West Somerset Railway General Discussion

And the WSR board is not the only one that tries to avoid being held to account.

 

Wasn't it meant to be an urgent P-Way related use at the behest of the ORR .............which morphed into a petting zoo ...........which then became something secret before ultimately becoming a short term lease to the WSSRT ?

 

As I said a few pages back, WSR management speak with forked tongue.

 

Would you consider it treason or mutiny when a government changes at a democratic general election?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

...or an attempt is made to use procedure to achieve a change?

What happened with the former WSSRT was sharp practice, but it was entirely within the organisation's rules and the intent was clearly declared.

I'm also reminded that, whatever the fate of mutineers, the general practice was that those mutinied against would also be removed from command, having demonstrated their inability to lead.

 

I hope that he’s right, but there’s a history of bosses saying how good things are only to be left high and dry by events.

I hope for the sake of the railway this won’t be part of that tradition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

History is always written by the victors, not the vanquished, Jones- Pratt may have won, but at what cost? how does the rest of the movement now view the WSR? how do grand awarding bodies view the WSR? I can't help but think this was a fight the chairman wanted, or those with the chairmans ear wanted, to silence people they did not like, to remove dissenters, who kept asking awkward questions, first it was the S&D Trust, then it was those who posed a threat to those who enjoyed the revolving door of power between the steam trust, and company.

 

Of course, that was dependent on the mutinied-against captain eventually having to return to Port and face his masters in the Admiralty! The WSR example was more akin to a boardroom power struggle: someone won, someone lost, but there is little onus on the "winner" to then reflectively stand down as atonement for allowing the struggle to have taken place at all.

Well yes, but he's hardly likely to say "look, we had our cultural problems, and scratch below the surface and they are still seething away". Whatever your view of those times, one role of a Chairman is to act as a cheerleader for the organisation - at least in public. That includes giving the impression that it is a railway worth visiting, and volunteering at.

Again, the fact that some parts of an organisation may not be perfect does not mean that there are no elements worth sharing. It would be surprising if the Chairman of a company that is - when all is said and done - operating the longest standard gauge heritage line in the country didn't have some points of expertise worth listening to.

I don't hold a candle for the current management. But equally, it is wrong to assume that anything that isn't white must necessarily be black. Railways are large organisations, with many people and many facets; it would be unusual to think that in every area they were universally poor. I've commented quite extensively on matters of governance and communications, in part because those are areas close to my own expertise, and where I can see how the WSR frequently stumbles. But as a counter example, my external perception is that they seem to punch above their weight in loco matters, with locos seeming to put up big annual mileages, which in that area at least would seem to me an indication that they are running a very effective department. So I think it is entirely rational to be bewildered at some of the communications emanating from Minehead, while simultaneously thinking they are getting some aspects of running a railway spot on.

Tom

 

Sadly the cracking was achieved partly by cracking some (arguably innocent) heads.

 

Which is why I worry about whether the culture is genuinely as described, or is actually something less pleasant under the surface, following that cracking of heads.

I also worry, if the chair's direction proves inappropriate in future, about how well the culture will operate to challenge him if necessary.

I very much hope for the sake of both WSR and it's people that my fears are misplaced - and likewise anywhere else that has been through traumatic change.

 

You've obviously not been supporting the WSR for long. I can clearly remember the days when the WSR did indeed state their every p-way activity to at least the members of the WSRA by way of the Journal. There were two P-way gangs and both reported in each issue. That is how you make supporters feel involved and wanting to give money to the railway, not by making excuses for non-communication.

 

Rubbish

The WSR Chairman demanded a £20,000 contribution to the winter works programme, which was outside their charitable objects.

They said ‘no’ and were punished for it by being evicted.

Dissent results in being told to walk the plank.

 

So remarkable, it is completely untrue.

The has stated in terms in its internal newsletter that is just covering its day-to-day costs. That means investing nothing in the future, continuing to write down the infrastructure and putting nothing away for the serious loco overhauls either due to be paid for (53808) or getting closer on the horizon. Feel free to check the facts with the WSR. Oh, hang on…

A railway which isn’t afraid of inventing disciplinary charges might be thought to be little troubled about being truthful about its true position.

 

A comment which could well be applied to the Lynton & Barnstaple Trust, regretfully.

 

An interesting “tell” to see revenue figures quoted, but not profit.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk