S&D Railway Trust

Why do we need evidence for a hypothetical discussion? Nothing that is written on here is going to make the slightest difference to anything, we are just passing the time, something we have plenty of.

 

I think there is ample evidence that the WSR PLC has granted sub tenancies for a considerable period under it's lease with the Somerset County Council. These sub tenancies have been of 'parts' (bits) whether formally or informally, and include parts of Bishops Lydeard station buildings, Williton, and of course Washford. Williton and Bishops Lydeard are referenced in the Coombes Report, and he made adverse comments on these; I don't recall any adverse comment, or any comment, in respect of the SDRT and Washford in the Coombes Report, despite it being arguably the most formal and long standing arrangement.

Haven't a clue what the WSSRT pays the WSR PLC for it's museum at Bishops Lydeard Station in the old Goods Shed, or for the museum at Bishops Anchor station, and I don't recall it being mentioned in the Coombes Report, but there is an analogy here so far as Washford Station is concerned; The SDRT has a full repairing lease for Washford Station and pay a formal rent and business rates.

The WSR PLC seems to have a pretty loose arrangement with the WSSRT for the Broad Gauge Museum at BL, and the WSSRT museum at BA, and no doubt 'sweetened' by the £35,000 paid recently to the WSSRT to the WSR PLC board.

I don't have a copy of the SCC lease to the WSR PLC, as never thought it of much relevance, except in the last few months I perhaps ought to have it as the WSR PLC pays a nominal rent but has been taking back some sub lets, and suggesting to others they ought to make a substantial donation to the WSR PLC 'or else'.

I would hazard a guess that the SCC lease to the WSR PLC does not prohibit the sort of sub tenancies that have been going on for many years, as the SCC has raised no objection to all this sub letting in the PDG meetings, or ever, so far as I am aware of, but I could be quite wrong on this without ever having seen the Lease!

If the WSR PLC is now putting pressure on those who it sub lets to, considerably so with regards to the SDRT, then I can see a point when the SCC might get more than a little concerned; after all the SCC gets nothing out of it's ownership for it's voters, residents and taxpayers of the WSR PLC, and is giving, and has given, for many years the WSR PLC a 'free jolly'.

Cheers,

Julian

 

That is assuming that the bank forces the company into receivership.

That is not the only path should the company be bankrupt. Either the board or the bank could place the company into administration. That path would be much more likely to keep it as a viable railway.

(To take the Welsh Highland as an example again: it was placed into administration. For 50 years or so the administrator refused pressure from some shareholders to sell them pieces of trackbed, on the grounds that it was more valuable as a single unit, and the the company was kept legally extant until the FfR had taken the trackbed over in almost one piece.)

 

Julian - if you are, as you claim, approaching this from a legal point of view, then I think you also need to display a degree of precision in your language; in your latest post, I think you are maybe letting your passion get ahead of what can actually be demonstrably shown.

For example:

The WSSRT hasn't paid, sweetly or not, £35,000 to the "WSR PLC board". That is getting dangerously close to suggesting they have been paying some form of bribe, something I am sure you don't wish to assert. What they have done is offer a grant of £35K to the WSR PLC Company, for that company to then spend in a proper fashion in a way that is beneficial to the company, but within the charitable objectives of the WSSRT. There is a big difference between offering a grant to the company, and paying the board.

I'd also suggest the following isn't true either:

As far as I can see, the WSR is one of the major tourist attractions in Somerset, bringing in millions in revenue every year, and also a large employer in West Somerset. County Councils have a formal remit for the economic development and well being of their County; in that light, I would say SCC, and its residents and taxpayers (a County Council doesn't have "voters"; the members do but not the organisation) is getting a considerable benefit from the economic impact that the railway brings. That probably justifies a peppercorn rent, in real tangible financial benefit to the area from the presence of the railway.

Ultimately, my view is that having associated groups (such as the S&DRT) on the line transcends the value of any rent they provide; but if you take that view, then you also have to recognise that the value of the WSR to Somerset as a whole transcends the rent they pay SCC. You can't have it both ways - complain about the PLC for how they act towards a tenant, but then also claim they are getting something for nothing in their own tenancy. That rather comes across as just deciding in advance who is the baddie and then making the facts fit the theory.

Tom

 

Sorry, but I fail to understand that point. The S&DRT do 'use the station'. They can not "make the museum bigger" other than by erecting extra buildings to accommodate more items, and then of course they would need to acquire (i.e. buy or be donated) those additional items.

 

I went there before and went in the yard I must have missed the station part as don’t remember seeing it. How long ago was it opened

 

16th July 1874.
Ray.

 

I don’t think it was a museum then

 

IIRC it was the first part of the Museum to be opened, long before the track was laid in the yard. The 'Midford' exhibit in the signal-box was started circa-1980, which was when the lever-frame was acquired.

 

OK I'm just gonna come out and say it. They are Royal Air Force Chinooks. All former bomber squadrons interestingly and hands down one of the best purchases this country has ever made. Army helicopters tend to be less capacious and more aggressive. As a rule of thumb, if it is above squad level, the Air Force does the airlifting.

As to the utility of this discussion, I for one am finding it very illuminating. There are always "big things" going on in this world. It has never impinged on our ability to have a discussion before (with the minor exception of the whole "don't tell him, Pike" incident).

 

I have not read every single one of the posts on this thread but I am struggling to see what this has to do with this thread.

 

See post #1450. It a correction to show the actual ownership. The OP follows a trend by journalists who don't do their research/able to differentiate between bum and elbow and follow the premise if it's painted green it's Army or it's a tank.

 

I disagree. One of the reasons the Plc gave for issuing the Notice to Quit was that the S&DRT were paying too little rent, so it's entirely justified to point out the the Plc are also not paying much in the way of rent. Yes, SCC get other benefits from having the WSR Plc as their tenants, but then, so do the Plc from having the S&DRT as theirs. Sauce for the goose...

 

The WHR is an interesting example. I understand what happened was that the original liquidator was due to sell the trackbed to the WHR 64 Co, but he died and the sale was not completed.

Over time it was realised that an Abandonment Order was required to extinguish the statutory powers under the LRO before the land could be sold for non- railway purposes (Cycle-Path etc....)

There was also fierce debate about the financial prospects of any new company looking to buy the trackbed for the purpose of operating a railway. The preferred buyer was again for many years Gwynedd CC on the basis that Local Authorities could not be made bankrupt.

There is a lesson from history here, the WHR tangle of a railway in receivership with an extant LRO is going to make any receiver’s job more complicated. Far better to ensure the existing company survives, after all how is a new (heritage) operator to convince a receiver that the file will not end up on his desk again in a short space of time?

regards

Matt

 

Hi Tom,

I'm not going to quote laboriously your reply to me, but so far as the WSSRT is concerned and the WSR PLC there is a lot more to all this than has been made public.

Quite a few of us on here knew that the WSSRT board - or at least it's Chairman - had told the SDRT that they will not support them over the 'Notice to Quit' over Washford, and instead support the WSR PLC board's actions over all this. This is why I posted a link to the most recent WSSRT Trustee's board meeting Minutes that failed to disclose what a few of us already knew.

Indeed, if the WSSRT Trustees as a whole, at their last board meeting, were not aware of what their Chairman had already decided, then that is not a satisfactory state of affairs.

It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask why the WSSRT have not been served with a 'Notice to Quit' by the WSR PLC board.

It is also a perfectly reasonable question to ask why the WSR PLC have not supported attempts to facilitate some form of merger between the WSRA and the WSSRT; indeed this was what precipitated the conversation between JJP and Paul Whitehouse that caused Paul to resign.

It was Mark Smith, WSR PLC board member who took aim at the SDRT in his press statement - the 'cuckoo in the nest' - and that the SDRT, in his view, payed a low rent, without mentioning that the SDRT had a full repairing lease and also the rent had never been a cause of concern to the WSR PLC previously, and the rent had only 2 years ago been re-confirmed for a further 50 years by the WSR PLC board.

If the WSR PLC is allegedly extracting 'grants' (to use your phrasing) that amount to favours in return to the WSSRT, then one might extend this hypothesis to the £187,000 cheque handed over by the WSRA by Paul Whitehouse just before he was most rudely insulted and swore at (which occurred once the 'Notice to Quit' on the SDRT at Washford was known). Though I think this is going a bit too far, myself, though others have communicated their views on this to me.

I think it is clear that the WSR PLC board has decided upon a very aggressive strategy towards the SDRT; it is not beyond the bounds of probability they have the same mindset towards others.

You can perhaps see this in the very recent announcement about 5542 Ltd's decision over it's GWR autocoach 169.

'Pieces of silver' regarding the WSSRT did cross my mind, though on reflection the timing of the £35,000 'grant' was arguable a month too early?

Cheers,

Julian

 

This thread-which is titled 'S&D Railway Trust and Washford Eviction Notice', is entirely to discuss the recent developments at Washford. There have been various theories put forward, most of which I have read with interest. The workings of the great and good who run the various parts of the WSR are of great interest, as this railway is somewhat dear to me. The behaviour of the WSR PLC board toward the S&DRT. seems indefensible- certainly no-one who apparently supports the eviction has come forward with any sort of defence or argument whereby I might understand the reasoning behind it.
All we have had from these supporters seems to be "shut up and give us money", and scorn poured on those who have had the temerity to speak against the eviction.
This is now the impression I now have of the WSR as a whole. "Our train set. Our business. Don't question. Give us money so we can keep our toys to play with, our way. We don't want to share"
So, there you go. Terribly sorry to have discussed the topic of the thread, I was clearly misled by the "discussion forum" label. I will now take my support, my railway enthusiast sons and daughters (and long suffering wife), and my money elsewhere. I shall not be returning to the WSR for the foreseeable future

 

You can't remove it yourself, but if you press the "Report" button on the post it will let you ask the moderators to remove it for you.

 

Ok thanks but I can’t find the message to delete it

 

Ok I have already posted in the right forum but I can’t seem to fined the message here to report it