West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I think it is important to distinguish between legacies and what you might call "in year" giving. By their very nature, legacies are uncertain - you could put something in your will and it might be decades before they materialise. For the recipient charity, they are also something that can't be relied on as any kind of cashflow: even if you are aware that a wealthy "friend" [deliberately loose term, not implying any formal membership] of the railway intends to bequeath some money in his or her will, you have no idea when the money might arise. AIUI from reading Bluebell Railway Trust accounts, there is also an additional technical point that the accounts should recognise an amount for a legacy in the year in which it is reasonably certain as to its amount; but the actual payment (in terms of cold hard cash that can be spent) may still take time after that point by time the executors go through the whole process. In addition, the fact that the accounts have been qualified might cause someone drawing up a will today to take stock and consider their options, but their money likely won't arise for years to come. By contrast, the qualified nature of the accounts isn't likely to have any impact on distribution of a legacy of someone who died 6 months ago and is now having their estate wound up according to their will.

So legacies are important, but they can't represent any real part of future financial planning.

By contrast - and this is an area where the WSR has been historically weak - is fundraising from donors who are very much alive. That is hard work, but can result in in-year sums that can be used immediately. My feeling is that for many years, the WSR has under-performed in that arena.

I've been pondering that point about donations from grant-giving bodies, and I am less sure about some of the structural concerns expressed. In particular, while every grant-giving body will have its own criteria, I don't think there is an inherent block on a grant-giving charity donating money directly to a Plc. I'm sure in Bluebell terms that we have in the past had such awards for providing - for example - converting carriages for disabled access, and the grants have gone direct to the Plc (who will do the work), not to the Trust (which is a charity) to then redistribute to the Plc. Ultimately, the money needs to go to the body that will spend it.

I'm fully in agreement that one of the major structural issues on the WSR is that there is no supreme strategic body, but I'm less convinced that it inherently has to be a charity as a means of unlocking grants. Again, I'd hark back to the Bluebell which does not have a charity at its head. So to my mind, the structural issue at the WSR is more about "who sets strategy?" and less about "what sort of entity is that?"

All of that, however, disguises what to me is a more significant issue on the WSR around fundraising, which I'd characterise as a kind of "white knight" problem. By which I mean, for years of reading this thread and others, there seems to be a great emphasis placed on one or other external grant-giving bodies riding to the rescue, and nowhere near enough about empowering those committed to the railway - broadly the "members", however loosely you define that term - putting their hands in their own pockets. So we have heard loads after the last few years about Hinckley Point; and there have been other ideas around e.g. Heritage Lottery Fund - but it always has the feel of "if we could just get this one big grant that's out there, we could do lots of good". But I never get any sense of a real push to leverage the members; and the appeals that are made all seem to be somewhat desultory and with little push to keep them going and in the public eye. In other words, it feels as though the constant dream that somewhere out there is a charitable white knight is blinding the railway to the possibility that the keys to its financial salvation lie within its own membership. But that does mean treating that membership as an empowered body within the railway's structure.

Tom

 

In aviation there is a thing called 'Deferred Defects'. These are what you are allowed to fly with because there is no operational or safety concerns with that particular problem. Things like one of six toilets being out of service or some seatback screens not working. There can also be exceptions for some instrumentation or systems not working but these are very restricted, often time limited and recorded in maintenance logs for repair ASAP. Transferring this to railways is difficult because I doubt many railways have a serviceability log for every single item of rolling stock. Maybe there is a daily run check register but fault records and specific processes to clear those faults don't seem to be used. I stand to be corrected but this is one area I found to be severely lacking in heritage railways. Are faults and defects always recorded? In a specific register/log book for that item so everyone knows where to look to see what needs doing? Where faults are deferred is there a process to limit how long you can run before they must be fixed? Is all of the rolling stock subject to a complete annual inspection, like an MOT, that will find faults deep in the mechanicals that fitness to run checks would not see? Unfortunately I believe that many heritage railways, especially the smaller ones, do not have the facilities or the recording capabilities or staff awareness and simply continue to run from day to day just relying on a quick morning FTR inspection for the now and a deal with it if it breaks for the future. That's not the best way of showing your 'Duty of Care' compliance should anything unfortunate happen.

 

I've removed the rest of the post. My point about legacies was not meant to be only about legacies, but about how the ground is prepared for future donations - legacies being the key form of deferred donation (I have a number of residuary legatees in my will, but have no intention that any of them should benefit for several decades to come).

The confidence of potential givers is important; it is not that those donors should shape policy, but that the deterrent is a warning signal. @Maunsell907 rightly moved the conversation away from capital investors, but in doing so highlighted how hard it is to get capital.

That takes us into "white knight" territory. I mention HPC not because it's a white knight, but because there is a known impact from previous actions - part of which is the desultory approach you describe.

I contrast that with the Bluebell's campaigns over many years to reopen through Imberhorne. That saw careful nurturing of would be donors, large and small, anchored within a very effective fundraising team.

So, even accepting your views over structural matters, I retain my view that the "going concern" flag is a serious hindrance to WSR's chances of trading and fundraising its way out of the current position

 

Breaking News!!! New, cost saving executive transport arrangements accidentally revealed in background of publicity photograph....

 

Thanks for posting this as I had been meaning to post a similar reply all weekend to the original post from @JBTEvans.
I cannot believe either that all those "serviceable" coaches (because they have passed some FTR) are not carrying around many defects. These may be passenger accommodation defects, (cabin defects to you and me) or perhaps something like a wheel flat.
I am pretty sure I can travel on any train on any HR and find a number of defects of what maybe considered a minor nature, but they are defects nonetheless. For example about 6 years ago I encountered one of those droplights that fly back up when you lower it. I was getting off at Harmans Cross, leant out to open door and the window flew back up, I sort of saw it coming and it did not hit me under the chin, but it did smash into the bottom of my glasses, which for the rest of the time I had them were out of alignment sightly. Now I have experienced that elsewhere, but also droplights you cannot pull down at all or you need to be very strong to do so.
That is just one example, and I have no idea how or if these even get recorded, as who do you tell other than the guard, let alone get it fixed. I do know for example that on the mainline WCRC to have a defect log in the guards office as I have reported things when stewarding and seen entries made.
Of course like anything, defects need fixing, I know at the airline many cabin crew stop reporting defects as they thought engineering could not be bothered to fix them. A course I understand if you keep reporting the same faults on the same aircraft, especially with ovens and beverage makers, although the latter was never designed to be used as an ice breaker.
Of course even our main TOC's run stock with defects, took an early morning SWR 444 from Wareham to Woking once where the window was held together with black and yellow hazard tape. Must have come off the depot like that. Yes it was a defect, but the FTR equivalent had obviously been passed.

 

It probably shouldn't have left the depot like that! No train is going to be defect free, it just depends on the severity of them. Look at the amount of units that run around with a yellow sticker with a black cross in the cab window - it means do not couple this end. Some run around for weeks or months awaiting parts, if it's cab related it often means "boxing in" that end so it's not a driving end. Toilets locked out because there are no spare parts for them. Tables and arm rests missing. Information screens not working. The list is endless, but essentially so long as it's not safety critical then it's ok to run.

 

Providing it is only the outer glaze that has been shattered and the inner glaze is still intact, The window had most likely been stoned when the unit was still in service and would be dealt with at the depot when the unit had finished it's diagram.
This was quite a common occurrence even when I was a mainline guard and I have been retired for over ten years.

 

My copy of the Bluebell News arrived this morning and there is an interesting article about next year being the 200th anniversary of the opening of the Stockton and Darlington railway and what the national rail industry and, obviously, what the Bluebell are planning to celebrate 200 years of rail travel, what sort of events are planned and (of course) how to get more people to visit the railway because this could be a year long theme. Anyone of 'those in the know' at the WSR got any information about what's being planned there? Has anyone actually realised this national event is happening?

 

Glad to see the WSR have finally paid up, Re 53808.

Hopefully we can move on from this sorry saga.
But unfortunately the damage is done and the WSR is tarnished while certain people, now hold all the aces.

 

I'd be surprised if anyone in the movement wasn't aware of this . The HRA have certainly been pushing it for the last 12 months, if not longer.

 

I make it 4 events in the West Country, albeit the WSR will probably be the largest.

 

OK, so another question.

We have had a fair run round the advantages of a heritage railway being a charity.

Are there ANY advantages of it NOT being a charity?

Robin

 

Accountability?

 

I'm not sure whether that's an expression of cynicism or approbation!

More seriously, and coming from the "being a charity is good and worth pursuing at pace corner", I do think the question posed misses an important dimension - the impact of change.

 

Could you expand on that a little?

 

Well, if the WST was set up as advocated by @aslineisclear in his report - which is broadly similar to the structure of most other heritage railways the 'Directors' would be accountable to the membership in a way they are not at present.

 

However, that's not the only possible charitable model. For example the Trustees of the Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland Railways Trust, one of the most successful of all heritage railway organisations, are appointed in a non-democratic way and are not accountable to the general railway membership. Since democratic structures are clearly anathema to the WSR 'ruling class' one'd've thought they could've gone for a similar setup and reaped the benefits.