West Somerset Railway General Discussion

That’s why I highlighted the material interest the S&D Trust had in the continuation of the SVR, something it then shared with the WSRA . To describe the WSRA as a general railway support charity is stretching its charitable purposes to include the desirable which the Commission explains should not happen. Its purposes are specifically restricted to public education through the preservation of “things”on the railway so general support beyond that would be improper.

 

Whits the S&DRT might not have been a specific WSR support organisation, over the years it certainly provided a great deal of 'support' to the railway in terms of maintaining one of its stations, attracting visitors to the line, providing manpower etc assistance in times of need etc. Many S&DRT members (myself included) gave their time and effort to both bodies. A search back thru' this thread will find examples quoted where S&DRT volunteers provided emergency assistance to the WSR.

 

I agree with much of the above. I am no longer privilege to the WSR PLC’s day to day financial position
( and at85 years old do not wish to be, a weekly day in the information office suffices ) however I am
mindful that the Plc cash position has been eroding over the last three years ( published 2024/25 year
end accounts show cash barely covering three months staffing costs ). I obviously do not know the
outcome of the 2025/26 year end (I hope for the best )

“Cash is King”. Whatever the 2025/26 result I am sure the Plc management would welcome some
relief from these cash pressures. I surmise that this may be why the PLC GM has launched this
appeal. There is no time perhaps to navigate the labyrinth of Charity Law let alone the sometimes
differing priorities of the support organisations and the Plc
‘
Perhaps we should support the appeal rather than speculating concerning alternative strategies.
“If I was going to Minehead I would not start from here.”

Michael Rowe

 

That may be, but for some potential donors, the route to here will be part of the assessment of how the donation may be used. Without wishing to open up past debates, decisions were taken not to explore those routes and the echoes remain. Gift Aid, grant eligibility and general human reactions to giving to a company all play their part - one of my instinctive reactions to this sign of under-capitalisation was to ask why more shares aren't being sold (quickly answered by "because it's a very expensive way for small companies to get capital").

 

The post that triggered the latest debate was essentially "Why no mention of Gift Aid?" The simple answer is that the company that owns and operates the railway isn't a charity so can't reclaim it. That raised to question of whether the two charities could do so which inevitably leads into the question of what funding requirements of the company they can legitimately assist with? However the core issue is one facing many other heritage railways. The assumption that a largely volunteer run and operated railway can attract sufficient income from the visiting public to cover costs and generate a surplus to fund essential capital expenditure no longer holds true in many cases. That is going to require significant capital injections from whatever source, including traditional appeals. Michael is absolutely right. The laser like focus has to be on getting the money in.

 

A largely volunteer organisation is much more likely to cover its costs than one employing a large number of staff.

 

Absolutely, which is why I'd be trying quite hard to figure out how to negotiate the "laberynth of charity law" as Michael puts it (I've never found it that hard personally). Not only for the extra gift aid, but also the increased security to potential donors that might attract more donations.

Sent from my PGT-N19 using Tapatalk

 

I completely agree. But (and this is only slightly related to the WSR), the success of such appeals will depend heavily upon the credibility of the organisation’s leadership. Trust in the ability of that leadership to a) use the funds well and b) not need further cash injections is essential to prospective donors’ willingness to give.

Edit. One reason the question arose was a sense that income needs to be maximised. An organisation that can’t claim Gift Aid at all will struggle to answer that challenge. And that’s not about Gift Aid on tickets, which is a different can of worms.

 

Self evidently true. However volunteering is in decline across all sectors. Compliance with regulations that were never imagined when many heritage lines got going ,along with the need to demonstrate assured competence, have increased the pressure to employ. Even lines that prided themselves on having very few employees have seen their numbers rise over recent years. That may be sad but it’s probably inevitable which means railways have to adjust their business and financial models to cope with things as they are rather than as they might prefer them to be.

 

And yet most railways have managed to contain that pressure. However, let’s focus on the WSR rather than the NYMR’s highly unusual cost structure.

 

It wasn't the NYMR I had in mind. It's had a relatively high proportion of employees for some time although numbers have reduced slightly. The trend I was suggesting is more apparent on other railways which historically had relatively few employees but which have increased their number to cope with regulatory and competency demands.

 

Nevertheless, if an organisation can't claim gift aid I don't donate. As I said, they are missing a trick.

 

It was more a reaction to the implied "Volunteer Good /Employee Bad" attitude. The difference between them is more nuanced than such a simplistic contrast suggests. Volunteers are not free. They may not be paid but there are still significant administration and other costs such as medicals. Another regulatory burden soon to hit will be the compulsory training on terrorism protection measures when Martyn's Law takes full effect. That's just the latest example of a growing trend. Given the widely accepted fact that a lot more part time volunteers are typically required to deliver the same output as a much lower number of full time paid staff the relative cost differentials are not as clear cut as often suggested.

The more insidious risk is that paid staff are seen as an inherently second best resource. The reality is that the sector is not known for its generous pay rates. Many staff work in it because of their committment to the succcess of the railways they work for. If we denigrate that contribution and undermine their self respect they might vote with their feet. It may seem a paradox but the contribution of paid staff can help secure the opportunity to volunteer. The increase in their number should ideally be seen in that positive light.

 

I viewed those "aims" to be little more than motherhood statements, somewhat like a Government saying we are going to improve living standards for example.
It is all very generic.

 

An old argument about which there’s little new to be said. As I’m seeing in another context, probably the most important thing that leaders can do is minimise the perception of difficulty as people do need to take on those duties.

As for the cost of volunteers, there may be hidden costs but each shift volunteered is a shift where income can go to charitable purposes, rather than a pay bill.

 

Becuase, not for the first time assertions have been made that are based on assumptions not the facts.