West Somerset Railway General Discussion

You mean like raising matters internally, over many years - and being ignored. I think that it has already been made clear that 'other ways' had been tried and seemingly got nowhere. That and the fact that a number of West Somerset supporters seem to prefer to condemn those who have lead to action being forced on the WSRplc rather than those whose refusal to listen previously (and thus avoid the present situation arising) can surely only add to the ORR's concern about culture on the West Somerset Railway.

Steven

 

I suppose that is the question. You’d have to ask the people that ‘dobbed in’ (my words) the WSR to the ORR, why they felt it was necessary to take such a step. Perhaps they’d just had enough of raising their concerns, trying to do something about it through official (internal) channels, but getting nowhere. Perhaps I am being overly charitable, but I struggle to accept that anybody would take this action lightly or deviously.

 

What he said! ^^


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

While not wanting to make any comment or draw any parallels with the current situation, I have found that sometimes the only way to get your concerns taken seriously is to go to 'the headmaster'.

 

And that is often a comment not on the person going to 'the Headmaster' but on those who wouldn't take the concerns seriously!

Steven

 

Sorry Steven I still think that it was the wrong way to go about it in view of the latest plc appointment as Chairman - not really giving him a chance is it?

 

So what doe suggest should have been done then Steven?

Fire the whole board?

 

Given the timing of the ORR visit, I suspect that most of not all had raised their concerns before the new Chairman was appointed - perhaps in some cases the final straw being the way Ian was unseated as Chairman.

My comment was more general - I don't think most of us have sufficient details of how and to whom the concerns had been raised to know who could be 'to blame' for failing to act on them. You also now seem to be mis-identifying 'the Headmaster' as the new WSRplc Chairman, whereas when the term was first used (I think actually by you!), it appeared to refer to ORR! They don't directly have the power to 'sack the Board'!

What should have been done - well, obviously, action taken on the concerns with being told to by 'the Headmaster (ORR)! Simples!

Steven

 

My suspicion - and it is nothing more than that - is that the ORR was called in purely because of the boardroom power struggle which resulted in the change of chairman.

Now, I am sure that Peter and the other people concerned (who will no doubt be reading this even though they are being much quieter than usual) will say that, nevertheless, they had genuine serious concerns about infrastructure and recordkeeping that needed to be addressed. To that my reply is: yes, I agree that these things need to be addressed. What has changed, though, in the past six months? Has the company suddenly lost a pile of staff records? Has the infrastructure suddenly become less well-maintained? I doubt it. The only inference I can draw is that one faction decided to take this last resort *at that point in time* because they had lost that particular political struggle, and not because the railway was in any greater need of inspection or censure than previously.

 

Dare I suggest that is a very dangerous, and controversial, view to take.

The ORR have clearly found things that must be improved or the 'hiatus' in out of season operations would not be felt to be needed by the WSRplc Board. If the ORR had considered the concerns raised with them vexatious, then this wouldn't have happened.

It a pretty serious allegation you have made - perhaps to provoke a reaction?

I repeat that the image projected of the West Somerset Railway is not helped by a focus on projecting this issue as 'all part of the politics' when clearly real problems have been found - and indeed, depending on what exactly they are, may well have been in part identified publicly by the previous 2 WSRplc Chairmen going back over around a year now - but for some reason, not only did they not achieve action but soon ceased to be the Chairman after raising the concerns.....

Steven

 

Didnt @Robin Moira White say that she had some issues over the state of the infrastructure on this thread a while ago?

For the avoidance of doubt, I am simply remembering a post she made, nothing else

 

Boy, am I glad the “Headmaster” has been called in!


I have been watching this thread for the last few months with growing exasperation. There is a wonderful railway to nurture and grow and all we see is bickering, “musical chairs”, and a growing realisation that WSR management in general cannot be trusted to sort out the mess. Heads need banging together. I am not interested in egos or who said what to whom, I just want to see the wonderful WSR thriving and everyone pulling together. I will miss the SSG but that is a small price to pay for the WSR to get their act together!!!

 

There was an issue with a length of track at Stogumber Station near the foot crossing. That was resolved very quickly.

There are currently concerns at Black Monkey Bridge between Blue Anchor and Washford with a 20 mph speed restriction in place.

Stef.

 

The classic argument against whistle blowing. Everything depends on the objective facts and circumstances of the case. But presumably the purpose of the ORR visit was to see for themselves. The regulator did his job and the railway has responded. Not ideal perhaps, but in a way the system has worked so far in the situation faced.

I am reading across from other non-railway situations I have known and sometimes the thing that is most desperately needed is a bit of breathing space.

 

Shooting the messenger is rarely a wise policy - regardless of how the ORR were alerted, the fact that they then felt it necessary to investigate further suggests that they saw a serious issue and, ergo, that the initial complaint was not vexatious.

The recent issue with carriage maintenance on the South Devon Railway should be enough of a reminder that effective management of safety-critical processes is fundamental to the operation of heritage railways.

Having got to the position they are in now, the critical thing is how the railway reacts to the issues facing them. The fact that they are continuing to operate the Santa Service - no doubt of high importance in revenue terms - suggests to me that the ORR are happy that whatever risks have been identified can be adequately controlled in the short term.

Tom

 

I'm not at all trying to provoke any sort of reaction.

It is undoubtedly a good thing that the ORR were called in, given that they have found a number of issues which are being addressed. If you read RAIB reports you will quickly notice that most if not all of those about incidents in the heritage sector refer to failings in "paperwork" as a contributory cause, so it is undeniably a good thing that the WSR is addressing this and other areas as a result of inspection, not anything else.

I most certainly did not accuse those who called in the ORR of making a vexatious complaint.

However, I would say that firstly we do not, as outsiders, know if the issues the ORR discovered are specific things that whistleblowers told them about. If they are, though, then why was the whistle not blown as soon as an issue was apparent?

 

Whistleblowing is a major undertaking, and most people will be reluctant to do so unless they have been through “normal processes” beforehand - indeed, it is often the failure of those processes that leads to an act of whistle blowing. Private Eye has over the years carried many sorry stories where whistleblowers have been persecuted for their integrity.

Reading between the lines of what has been said on here, my suspicion is that it is the failure of such normal processes that has led to the act of whistle blowing. While it is tempting to link them to the boardroom politics of a few months ago, my suspicion is that if the politics were involved, they were final straw rather than cause.

I am with those who welcome the positive response from the plc to the recent ORR visit, and wish them the very best with the actions they need to undertake.

I hope and pray that one outcome of this is that west Somerset loses its reputation for preservation politics.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Working together.

WSR MK1 SK delivered to K&ESR Wittersham Road station this morning on hire for the Santa Season.

Photo: David Hazeldine.

 

Deep intake of breath. - lengthy pause - count to ten....

Today's West Somerset Free Press carries a short piece that includes the previously issued quotes from
the new Plc Chairman and the following " Asked for details of the work needed after the safety inspection
an ORR spokesperson told the Free Press that the information passed to the Railway was confidential
and would not be made public" end quote.

I suggest.

1) No improvement notice was issued.( the fact the Railway is not only still operating, but the pre. Christmas
services including various Santa events, Carol Services etc and the regular service between Christmas and
the New Year are still happening supports this view.)

2) AFAIK there are no additional PSRs in place post the Inspection,

3) The Railway has in recent years closed for a similarly lengthy period to that proposed whilst
maintenance/repairs took place (the SSG was held late in April. It clashed, as I remember, with
events on other Heritage Railways and with preparations for the upcoming WSR summer services.

4) The half term service is a recent addition to the WSR calendar (6 years I think ?)

5) The grapevine suggests the new Board were considering a lengthy closure ahead of the
ORR visit. I assume the visit cemented such ideas.

6) Purely personal thoughts: the infrastructure is run down ( the new Chair has already
flagged up the need to spend c. £500K pa. Similar statements have been enunciated by
PLC Boards over the last decade. I remember " we will relay a mile of track each year")
The reality is funds have not been forthcoming (and/or overheads have increased
faster than revenue.) The infrastructure is I believe, not to-day the concern, rather
that it will be if money is not spent.

7) The Free Press rightly includes a key part of the Chairman's statement "It is also
clear that from a commercial point of view, that we need to refocus our operation
and business processes. We have already begun discussions on the way forward.
Changes are needed in several fields and the Board are committed to undertake
this in the most sensitive and constructive way possible" end quote

I suggest that if fundamental changes are envisaged then better not to be
running a Public Service.

I was dissapointed to read on a posting here " perhaps the final straw being the
way Ian was unseated as Chairman". Perhaps we should ask, recognising
that Mr Coleby was appointed Vice Chair during Mr Irven's period in the
Chair, why had he not ensured that procedures on the Railway were
updated.

The reprehensible actions towards Messrs Courtney and Greenway and the
bad publicity they engendered cannot have helped.

The three months pause offers the PLC the chance to refocus, audit and amend/
implement appropriate policies and institute programmes to ensure they are
subsequently updated. As a corollary to ensure when (according to the Chair's
statement) the ORR revisit in March it is a beneficial visit to both parties.

Michael Rowe

 

Absolutely spot on Colin. Heads not only need to be banged together but at least one needs to roll. I can

Well said. Whilst I welcome the ORR inspection and the response it is very disappointing that both the ORR and the WSR PLC have played the”confidentiality” card. Given that we are talking about public safety I can see no good reason for this. I feel a FOI request to the ORR cannot be be long delayed. Watch this space.