West Somerset Railway General Discussion

The question for me isn't about whether the overarching body is a charity or not; it is whether it is a member-led democracy or not. If you take @Lineisclear 's many comments on this forum about charities at face value, it seems to me that his view is that charities are ultimately accountable to the Charity Commission, and therefore a member-led desire to move in a direction that the trustees do not feel meet that criterion are to be resisted. Personally, I think he tends to make a mistake by not recognising the importance of the members (and volunteers) feeling empowered being an integral part of an organisation's success - but allowing for that, it is clear that simply having a charity as the lead organisation is no guarantee of democracy; and it is democracy that is important.

More prosaically, I think the financial case for a charity takes a lot of careful modelling (and please "show your workings"). You have to look at how many passengers are likely to be able to pay gift aid against those who don't. If you rely to a large extent on coach party traffic, that is a big chunk of passengers not paying Gift Aid. There is also the issue that was discussed in the context of the NYMR about the number of days that can be run outside the scope of the Gift Aid fares arrangement, which might put restrictions on the number of special event days you can run each year - which is also a significant consideration for a railway that has traditionally run several large galas per year as a key part of its attraction. So you can't just look at the annual fare income, add 20% and start planning massive investments in catching up with a maintenance backlog.

I am absolutely in favour of a structural realignment that gives unambiguous primacy to a member-led body. But that doesn't have to be a charity; and it is possible to imagine a charity model that gives the worst of all worlds - no democracy, and lower than expected financial benefit.

As an aside - it is worth noting that on the Bluebell, the charity in the structure is arms length: it is not the primary body, nor is it the democratic body. Yet without being boastful, I think most would probably agree that over many years, it has been one of the most consistently successful railway charities at fundraising. Which suggests to me that it isn't a requirement of successful fundraising to have the charity at the top of the organisation. Success begets success: the key factor that would help the WSR unlock significant donations from grant-awarding bodies would be a previous track record of effective spending of previous grants.

Tom

 

I agree with the analysis (especially regarding fundraising), but not necessarily the premise.

I don't regard success as being necessarily tied to either charitable status or member democracy. Both are highly desirable, and contribute to long run sustainability, but neither are essential to success.

What is interesting, in differing ways, is the reaction of supporters to changes (proposed or actual) that have had the effect of centralising power. At Bluebell, a deeply embedded culture saw a change of leadership and, judging by the limited comments that have emerged in the public domain, reinvigoration of volunteer culture and morale - and also financial results.

By contrast, discussions of other railways have seen a correlation between weak performance, active member discontent, and centralising tendencies. Opinions will vary as to cause and effect, but a common feature is that the proposed changes have had limited support from the wider memberships, and relationships have deteriorated thereafter.

What intrigues me is why intelligent people have placed so little value on the most committed supporters, and their willingness and ability to contribute to the causes that they value so highly - and demonstrate this by their determination to drive change regardless of others' feelings.

 

A good analysis IMHO Having a charity as the controlling body doesn’t necessarily work, especially if you put it above all else. Just look at the mess the NYMR is currently in.

 

They have agreed to pay, payments are still to be made.

 

Better then them trying to weasel out of paying.

They knew they had to pay and haven't set aside that amount is another failure of the railway management.

It's not like they didn't know it was coming.

 

Sorry, I'm not a member of the HRA so I don't get their propaganda. I'd be rather surprised if several readers weren't disappointed at your rather arrogant assumption.
Ah well.. Silly me, expecting the WSR communication department to publicise things, draw our attention to it now rather than waiting for the last minute when people could have already made other plans. This early notice may even encourage more non enthusiasts to make plans to come and see. They just seem content to let everyone else to do it for them. Perhaps they should let the gala committee take over communications - they seem to knew what they are doing.

 

There's bee na thread about it on Nat Pres since 2021 although only recently has it started to get much comment. It's been in the railway press for ages. I suspect it's not on the WSR website becasue it is next year. Most railways don't publicise that far in advance. As a matter of interest, I went on the Bluebell and Severn Valley website to see what they are doing. If there's anything there, I can't find it. Same with the NYMR. Are you going to post a similar comment on the these railway's threads to the one you've posted on here or is it simply you having a pop at the WSR, as usual?

 

You're not, but someone, probably many someones, on every heritage railway do, including the WSR.

 

I’ve followed quite a bit about the recent accounts on here (Companies House stuff) in regards to the WSR PLC, and have had a keen interest in all this since I joined the SDRT at the end of February 2020 following the Notice to Quit over Washford etc.

SDRT members are awaiting official confirmation of the agreement with the WSR PLC.

And confirmation that what is in the recent WSR PLC accounts is exactly as reported to Companies House.

I would specifically be looking at how a debt in the WSR PLC accounts (previously a “provision”) as to the run and repair agreement that was to end in 2030, but with the financial and legal agreement terminated can be enforced year by year on the payments apparently specifically now agreed.

I would expect that any default on the annual payments at any time would be enforceable and actionable through the civil court and by insolvency proceedings.

It is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. The “cuckoo in the nest” has the upper hand, ultimately, that many of us predicted over 4 years ago. Have a look at the WSR PLC Company Accounts for 2019 and how the “provision” for 53808 was written down and that of the LMS 4F.

When I look back over the last 4 plus years with close interaction with then SDRT chairman Ian Young I am reminded that all this mess was predicted.

 

So do you think the current arrangement is therefore worse than the previous one? Which was to have an overhaul to an undefined standard taking place at some distant point in the future? That didn't sound very enforceable either.

There are a number of plausible ways in which the old contract could have played out. One is that the WSR could have started work on the loco, offered regular updates, done all the work to an absolutely "above and beyond" standard, got it all done by 2030, giving a loco that was a credit to all involved with the prospect of ten trouble-free years - and then handed it over to be used somewhere other than Somerset. Frankly that sounds unlikely, but I think is what many on here seemed to be assuming was the inevitable outcome of the old contract.

A second possibility would have been that in the run up to 2030, they did a "quick and dirty" job, doing the minimum possible to ensure the loco was operational, but probably clanking and wheezing into a period of unreliable operation while the new host had to spend time and money getting things running properly. That would seem more probable.

Or they could have run the clock down towards 2030 and then negotiated a time extension that the S&DRT would have had not much option other than to agree. That is I suspect the most likely scenario.

By contrast, the current arrangement gets the S&DRT some money to spend, and puts them in control of how to spend it to get their loco back into traffic, and to a standard that they are happy with. Whenever you restore a loco, there are always grey areas where you have to decide "should we make do and mend and hope it lasts another few years, or should we do it properly and gets years more life?" The old arrangement would have loaded those decisions heavily towards the WSR who had little interest in producing a long-term reliable loco. The current arrangement puts those decisions in the hands of the loco's owners, who are likely to have a different perception.

For me, you have to accept that the S&DRT Trustees - who have a legal duty to act in the best interest of their charity - feel that the current deal is the best on offer. Yes, it comes with risks that in the future the WSR can't pay its regular instalments - but in that scenario, it's hardly likely the loco would have been overhauled either. As it is, they have swapped a somewhat uncertain future overhaul to an uncertain timescale and an uncertain quality for a pot of money and control over their own future. I think the likelihood that the loco is seen in operation in the comparatively near future and to a high standard has been enhanced, not decreased, by this deal.

Tom

 

I agree, but for two points:
1. From an S&DRT perspective, this settlement has come at the end of nearly 5 years of grief, and seen the unwanted (by the S&DRT) forced movement of their collection
2. Viewed through a WSR plc shareholder lens, the settlement has crystallised and made enforceable a liability that was due in contract and honour, while undermining confidence in the good faith of WSR plc.

They can be summed up as "this whole situation was unnecessary".

Given the loss of trust and the weak state of WSR plc's finances, this matter will not be closed until the final cash payment is made, and will remain a stain upon WSR plc and its leadership at the time for much longer.

The S&DRT leadership deserve massive credit for their achievements in response, and especially for the dignified way in which they've done so despite immense provocation.

 

A telling observation.

The WSR plc recently held a consultation with representatives of the local councils along the route to talk about the proposed Bishops Lydeard to Taunton public service.

A Councillor who attended is a personal friend, although I doubt the WSR know that as our association has nothing to do with the Railway. I comment with his permission.

He described the ‘consultation’ as (I quote) ‘a complete waste of time, with no substance or semblance of a business plan apparently designed to promise jam tomorrow as a fig leaf to cover the present dire situation’. He had some things to say about the WSR plc Directors presenting at the meeting but I believe to quote him on that would breach Nat Pres rules.

He has reported in similar terms to his parish council, some way along the WSR from Bishops Lydeard.

If the WSR plc object is to win local hearts and minds, it isn’t working.

 

I’m not disputing it is a messy situation, but just noting that from a starting position of “where we are now” this is a probably as good a deal as available for the S&DRT, in my opinion.

I would also probably go further than many seem to want to go in terms of an alternative reality in which none of this happened. In that scenario, I think it highly likely that a cash-strapped WSR would have played for time (my third option above) and not commenced an overhaul in time for the loco to be running by 2030. So to those who think the current staged payments are risky from the S&DRT perspective, I’d suggest no more risky than the original contract, if the desired outcome is “we want to see our locomotive operational in a reasonable timescale”.

Tom

 

I agree with Tom. The S&DRT have done well to make the best of a bad position they have been placed in through no fault of their own.

53808 was very much loved by the whole WSR community and under different management, would undoubtedly have acted as a project to bring everyone together in difficult times.

Now it just serves as another, highly visible symbol of mismanagement.

 

I remain un convinced that the WSR will be able to afford to pay the instalments, and that the S&DMT can't rely on those payments to be made, ideally it should try to match each payment from its membership base, and with help from the MHR, ensure that it can progress with the planned overhaul, Im not saying that the WSR intend to not pay, but that it might find that it can't

 

No preserved railway has that kind of money to put into an account and left there not spent whilst other works need doing.

Few commercial operations work on that basis either.

It is wholly unrealistic to expect the WSR,to differ.

 

In my opinion that’s a reasonable analysis and probably the best outcome for the S&DRT. If you want to look at the likely scenario otherwise, just look at Hartland on the NYMR, which was/is under a similar run and repair agreement.

 

From S&DRT, I completely agree. For WSR, my views stand - their position is weakening.

 

Can you then explain how hire fees are transacted ? I presume that the chairman has been paid for the use of his locos and bus fleet, but please feel free to correct me. If the deal is to run and repair then setting aside the funds for the consequences would seem to be a sensible move. If you can't afford it then don't enter into the deal.