Discussion in 'Heritage Railways & Centres in the UK' started by Andy Norman, Feb 24, 2020.
Would that repaint have come from the S&D Trust coffers previously? Or WSR?
To do so isn't quick or cheap though, nor is the outcome certain. It requires general meetings, legal fees (disproportionate for small charities), Charity Commission approval and time. The urgency with which the PLC claimed it needed money, and its rapid move to give Notice to Quit, would not have allowed it in this case. Ostensibly and legally, it wasn't the reason for the Notice to Quit in any case. It's a red herring.
I suspect you know all this
It's a bit of paint, that will help protect the asset, seeing as T̶o̶m̶ is so worried about the thousands required to keep Washford's 150 year old station going.
Another blinkered view from a WSR apologist ....... They simply refused to be cowed by an arrogant bully and he can now reap what he has sown.
Which bit of the narrative about the PLC seeming to want to have a purely GWR line with all vestiges of anything else away from the Railway did you miss? That would include 53808.
I would wait and see, about 53808 returning, It's owned by the Trust, not the WSR, A trust that's in effect been told by the board we don't want you, Someone's just trolling, If the WSR can't afford to pay a fair price for the remaining assets at Washford, can it afford the overhaul costs of an engine the owners of which, they have abused and bullied off the railway? this will be one for the Trusts legal team, in time, and i hope it hurts the PLC board in their pockets when they get told you are liable for the repair and overhaul costs,
I think that a few residents might be slightly miffed now to have a railway museum rocked up in their front garden!
I do agree that the partnership between the MHR and SDRT is a great fit and am looking forward to visiting them this year.
sadly there is a minority so blinkered that no amount of reasoned argument will make then change their opinion . Vaccines, Brexit , WSR board saintlyness . They will cling onto their views even when matters have gone so far against them . Best we can do is to ignore them
So for all the PLC Supporters
If Washford had not been leased to the S&DRT, could the site have been used for other purposes or leased to another organisation?
How likley is this option and what sort of rent or benefit would have been recieved?
What sort of rents do Heritage Railways tend to charge to groups using their land and how does the S&DRT's lease at Washford compare taking into account the location etc
I say this in a genuine spirit of enquiry, could you have got a better deal/use for the site?
Perhaps even their personal pockets rather than their corporate pocket?
Although I was a volunteer on the WSR for a few years, and, briefly, a WSRA trustee (as part of the successful plan to rid the railway of the last lot of trouble makers), I have absolutely no intention of resuming my interest in what is, in physical terms, one of the best heritage railways in the country, while the present chairman remains in charge. The way he has treated the S&D Trust over their use of the Washford site is, and will remain, totally unacceptable to me as a matter of principle. The excuse that the WSR needed the site for their own use was clearly just that, a baseless excuse because the Trust were unable to help the WSR financially.
I feel sorry for my many good friends who are still involved with the WSR, and for other friends who tried to change things and were thrown off the railway. Fortunately, having moved away from Somerset to Warwickshire, I have been able to offer my volunteering time to the GWSR,. which is a much happier place, not without the occasional difference of opinion, but resolved by discussion, not conflict. But its a former main line as flat as a pancake, and for much of its length it runs on rather unstable embankments, nowhere near as interesting in route terms as the WSR, a genuine GWR branch line.
Sent from my SM-T590 using Tapatalk
I know nobody from the WSR, volunteer, plc, association, trust. Nobody.
Also I have criticized plans in the past, like when they wanted to charge day rover ticket holders quite a supplement, like £20/25?, to have an evening trip behind 92134 on load 12 at the 2020 SSG.
Could we look at a few facts please.....
1. Washford station is not 150 years old, it is only about 147 1/2
2. There have been many occasions in the past (as spelt out here on NP) when the S&DRT, either as a body or simply some of its members as individuals, have 'come to the aid' of the WSR.
3. Yes, charities can change their Articles, but you can't do it overnight simply 'cos someone waves a begging bowl under their nose. Also I suspect that the S&DRT's Board would not wished to have done so without getting approval of the membership at a duly-convened General Meeting (which takes time to organise).
4. As regards colour schemes, IIRC there was a clause in the previous (2020 expiry) lease which required the Trust, if vacating the premises, to redecorate it in a colour scheme of the WSR's choosing. I wonder if that was included in the 2018 replacement lease?
I just hope 53808 doesn't spend years sat up a siding rotting if it does return to the WSR.
If i am totally honest, with you, I can't see 53808 returning to the WSR for overhaul, The trust are winding up their involvement with the WSR, and it makes no sence for the loco to return, Most likeliest option will be a settlement payment, if the WSR PLC sticks to the agreement, in leu of overhauling the loco, or breaking the agreement and refusing to honour it, in which case, the trust are free to come to any agreements , hopefully with the MHR, To come to some deal to overhaul, and base the engine on the MHR, and let the lawyers deal with the WSR plc, Hopefully hitting those who are personally responsible in their own pockets for the compensation damages and what ever else the enforced eviction cost the trust.
For someone who doesnt know anybody, or does not have an axe to grind, you come across as someone closely connected with those running the railway, ever taking their side, and refusing to see any merit in the Trust's arguments, are you sure your not, in reality, in Minehead, not darker deepest Wales?
Discussed several months ago! The premise was:
If it returns to the WSR as planned and the PLC expeditiously overhaul it, the PLC will have several years of unpaid use from when the overhaul is completed before the expiry of the loco agreement (reported to be in 2030). The Trust then has an asset part way through its ticket, without income in the bank for the use it's had.
If the PLC overhauls it but it takes some time, at the expiry of the loco agreement the Trust then has less of a hole. It's not straightforward, but a delay might be in the Trust's financial interest if it wants to move the loco from the WSR at the end of its running agreement.
(For completeness there are two other scenarios, that it doesn't go back to the WSR or that the two parties enter into further agreements.)
FWIW, it looks to me as if the MHR could almost originally have been engineered with the 7F in mind. A powerful loco which suits lower speeds very well. It seems a perfect fit for operating requirements.
Fair enough, but I have to ask, why do you continue to defend the indefensible regarding the current situation?
Why do you block people who have an opposing view point to yourself (and the current PLC board and its recent behaviour)?
I appreciate you don’t have to justify yourself to anybody on here, but it would be interesting to know why your so keen to defend a group of people who to put it mildly haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory.
The WSR is different how?
Separate names with a comma.