a team of volunteers would have repaired it with no labour cost, they had the expertise and the equipment and grant funding could have been found to keep a Somerset engine in Somerset for the materials at a fraction of the £1 million quote and possibly if it was supported by external funding it may have been fixed for no cost to the WSR. The current Chairman / CME knew this, I told them in detail as did others, but like so many others things and people they wanted either money or it gone, so it went.

    This fed back into the reported £700k loss the new chairman 'discovered' and 'saved' the WSR from. Firstly the WSR costs circa £200k per month on average to run, by extending the accounts reporting period to cover a second Jan-Mar closed period so you add around £600k loss by default due to no income during the closed session. Also the chairman's new accountants added in £142k loss because 44422 left. Its was an accountancy 'slight of hand'. The £142k was a cost accrued in previous years (2016-2017) because the WSR paid for various repairs on the 4F to get and keep in service up to around 2018. That sum would have been put in the accounts as an expense to take off future steaming fees, so in theory an asset (future cost reduction) to the PLC. By terminating the contract that 'asset' also disappears so has to be written off in the accounts.

    This £142k was of course not real money it was only on a balance sheet, its spend was in a previous year, neither was the circa £600k jan-mar (estimate) because it was a sum that was always going to be there but just moved on paper into the accountancy period. The £600k reported in the bank in Sept is the frightening one though as if you take the money needed to carry the WSR through a winter to April, the reduction in the farebox in 2019 and a bad income over santa trains in 2019, its not enough by a margin to get to today.

    You didn't think one person could come in and turn a £700k loss to a £600k profit in just one year surely ???. The quote "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics" is a good one to use here. Even a high level look at the figures says something is not right with most of the figures reported by the current PLC Board, they only serve to support a story and a direction of agenda.

    The message to the PLC Shareholders in my opinion is still the same: This is all being done in your name, yet you still sit quietly by letting it happen. Is the WSR as you know it being dismantled in front of you ? People and money are leaving and running out, when will you act to get the direction changed or are you happy that your Board will save the day ?
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2020
  6. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,803
    Likes Received:
    7,442
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    The Minutes of the latest WSSRT Board meeting merely state "The current situation with regard to the Washford site was noted and would be monitored as further developments occurred...", which at face value does not imply a view either way.

    If it is indeed true that the WSSRT does support the Plc's stance then - without any judgement as to whether that is the right or wrong thing to do - it would be very useful for them to explain why.

    One of the three key aims of the WSSRT is "preserving and displaying heritage items relating to railways ....... and interpreting and curating all the heritage assets owned by the Trust". IMHO there is little difference between that and what the S&DRT does, so I would expect the WSSRT to show support for the S&DRT unless it can be demonstrated that the latter have done something so terribly anti-WSR that they deserve to be thrown out - in which case I'm sure we would have heard about it already.
     
    Fish Plate, ross, Greenway and 4 others like this.
  7. martin1656

    martin1656 Nat Pres stalwart Friend

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2014
    Messages:
    17,609
    Likes Received:
    11,223
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    St Leonards
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    are the trustees of the WSSRT active volunteers of the railway? this may very well be why they are silent, same as the Trustees of WSRA, If they publicly, including on here, speak out, they will lose their WSR passes, and won't be allowed to carry out any duties on the railway, they are effectually being bullied into silence by a vindictive chairman, who on the face of it, does not allow any dissenting voices.
     
  8. ikcdab

    ikcdab Member Friend

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2006
    Messages:
    610
    Likes Received:
    1,849
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    WSRHT Trustee, Journal editor
    Location:
    Taunton
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Trustees of the WSSRT are, by definition, active volunteers of the railway.
    Ian Coleby
     
  9. Snifter

    Snifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2014
    Messages:
    1,628
    Likes Received:
    4,210
    Gender:
    Male
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Julian,

    We are now on chairman number 4 since that situation was resolved so your suggestion that there was a lack of foresight doesn't hold much water. Would you care to predict the issues that we will face when the current chairman has departed and his third successor is in post ? Can I also have next week's lottery numbers.

    For the record, control of the WSRA was never an objective. It just turned out that way and I prefer "stewardship" rather than "control". The definition of a successful chairmanship is that the post is handed on with the organisation being in a better state at the end of the period than at the beginning.
     
  10. D1039

    D1039 Guest

    If the WSSRT trustees' judgement is that its own charitable objectives (...heritage assets owned by the Trust) are not impinged by the PLC's decisions regarding Washford, then they're not required to act. In considering whether to get involved they'd need to weigh up their legal duties to act in the WSSRT's best interests and manage its resources responsibly. It's not a test of solidarity and - sympathetic as they probably are to the S&DRT - if they took the view it wasn't in the WSSRT's interests to get involved, I wouldn't second guess their judgement.

    Patrick
     
  11. Andy Norman

    Andy Norman Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2015
    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    4,393
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Somerset
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    That's a fair comment in the context of their charitable objectives and as a stand alone charity not connected to the PLC. However they are also one of the two largest shareholders of the PLC and as such surely they have a responsibility as a shareholder to be happy with what 'their' company is doing and the way it is acting, the PLC act on behalf of its shareholders so neither the WSSRT or the WSRA can say "its nothing to do with us" surely because if the shareholders can't express a view who can ?

    In my mind its simple, putting aside the 'fear of removal factor' which could be playing a part here. Either the WSSRT are happy with what their PLC Board are doing or they are not. The option of keeping quiet is of course an option they have decided to take in public. But if for example they had expressed an opinion in private directly to the S&DRT that differed from their public stance then its members could ask why they could be seen to be taking two different views by saying one thing in public and another in private?

    Perhaps the question to ask Ian (as the WSSRT Board representative good enough to post here) if I could be so bold and if he would be good enough to answer is: Have the WSSRT communicated with the S&DRT and expressed a view as to where they stand? I'm not of course looking for details if they have, because some may feel that's a question too far in public. A yes or no answer is fine.

    By the way Ian I'm still waiting for my membership to be re-confirmed after my payments lapsed a while back (bank account change on my part), I've been a member for a number of years now and would like to continue to be.

    My personal view is this is a time for courage of conviction, it maybe getting serious now regarding the future of the WSR, so maybe its time for people to take strength, take a stand and say what they mean clearly. That's also directed to all PLC Shareholders including small 1,000 share people like me, because either its going to get very bad some time soon or alternatively the people like me who have concerns (only some of which are on this thread) are all wrong and the current PLC Board have it all under control so nobody has anything to worry about.
     
    ross likes this.
  12. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,803
    Likes Received:
    7,442
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    I can understand that argument. However taking the view that it is best not to get involved is one thing, but actually taking a view in support of the Plc is another. However, in the absence of any public statements from the WSSRT that make their position clear one way or the other, then it's all rather hypothetical anyway :-(
     
  13. D1039

    D1039 Guest

    Do the trustees have "a responsibility as a shareholder to be happy with what 'their' company is doing and the way it is acting"? The shareholding is unlisted and not held for monetary value (is the Watchet affair affecting the financial value of the shareholding?). I think a better test is the whether (a) there is damage to their objectives and (b) if so, is it sufficiently material for them to seek to intervene.

    As you say that would be a matter for the trustees. I don't they'll be short on advice! I'll butt out here.

    Patrick
     
    Matt78 and johnofwessex like this.
  14. johnofwessex

    johnofwessex Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    Messages:
    9,186
    Likes Received:
    7,226
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Thorn in my managers side
    Location:
    72
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Just what I was thinking
     
  15. ikcdab

    ikcdab Member Friend

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2006
    Messages:
    610
    Likes Received:
    1,849
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    WSRHT Trustee, Journal editor
    Location:
    Taunton
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Andy, yes.
    Second point, I can't see why getting your membership sorted out should be a problem. You just need to communcate with Don Fraser. If you don't have his contact details, email me privately.
    Ian Coleby.
     
  16. 60044

    60044 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2016
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    785
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Salisbury
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Jamessquared, post: 2567464, member: 2811"]I can't find a source for the £1m figure, either for the wheels alone or the whole overhaul.

    From post 1221 in this thread:

    The cost of fixing the wheels of the 4F was worked out using locally available coded welders and volunteer labour. The official cost of ~£1M was stated on the basis of the work being done at Tyseley hence the loco was sent away. The departure of 4110 was down to the Dear Leader and now we face the same outcome for "88". As Lady Bracknell would have said, "to lose one locomotive is unfortunate, but to lose three..."
     
  17. Piggy

    Piggy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2020
    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    327
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somerset
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
     
  18. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,103
    Likes Received:
    57,432
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I'm still somewhat sceptical about how serious that quote was, nor how official it was, nor quite what it refers to - is it £1m for welding? To provide new wheels? The whole overhaul?

    Going back to the post I referenced, the context of a £450k figure was attributed to "the WSR", so presumably that is a more reliable figure as to what it was felt at that time (December 2019) was needed too restore the loco. (Still a large sum, but not £1million, for which you could probably new build an entire 4F sized loco except for the boiler...)

    I'd also query, in the context of repairing / replacing the wheels, the comment about the work "being done at Tyseley" as if doing it in house was an alternative. I can't imagine that anyone thinks the £1m just for welding them up is remotely credible. If instead it was to provide replacements - how would you do that? You've got to provide a drawing; then have patterns made; forge the axles; cast the wheels; press the wheels onto the axles; order the tyres (from South Africa); fit the tyres. Pretty much all of that requires going to an outside loco works (not necessarily Tyseley). You might have someone skilled enough to do the drawing as a volunteer task, but after that it is all going to be off site: heritage railways just aren't set up to do large castings; forge axles, press wheels onto axles and so on. To order tyres, you buy them from South Africa and then pretty much have to go to the South Devon Railway to get them fitted to the wheel centres; pressing wheels onto axles probably means choosing between South Devon or Ian Riley etc etc. So realistically, there is very little scope for making significant savings by doing the work in house with volunteer staff; producing a set of wheels is going to be done at commercial rates. Obviously there are more possibilities with some of the other overhaul tasks, but the wheels seem to have been the show stopper: my reading is that had the wheels been OK, the other tasks outlined by @Aberdare were more along the lines of an intermediate overhaul and well within the capability of Minehead to have carried out in house.

    There are lots of places in this saga where it comes across as the PLC acting very poorly, but that isn't proof that inevitably they act in that way: in this case, it seems - taking the £450k figure - as being rather more credible, unless people are suggesting that the wheels were not in as poor condition as was stated, which I don't think anyone is suggesting.

    (As a general side, not specifically directed at the WSR, my experience is that just trying to "patch up" a loco to the minimum standard needed to get it running rarely proves a sound investment in the long term, though sometimes funds are such that it is the only possibility. That is related to my more general feeling that there are certain loco assembly / disassembly overhaul tasks that cost money regardless of what you do in between, with the result that you want to get the highest possible mileage between overhauls as possible to amortise those costs over as large an amount of productive traffic as possible).

    Tom
     
    ross, Bluenosejohn, ghost and 2 others like this.
  19. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,803
    Likes Received:
    7,442
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    >>>>As a matter of clarification; who are S&DRMT, please ?

    They were - not are - the S&DRT in their previous incarnation at Radstock as the S&DR Museum Trust.
     
  20. Piggy

    Piggy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2020
    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    327
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somerset
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Thank you.
     

Share This Page