West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I think the WSRA board have provided a much more positive response to the Bailey Report than the WSSRT have done via Chis Austen's response on Steve Edge's site.

There is nothing unusual in this - after all Steve Williams of the WSSRT is now a WSR PLC board member, and although John Bailey heaped praise on the WSSRT, he just didn't get the picture. The WSSRT will go along with a re-organisation, so long as they remain independent and are not subsumed within the Bailey proposed new set up. That is fine; they have a smallish membership, and have museums at 2 stations, and peripheral activities to the WSR PLC; I've always liked their museum at Bishops Lydeard.

The fundamental problem not noticed by John Bailey is the substantial minority shareholding that the WSSRT has in the WSR PLC.

The only way the Bailey Report will work is if the WSSRT essentially gives up it's shareholding in the WSR PLC to a new charitable organisation as proposed by Bailey - as the WSRA is considering. I can't see this in Chris Austen's most recent statement on behalf of the WSSRT.

When the situation is as dire as the WSR faces currently, compromises need to be made. The WSRA have suggested compromises. I have so far seen no evidence of the WSSRT being prepared to compromise for the greater good of the WSR, and if it is not careful it is going to be under the glare of a spotlight of critical publicity pretty soon, and all of their own making and stupidity.

Cheers,

Julian

 

The problem with a NewWSRGroup is that it would start from absolute zero;
not just no shares in the plc, but also:
no members, & therefore no Committee/Board/Trustees
no money
no standing with other organisations
no record with external funders


As i've said before, mergers between charities are not uncommon.
It would give the museums a bigger pool of potential volunteers, it merges the shareholdings, & there would be cost savings, etc etc.

If the WSSRT are absolutely adamant about being 'independent', independent of whom?
Surely independence means just being a tenant of the plc, like the S&DRT are. No shared Directors, no large shareholding.

 

However, if the WSR were to reform itself to look more like the Bluebell, then the WSRA could remain the membership organisation and give up its charitable status, without which it operated for many years in the past, IIRC and the WSSRT could become the WSR's charitable arm. Posts 27480 and 27460 refer.

 

But what if the WSSRT doesn't want to do that either?
The WSSRT has largely remained "aloof" of all the internal WSR strife thus far but if it continues to sit on its hands now it could well get dragged in. Personally I agree with @jma1009 , the WSSRT does what it does well and it appears it wishes to continue to carry on doing that independently. Fine, carry on with that then, but give up the large shareholding it has in the Plc, as that is the anomoly. Otherwise, keep the shareholding,but become,either by merging or some other means, the main support body of the WSR. But I don't detect any enthusiasm from the WSSRT that it wants to do that either.
I also agree with Julian that the noises coming from the WSRA both personally from trustees here and official correspondence has been most encouraging. My own railway volunteering has suddenly leapt into life this weekend and I've been really quite busy, but I do still intend to submit a response to the petition@wsra.org.uk address when I have time, as I do actually feel like it would be listened to. Unless the tone of the Plc board changes, I'd have no such confidence in any information gathering exercise they conduct.

 

Nobody has to stipulate that the S&D MUST remain, but there is no reason why they cannot be granted a stay of execution so that the 'New' WSR can make a decision on the matter.

 

Some 4 months ago I suggested privately to a few on here that we all join up with membership of the WSSRT. It would not take much for a concerted effort of joining up with the WSSRT. It currently has a smallish membership, but significant power and influence due to it's significant minority shareholding in the WSR PLC.

They state they aren't interested in this and that, but it is a fact that certain key members of the WSSRT board have been members of the WSR PLC board, and one has recently rejoined. (Still no WSRA representation on the WSR PLC board). The WSSRT would otherwise seem to be a target of the WSR PLC board - having a museum or two at stations - same as the SDRT has at Washford. A few nice old coaches that are taking ages to restore. A model railway layout.

Arguably of far less significance than the SDRT at Washford! Which also owns S&D '88'. Yet the WSSRT has this significant minority shareholding in the WSR PLC!

 

Well that's interesting. Have you changed your opinion from 2 months ago when you said the following:

So it's ok to be negative towards the S&DRT but not the WSR plc? And in this specific case the allegations regarding unsafe practices being reported to the ORR have been flatly denied by the ORR itself.
If the railway is the sum of its parts then is the S&DRT not one of those parts? But yet you want to throw them out.

You don't see any reason why 53808 should move elsewhere but yet you say that "The S&DRT should just leave" - that would mean taking 53808 with them. You can't have it both ways.

Keith

 

There is a part in the Bailey report not widely picked up upon, which is that the operating company needs to be renewed as well, with the existing plc becoming essentially dormant and the operating licence transferring to the new wholly-owned NewOpCo.

Specifically (and it would require agreement from the plc shareholders - but they are at liberty to ask themselves whether they wish to be part of the problem or part of the solution) I would envisage that their shareholdings in the existing plc essentially cease to have any value. As compensation, the NewMemCo could offer benefits to individual shareholders (where they can still be traced) appropriate to the size of the shareholding: for example for most that might mean a 1 year membership of the NewMemSoc (which would have the benefit of starting that organisation off with a large membership, who would then hopefully continue in future years). Those larger individual shareholders who had long-term travel concessions from the plc might be given life membership of the new NewMemSoc in compensation. Somerset CC might specifically have the right to apoint one board member to NewMemSoc to represent their strategic interest in the railway, and in compensation for their existing ~2% shareholding in the existing plc. (Remember, it is NewMemSoc that controls strategy in this model - so that is the right place for SCC representation, not on the board of the NewOpCo which needs to be primarily executive in nature and therefore technically qualified to run a railway business).

I also think it is worth exploring whether the overall holding body should be a charity or not. I can see considerable advantages in a structure in which NewMemSoc is not a charity (but is the controlling body for NewOpCo); while there is a new arms-length support charity that is not a membership body.

Tom

 

All these "solutions" get ever more and more complicated. The essential truth is that the right people can make the most peculiar constitution work satisfactorily whilst the wrong people can render the perfect arrangement unworkable. I agree the WSR system seems potty but there are others which seem so also and internecine strife is not universal amongst these.

Get the personalities sorted out first and then tinker and fiddle with the constitution if it proves necessary. It may not be.

 

They are waiting for the decision of the Politburo first!

 

It's the West Somerset version of the Hong Kong solution - 'one railway, umpteen systems'

 

The late lamented 'Yorkshireman' used to argue something similar. What that argument misses is that the organisational structure has the ability to drive behaviour - for good or ill. Where the personalities are the problem, and the organisational structure creates the circumstances for them to pull apart, sorting the organisation is not a luxury but a pre-requisite. Whichever detailed structure is chosen - and there are various subtle differences to suit varying tastes - there will be two key benefits from doing this. The first is to end up with an organisational structure that works against people trying to pull apart, and makes it harder, not easier, to do so. The second lies in the process of change itself. By going through that process, and achieving consensus on the chosen structure, those involved will become invested in the new organisation and motivated to make it work.

It's not a panacea, and will be hard work, so I'd not advocate it for a healthy organisation. But the WSR is not a healthy organisation, as has been evident to any observer for a long time. And sometimes, it is the time of crisis that creates the opportunity and will to make the changes that are necessary. It may seem like a distraction when everything's going off right now, but the alternative is to put it off to another day, leaving the same structural rifts in place that have helped allow the current position to come about.

 

As already discussed there are alternatives that work elsewhere. The problem with a Charity separate from the Opco is that it can only use its tax efficient fund raising ability to fund things that are within its limited public benefit charitable objects. That's precisely the point that the Sand D Trust correctly made in response to suggestions it might contribute to the railway's coffers in time of need. Where it is used it can can sometimes cause bemusement amongst the railway's supporters that the Charity is unable to help with, for instance, shortfalls in operating income. It also risks fundraising driving spending priorities when ideally it should be the other way round.
The frequently repeated misunderstanding, whether in relation to the Charities or the County Council, is that appointment of "representatives" on a Board means the appointees can act as delegates of the appointing entity i.e they are expected to vote in accordance with the appointing organisations' wishes or instructions. That is legally not the case. A Director's duty is exclusively to the company of which he or she is a director. They must exercise their independent judgement as directors and not be subject to external direction or control.

 

Would this not depend on how the charitable objectives are written? The Dumbleton Hall locomotive charity had a (somewhat surprising) clause in it's objectives that allowed it to operate a railway, which meant the charity was able to be used to create the South Devon Railway. I believe the Swanage Railway Trust loans the Swanage Railway plc a substantial amount of money each winter to cover the off season. If the charitable objectives were written carefully I think the new WSR charity could support most things.

Keith

 

Is there hope for the WSR in the future? Time - quite short - will tell.
There are many who have been involved with the line in various ways, just working hard as a volunteer, or in administration one of the many WSR cogs. The main problem is - and has been for some while - that the cogs are not ideally meshed.
The emphasis seems to have been on 'running trains' rather than the parallel action of filling them with paying travellers. It must have been obvious to a great many people involved with the line that passenger numbers were falling and maintenance becoming backlogged.
Were these factors pointed out to the various cog managements and ignored? Or were they simply not seen as everything in the garden appeared to be wonderful? Maybe that was because the various cog rulers told them it was.
There needs to be a total re-appraisal of cog managements, it seems that many mistakes and ill judged decisions of the past seem have been made and to coin a hackneyed phrase 'lessons should be learned', but the question is have they been learned?
We all know that the aspirations and directions of the line in the 21st. century are far different that that of the past. No more playing trains: a business has to be run! Old guards and ideas need to step aside for new thinking, sadly those with the right attitudes and acumen may not find it easy to achieve.
People like Faol and the late Yorkshireman had their fingers on the pulse and along with others made constructive comments concerning their loved line. Have they been replaced by 'yes men'?

 

With regard to directorships, the reality though is that the appointment of directors by major shareholders is something that does happen and is a reasonable way for that organisation to exercise influence over the organisation they're invested in.

 

I think Paul was being pragmatic. I think it is a majority view that the structure has created many problems. However at a time when the West Somerset is fighting for its existence I think that on balance changes to the structure should not distract from that fight.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

 

Hmmm, I'm not so sure given previous posts. And my view remains that matters are so serious that the only time is now.

 

Tom, I agree in general: the details of such reorganisations of course have to recognise
inter alia the availability of human talent, what are entrenched positions and
above all what the final objective is. As I am sure you are very aware merely circumcising
the perceived wrongs is never enough.

As a matter of note before I had seen the Bailey report ( indeed I was not aware of
it's existence ie I thought it was simply limited in scope to the S&DTrust/Plc
issue) I suggested an outline approach ( Post No.26525 June 24 ). Nothing
seems to have emerged that would change my then views.

I also more than ever subscribe to the intent of the last sentence of that post ie the
priority is for the WSR to emerge intact at April 2021. Nothing should be put in place
that might divert concentration on that one issue.

Michael Rowe

 

The question is not " have lessons been learned" BUT "have they been applied" ? The 2nd phrase is the most important IMHO as this is rarely noted - or enacted !