West Somerset Railway General Discussion

So a line that was so hard up that it had to sell an unrestored loco despite the efforts of those on the line to buy the loco. Other locos being removed as needing too much expensive work, other groups being told there was not enough money for the overhaul of their loco. A line that tells us that it was close to going under last year, suddenly, after a winter of expensive track work has found down the back of the sofa a pot of money to buy the trackbed, shortly after starting to kick out one of its subtentants.

Obviously if you think this is a bit odd then you are an anti WSR conspiracy theorist who hates the WSR, wants it to fail.

 

We all are Anti WSR conspiracy theorists, then in that case, but looking at how things are shaping up, clearly the WSRA, and all the other groups are being taken for willing fools, there to dig deep to pay for the upkeep of something they possibly will have no say in how its run, Now there will be some who will say, as long as the railway is saved, I don't care who owns it, until its your group next in the firing line, but in the meanwhile if you go on paying for the maintaince, who knows, you might be left alone, I have a question regarding the QB ,Now this is owned by WSRA, but operated by the PLC, What will happen if say the PLC were to present the WSRA a bill for Maintaince of the stock and threatened to take ownership of the stock, if the bill wasn't paid? Asking for a friend.

 

Because, from the moment it happened, any support towards the cost of the track renewal would siece, as neither of the supporting charities would want to be part of it, I guess the PLC is hoping to extract as much as it can before its game becomes clear , I would expect a move, if it happens to be made, about August time, as there is no hoping of any re opening this year. I suspect the PLC will get in the recievers about September and that's when the offer will be made.

 

Did the WSRA, WSSRT know about this discussion between Jones Pratt and SCC? How does this fit with the 'One Railway' ethos?

 

Nowt in WSRA meeting published minutes, although it might well be the subject of one of the regularly appearing redacted items.

 

Wait, wait. Redacted items. In a charity?! Is that a normal occurrence?

 

If 50% of WSR plc shares are inactive, then WSRA and WSSRT between them hold 36% of active shares. It would 'only' require an additional 7.5% (i.e. 15% of the active shares) of shareholding to align with the two charities to create a working majority, wouldn't it?

 

Barrie, Surely alarm bells should be ringing, what have your board been discussing that is so dangerous that the membership , who I remind you voted them in, can not be informed of, apart from sensitive financial arrangements, which I understand, you might need to look closely at who you have appointed to your trusteeship and hold their feet to the fire, and if you feel you can't trust them, get them out.

 

Hence why, I would advice the two bodies to set up a working party, to contact the owners of those inactive shares and ask them to be gifted to either of your organisations, and then to combine your organisations into one body, the whole survival of the WSR is in question either way, that your PLC has in effect a plan for what in reality is an hostile take over , means you can't sit on the fence perhaps you should play the PLC at their own game and purchase the shares , from the receiver, if it comes to it, you may have to, if you want your railway to remain so.

 

Why wouldn't it be? If the items relate to individuals, or negotiations in progress, to name but two factors, it would be not only reasonable but necessary to redact minutes.

 

Without making any comment on the current circumstances: it isn’t beyond the realms of what is reasonable.

As an example: about four years ago on the Bluebell, a film company approached the railway about a film job in London. The requirement was to take a locomotive and four Victorian carriages owned by the Bluebell Railway Trust by rail to London (along with seven or eight other vintage carriages). Although the primary body responsible was our company, the Trust must have been consulted on the arrangements as it was their locomotive and carriages that had been requested, and which - ultimately - were at risk. However, commercial confidentiality requested by the film company (who understandably didn’t want hoards of enthusiasts thronging around Kings Cross station while filming took place) meant that nothing publicly was said about it until after it happened.

So there are circumstances where a charity may need to keep quiet about its actions. Ultimately though the Trustees are accountable to the Charity Commission to act in a way that is in accord with the charity’s objectives and the principles of good governance.

I make no judgement about the current circumstances.

Tom

 

@Jamessquared many thanks for the explanation, most illuminating.

I will point out that there are, of course, other reasons for redaction. I was particularly bemused with the idea of the WSRA rolling out some new proprietary technology or perhaps they were a front for a deep-cover cell of Soviet era spies.

 

Though not due out of traffic until 2026, with the agreement ending in 2030 (dates as reported here)

It's public that the WSRA has been considering certain potential legal action(s) unrelated to the PLC. There will be other matters (individual staff, salaries, named members) it would be proper to redact.

They can make a general appeal but unless either of the two charities have their details, and permission to use their data, they can't contact them.

Patrick

 

Nobody ever has the money to do things they don't want to do.

 

Time I guess, now some of the smoke seems to be disappearing - mirrors are there still - to bring on the wild flowers and videos again.
I cannot get the picture of a Roman Emperor, who had a fiddle apparently, out of my mind.

 

Does anyone know what the arrangements are for the 2020 AGM?

 

For some inexplicable reason, the alleged fate of King Edward II comes to mind....

 

Are we talking about the person or the locomotive?

 

It's true, it won't be running on the main line.

Oh, sorry, wrong King Edward II.

 

I think some of you are getting a bit carried away and ignoring the legal niceties.

It is usual in any general charge in favour of a bank to have a foreclosure clause upon a company being put into administration,

And it is usual to have in any standard lease a forfeiture clause if the tenant company goes into administration.

(though it equally possible the current WSR PLC board chairman is also unaware of these legal niceties!)

The WSR PLC has 'run down' it's cash reserves significantly over the last few years - it doesn't have a bean to buy the lease/freehold off Somerset County Council.

Only yesterday Mark Smith WSR PLC director issued a statement admitting the board are using emergency appeal money to pay bills, and have stopped as much expenditure as possible.

In his statement yesterday, Mark Smith had the ideal opportunity and grounds to state the WSR PLC board were withdrawing it's 'Notice to Quit' over the SDRT and Washford, and thereby avoiding spending "emergency appeal" money on legal fees over this, and to admit the WSR PLC board has no money to do anything with Washford itself, an essential requirement of proving s.30 (g) grounds relied upon in the 'Notice to Quit'.

Cheers,

Julian