And do we represent any part of whatever remaining adjudication is needed to finalise a seriously unedifying chapter in heritage rail? All I'm seeing now are continual reruns of previous slanging matches. What does anyone suppose megaphone diplomacy is likely to achieve? Previous posts have made my own views pretty clear. The behaviour of branches of the WSR 'family' (not including volunteers) has been revealing and not in a good way. For the record, I actually agree with much which has been written, but the horrible truth is that if, given the number of times we've gone round the same loop, nothing has sunk in where it needs to, the only result is no-one associated with the decisions in question is listening (a matter for the membership), merely leaving every vaguely associated thread descending into the same endless bickering. To what end, precisely? Name me one single point resolved by regurgitating the same points over and again. The "gentlemens' agreements" of yore are stone dead. Ditto agreements taken from the "Ladybird Book of ProForma Contracts". We know that. In the eyes of many, possibly most, there's clear blame for a hideous situation. We know that. It's cost the S&DRT dearly in time and money. We know that. It's likely cost the WSR (certainly the board) even more dearly in terms of reputation and goodwill. We know that. If an equitable financial outcome isn't achieved (note, I don't say 'successful', as we were way past that some time ago), matters will end up in the hands of lawyers. We can be pretty damned certain of that too. The S&DRT is in the final throes of getting completely clear of the historic baggage associated with this sorry episode. I just wish we were too.