Strathspey Railway

A couple of points, Shareholders only have clout, if they are part of a larger group, ie a supporting trust who own the majority of the shares in the operating company, and can if the need arises unseat people from the board who are not putting the railway first, or have overstepped the authority their position awards them,
Proxy votes, are often used where the chairman, is abusing the power their position gives them, all too often in the past we see unpopular chairmen, carry out unpopular decisions, mostly to do with retaining their power, and those around them, who happen to protect the chairman, by using proxy votes, often from people who are not active on the railway and at best have no knowledge except what the company magazine says, which of course can not be relied upon, to always be truthful
Its always about unsuitable people, using the rules, to protect their own power base, Proxy votes were never intended to be used by a sitting chairman, as a weapon to protect themselves, from , having to account for their actions, but to give absentee shareholders a say, but of course, people who have a view that they are inportant, rather than the railway, will resort to all kinds of tricks to ensure they carry on, welding power.

 

Regardless of all of the waffling about shareholders and company law, if you have no volunteers you have no railway , simple as that. Therefore the volunteers have the biggest clout despite who holds most shares.

 

I gather there are a couple of more articles in the Strasphey Herald, one a response from management about allegations and one about an enormous financial hit due to FS incident, unfortunately I dont seem to be able to access them.

 

Search for the headline on the SH website and you can usually find a website that's not behind a paywall.

https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk...eritage-railway-will-be-hit-hard-by-f-330394/

I can't get on the other one though.

 

https://www.strathspey-herald.co.uk...pany-chiefs-respond-to-allegations-of-330393/

The above link worked for me

 

I get an invitation to subscribe. If the "company chiefs" believe they are in the right, it wouldn't hurt for them to tell their side of the story here.

 

From behind the log in wall, here are three articles from the past two days.

UPDATE: Strathspey Railway Company chiefs respond to allegations of bullying and harassment
The board of the Strathspey Railway Company Limited has provided a lengthy response to allegations made by some of the company’s employees and volunteers.

The Strathspey Railway Company (SRC) is a 'not for profit' company set up in 1971 to own and operate a heritage railway between Aviemore and Grantown-on-Spey.

Currently it runs a seasonal service between Aviemore and Broomhill using a combination of paid staff and volunteers.

The SRC currently has 318 Shareholders including the Strathspey Railway Association (SRA) which owns 44 per cent of the share capital.

The Strathspey Railway Association (SRA) was formed in 1972 and is now a charitable company for supporters of the Strathspey Railway providing grants and loans to it and associated entities.

It also owns a significant shareholding in the SRC. It currently has approximately 840 members and is run by a board of trustees.

The SRC board first became aware of concerns being expressed about their management of the Railway shortly before the company’s AGM on 9 September.

They were advised that a petition was being circulated amongst paid staff and active volunteers which contained a number of general and unsubstantiated allegations, an expression of no confidence in the board and a demand that they resign immediately to allow a new board to be appointed to run the company.


Flying Scotsman accident will hit heritage railway's finances hard

The accident involving the Flying Scotsman on its visit to the strath will cost the operators of the heritage railway a six-figure in loss of income, the company has said.

The world famous locomotive was just half-way through its schedule of trips on the Strathspey steam railway line when it was involved in the coupling collision in Aviemore on September 29.

Two people had to be taken to Inverness' Raigmore Hospital following the incident.

The Strathspey Railway Company has said there has been a 'worrying deterioration' in the cash flow projection because of the accident which is currently being investigated by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch.

The SRC spokesman said: "There has been a loss of income as a result of the Flying Scotsman incident and subsequent cancellations amounting to a six figure loss in refunds to passengers.

"What should have been the best year ever for the Strathspey Railway family has turned into one of the worst with allegations circulating throughout the railway regarding discipline and financial mismanagement."

The Strathspey Railway Company has said it will be operating its scheduled services as normal tomorrow (Saturday) but there is no information regarding Sunday's operations. The latest timetable information can be found here.

The RAIB launched its investigation earlier this week and said it will be examining a number of key areas into the accident which occurred at around 6.05pm on the heritage steam railway line at its Aviemore station.

The world famous steam locomotive collided with a set of stationary passenger coaches at a speed of around 7mph (11 km/h).

Claims that Strathspey steam railway's future could be at risk if no resolution found

Staff and volunteers who have walked out at the Strathspey steam railway have claimed that the popular attraction's future is in jeopardy unless there is change at the top.

They believe that it will not be possible for the company to run a sustainable service in the longer-term because of key staff shortages – including drivers, firemen and guards – after a walk-out by those deeply unhappy with the running of the operation.

Long-time railway worker Mike Gale, of Aviemore, said: "We are really not happy with the board and there has been bullying and harassment going on.

On the meeting on Tuesday evening, Mr Gale said: "The railway is failing and unless the board can be replaced with a new team then it will be the death of the Strathspey steam railway.

 

I would have thought the railway would have loss of income insurance cover so possibly some of that revenue could be claimed from their insurers

 

I expected that article to go on to tell the board's side of the story, but it stops there. They assert that the allegations are "unsubstantiated" but they don't actually deny them.

 

Much depends on the conditions. But reading the press account, the issues predate FS and suggest that collision was at most the final straw.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That wouldn't be relevant for a loss of income claim, it would just depend on any exclusions written into the policy. If it includes an exclusion for employee negligence then they are stuffed

 

Agreed; my comment about FS was about the tensions within the organisation.

 

If you have told the captain who refuses to listen or alter course, how does taking no further action help save the ship ?

I presume you have read the accounts for another line who have a dictator running the show ? In debt up to the eyeballs and losing £200k a year while running fewer trains.

 

Which particular "another line" are you referring to?

 

I'm not sure, but given @Snifter's background, I suspect it follows the south shore of the Bristol Channel for a while.

 

You may think so, I couldn't possibly comment.


No answer yet on how doing nothing can steer a ship away from the iceberg.

 

The question that really needs answering is why, if a walkout by the crew achieved its intended effect of removing the officers from the bridge, a ship no longer under command would be more likely to stay afloat? Replacing the officers would take at least three weeks, almost certainly longer. In the meantime huge damage has been done to the reputation and credibility of the Strathspey not to mention the financial consequences. At a time when, sadly, the attention of the regulators is focussed on management of the railway creating a leadership vacuum is crazy. Heritage railways generally are navigating an icefield. The halcyon days of cruising along generating a surplus from running trains are over. Finding volunteer directors and trustees is hard enough when the going' s good. It's incredibly difficult when what may well be needed to survive are tough unpopular decisions which may sometimes upset loyal supporters.
Continuing the analogy I suggest the publicised walk out is the equivalent of opening the ship's seacocks. Sure it would ring alarm bells on the bridge but the ship could well sink before it hits the iceberg. What's really bizarrre is that those who seem to believe they are saving the ship could end up drowning alongside those on the bridge.

 

If the hard pressed staff and volunteers feel that the management is not listening, other than walk away, what other avenue is there? clearly @Lineisclear backs the management in all cases, even when they clearly are making mistakes, are there not always to sides to every story? but clearly i would not think a volunteer would do something as drastic as to strike, unless there was no other option, it has to remembered every one is human, we make mistakes, but some will compound those mistakes, especially if they are not willing to accept they might have made mistakes

 

This reply smacks of "put up and shut up, children, do what the grownups tell you". If the dissatisfied cadre at the Strathspey are truly facing attitudes like that I don't hold out a great deal of hope for it. If it does fold, though, who will get the blame, the Directors or the workers? I would have thought the Directors should be trying their utmost to resolve the issues, if only to save their own reputations as their names will be on the papers in any closure proceedings. I very much doubt if the volunteers will end up losing their reputations.

 

It seemed to me from the Company's response that it accepts that mistakes have been made and that it intends to address them. Of course there's a difference between not listening and not agreeing.
As a previous post pointed out insisting that volunteers do things in a particular way may be seen by some as micromanagement or even bullying. Unfortunately in a highly regulated environment there may be no option. It may be unpopular which means those in charge should do their best to listen to concerns and justify their decisions. However, at the end of the day if volunteers can't accept the situation they may have to walk away. What to me is unacceptable is to do so publicly in a way that damages the railway. As martin 1656 suggests we all make mistakes. Those behind the sack the board now campaign appear to have done just that.