S&D Railway Trust

As a former S&DRT member for several decades, I am well aware that there were - and may still be - many members who would prefer to be at a base on the former S&DJR than at Washford, partly because they wanted the Trust to become involved in 'trackbed restoration'. It was for that reason that many left to form the S&DRHT at MSN, although some still belong to both Trusts. Although there may still be those at WD who hanker after a 'real' S&DJR base, I am sure that the S&DRT as a whole are pragmatic/realistic enough to feel that - with new (supposedly) secure long lease - their future lay at WD rather than an some unknown 'elsewhere'. I find it difficult therefore to understand the claims by the Plc in this respect.

I am aware also that, in the past at least, there may well have been things done at WD by practices that would not be considered acceptable these days - and that would apply to elsewhere on the WSR too. But - apart from the specific mention about 'Kilmersdon', which, as has been pointed out here already, must be 'historic' by now - I found very little of substance in the examples given. 'Moving carriage by hand' - apart from the size of vehicle, how does that differ from moving wagons by hand or a pinch-bar? I know that WD is at the top of an incline (and of course the catch-point at BA is [temporarily?] missing), but unless it was done when the connection to the main line was open then there should be no risk of a run-away. The Trust has confirmed that it complies with the WSR's SMS, so if the Plc believe otherwise then I would expect it to be able to provide more concrete evidence of what, where, when and how any such breaches occurred so that the Trust can address them specifically.

 

I am aware of the saga around Midsomer Norton, which like Topsy just growed but I am not really sure where else it might have been possible to have got a sensible bit of S&D over the last 30 or so years apart from Shillingstone

 

Posted 19 March 2020:-

Seeing as the WSRA has now publicly appeared on the joint statement to be fully aligned with the Plc's actions wouldn't this be an 'appropriate time'?

I'm afraid that the appearance of inaction now suggests that there was already a 'done deal' in place?

I am sorry to have to ask these questions Robin. Your commitment to 'The Railway' is well known but these comments from earlier and the recent claims from the Plc just don't seem to add up.

 

And if there had been serious breaches of the SMS then surely there should have been dealt with under the companies HR Disciplinary policy? Oh, hang on...

 

If the WSR does go belly up, in the near future, its loss should be a constant reminder to the movement, how not to do things, No one on any of the boards comes out of this with a shrewd of decency, or come to think on it, putting the interests of their members first, was it the easy thing to do, to side with this 3 man cabal, who when they do leave office, will have destroyed your railway its often said about the EX6, but your board, by their deciding to go along with the PLC, clearly, only act in self interest, thing is now, when its your turn in the firing line, don't expect public sympathy when you in turn get sold down the river, when the PLC has sucked every last bit of use out of you,

 

To me, it looks like that the Plc didn't want to put out this this press release. It just wanted to get on with what it was doing without interference. The charities, WSRA and WSSRT, however have pointed out that the Plc are not going to raise very much money if they don't do something and the Plc have sulkily cobbled together this "note" and released it without checking it because they are not interested in public relations, the public should pay up and shut up. There's also possibly an element of the Plc being able to turn round to the charities at a later date and say "we did what you suggested, it hasn't produced any tangible results, now go...". Never get your tea made by someone who doesn't want to make the tea.

 

Folk really need to read what has been written, not what they think has been written, by and about the WSRA and WSSRT. Given that, there seems to be no value in making any comment here, only for that in turn to be misinterpreted.

WSRA members and Railway supporters are welcome to write to Mike Sherwood, the WSRA Chairman, who is dealing with correspondence on this issue. E-mail address available on WSRA website.

The WSR plc is responsible for its own statement.

Robin

 

What has been written here about the statements do you disagree with and misinterpretations would you like to correct?

Simple question - do you as a trustee of the WSRA support the eviction of the S&DRT?

 

A couple of things come to mind:
1) The claim that the ORR were contacted by the public sounds a bit off. It smacks of the Peak Rail attack on Pete Briddon, which the ORR shot down pretty smartly. If it formed part of the ORR inspection then how come we have only just heard about it?
2) Isn't about time that the writers of the railway comics, oops - I mean press, started to behave like the journalists they all claim to be and dig into this. It is a story (and how!) and isn't that their job?
Pat

 

That's all very well, but the joint statement said "Following discussion, the WSRA and the WSRST expressed their support for the PLC". You can't just wash your hands of the diatribe that followed the joint statement and say "nothing to do with me guv".

Edit - and with the WSRA and WSSRT having a combined shareholding of 18%, the Plc is not solely responsible for anything, as it must have at least the tacit support of both support organisations.

 

But the Association and the Steam allowed their names and logos to be attached therefore one must assume that they agree or were "bullied into it"

 

But the plc signed a new lease only 2 years ago, on those terms. Also, the Trust has offered to help pay for a new tender body, over and above their agreement with the plc.

 

It may be a bargain, but it was agreed by both sides and made the subject of a legal agreement. Therefore it is difficult to see how it can be used by the WSR either as a sign of bad faith or a reason for eviction.

 

The WSR is the custodian of No.88 and will pay no hire fees for its use to the SDRT. A overhaul and maintenance contract means they are liable to maintain the locomotive, not the owner.
It is not an uncommon arrangement in preservation.
I think everyone knows that 53808 will now end up leaving the railway at some point and that is tragic. The locomotive is so suitable for the WSR and it is such a shame it will come to this.

 

I assume @Robin Moira White is referring to the note below the joint statement, which is solely in the name of the WSR plc

 

I have to assume from this post that you are suggesting the WSRA do not necessarily support the actions of the plc, and reading the joint statement issued recently, much of it is written ambiguously (diplomatically?) such that a range of interpretations can be put on it. However the start of the penultimate paragraph...

Following discussion, the WSRA and the WSRST expressed their support for the PLC, while regretting the concern caused to the members of the S & D Trust


...seems quite unambiguous and is, I suspect, what worries most who disagree with the actions of the plc.

I realise that it is important not to attribute anything in the plc's note beneath the joint statement to the WSRA or the WSSRT.

 

The continual internecine strife, never seems to end on the WSR. The present crisis is the eviction, but there would be something else to continue the soap opera in future, without doubt.
The best future for the WSR, as a Heritage railway, is for is to become insolvent and have a fire sale. I am sure there are others, in the heritage railway fraternity watching events closely and there are those with enough money - and most of all integrity - who could pick up the pieces and restore the line to a viable concern. This would mean that all existing players on the line would have to start with a clean sheet and ditch all their baggage.
The WSR has a future, but not in its current format. There are far too many, it seems, that have differing agenda and until that is erased there will never be the vaunted 'one railway' and never be peace.

 

Agreed. The joint statement contains this:-

"Following discussion, the WSRA and the WSRST expressed their support for the PLC, while regretting the concern caused to the members of the S & D Trust, ….."

Either you interpret that as being "bullied" into complying or that the WSRA and WSSRT are engaging in a delicate and diplomatic attempt to find a solution that will satisfy all parties. Let's hope it's the latter, and it is ultimately successful, but it from what is available in the public domain this seems unlikely.

 

I agree entirely, and have made that point above.