West Somerset Railway - Removal of the PLC Chairman and related matters

This is a generic comment, not specific to the WSR.

Are diesels the economy that you seem to suggest? The cost of running a service comprises the direct loco operating costs (fuel, lubricant etc.) + amortised per mile loco overhaul cost + contribution to rolling stock overhaul and maintenance + contribution to infrastructure maintenance + contribution to railway admin overheads (sales, marketing activity etc).

The direct running costs of steam are actually fairly cheap (probably around £5 per mile for coal and lubricants). It is the contribution to overhaul costs that really cost money. Running a diesel makes no difference to the infrastructure or rolling stock maintenance, which are big ticket items, nor to the background admin cost of the railway.

Given all that, I suspect that the difference in true per mile operational cost of running, say, Hymek + 7 carriages or Manor + 7 carriages is rather less than you might think. Doubly so if you arrive at a situation whereby the effective loco subsidy that derives from having active fundraising support focused on a loco (which, let's face it, is where it is easiest to raise money) proves rather less forthcoming for diesel than steam.

Quite conceivable that if running diesels results in lower passenger numbers and less direct overhaul support from altruistic fundraising, you will end up disappointed on the impact of the proposed cost saving. The carriage and infrastructure maintenance costs are the same for any mode of haulage, and they are a bigger proportion of the whole than is generally recognised.

Tom

 

Profitability gives you some indication about the health of the business and how far and what scope you could improve your facilities and eventually be used on projects required. Inflation is also a far bigger matter to consider with recent inflation being about 2-3%.

Tiny profitability plus a vastly run down reserves fund do not a pretty picture make. Handwaving it away at a time when the WSRA seems also in not fit financial state to actually offer their support seems like a rather dangerous thing to do.

 

The Answer to your question, one which others should be asking as well is contained in section 5 below

"In the light of their conduct in arranging the co-option of Frank Courtney to the WSR plc Board on 21st July 2018, contrary to good governance, the stated policy of the WSR plc on Director appointments (as stated by Chairman Ian Coleby at the 2018 WSR plc AGM) and the best interests of the Railway as a whole, the WSRA Trustees are resolved that:

1. Frank Courtney and Rodney Greenway ‘s position as WSRA Trustees / Directors and WSR plc Directors in untenable.
2. On the passing of this resolution, they shall be offered the opportunity immediately to resign as WSRA Trustees and WSR plc Directors. Should they do so, the only public statement by the WSRA will be to thank them for their service.
3. Should they not immediately resign the following parts of the resolution shall be put into effect.
4. Rodney Greenway and Frank Courtney be removed as WSRA trustees / Directors.
5. The WSRA Chairman (and in his stead the vice Chairman) are authorized to take all necessary steps to have Rodney Greenway and Frank Courtney removed as WSR plc Directors, including, if necessary, use of the WSRA shareholding in the WSR plc to call a General Meeting of the WSR plc and to vote for their removal at such General Meeting, including also the removal of any further persons co-opted to the WSR plc Board of Directors at their instigation"

Thus anybody who joins the PLC board as a co-opted director and this would include any (I am here to help, I have the best interests of the WSR at heart etc etc) local business people and their advisers, who had been not appointed in an open and transparent manner that was acceptable to the WSRA and I would hope the WSSRT, would also be subject to the same motion.

Thus the WSRplc board is rather boxed in to following good governance practice that Charities, local and county authorities, grant giving and other external funding organisations would be able to support (as they themselves have to practice good governance in an open and transparent manner)

Please do not underestimate the risk to the WSR as we know it is the current weak board made one co-option that left the WSR open to exploitation by others.

Time for the WSRplc board to accept the internal help that is available to remove this weakness.

If you think it is all about playing nicely and lets have a chat over tea and cakes, your choice

but cannot see that being effective to saving the soul of the WSR from outside exploitation.

Thus the WSRA motion is an elegant solution to this issue.

Jeff Price

PS If you want an example of local authority reaction to bad governance (by a charity) just look up Poole Park Miniature Railway - over to you Nick!

 

May be the diesels mentioned will be from the national network.

 

I totally agree that the West Somerset Railway is not benefiting in the way it should from having a Membership Charity, but is this entirely down to the WSRA 'not doing anything' or due to the lack of a genuinely 'One Railway' approach?

The underlying problem I suggest is a 'them and us' rather than 'arm and leg' attitude between WSRplc and WSRA. (I could get very Biblical about 'all being one Body' but I hope everyone gets the point with needing the direct reference). I suspect personalities are involved, and that the causes go back a long way and are not helped by either organisation really doing what they were originally formed to do. Whatever the reason, the fact that this seems to be an on-going issue, even when the personnel at WSRA change, suggests that it is something which was not simply caused by the 'old guard' at the WSRA. Indeed, from outside, I always felt that the WSRplc attitude was a factor in the Ex-6 gaining control by lending a certain legitimacy to their claims of why they were acting as they did.

Too many of those who are involved seem to readily approach it from a 'One side good, other side bad' - sometimes decided based on organisation (you clearly feel the WSRA are entirely to blame and support the WSRplc), others on personalities.

All this needs sweeping away. I repeat - if the West Somerset Railway was in a pretty good place thanks to the high quality stewardship of the WSRplc, with ample fleets of locomotives and carriages, all infrastructure in good order and healthy trading results and bank balances, then it could well decide to tell the WSRA where to go! (This might well be unwise!). It would also be pretty unique amongst preserved railways!

However, most preserved railways have an engaged and enthusiastic membership organisation raising serious money to support all those things and unless the West Somerset Railway family can sort out how to work together, what pland and priorities in respect of the Railway to focus on and how each part compliments the others in delivering this, it won't benefit from such support and financial assistance - and one must question how WSRplc intend to address the challenges that almost everyone seems to agree the Railway faces.

It may be judged neither party has performed well (in many senses) in the past but the challenge is to rectify that in the future and WSRplc Board still need to explain how removing what appears to have been a popular WSRplc Chairman from office furthers that.

Steven

(I am sure you will say the same applies to the WSRA removal of two trustees but at least there has been an explanation of that, whether you like or accept it or not. From WSRplc nothing - one presumes they realise they need the support of volunteers and other 'interested parties' going forward but the silence makes you wonder if they realise it!)

 

But What or Who would that Internal help be Jeff?

 

It could be you!

The people best placed to stablise the WSR are to be found within its current volunteer pool that includes WSR volenteers, WSSRT, WSRA, DEPG and S&D trust members. This would be a initial move and remove the current vulnerability of the WSR being exploited by others.

The WSRplc has some professional staff for the financial and commercial operation so that would carry on.

Then the stabilized WSR should seek outside directors who can bring non railway skills to the WSR board

This should all be a declared process, with a defined process that would bear scrutiny by the outside world.

So there is a plan, what is yours????

Jeff Price

 

There is a great number of posts on this thread offering advice, solutions and ideas for the PLC and the Association to get the current issues, plus others and which affect both of them, sorted out and some plans for moving ahead into a brighter future for the line.
However a few posts do seem to be able to see through the closed five bar gate that is the obstacle here. Until the apparent personality conflicts, recriminations and posturing is put aside then there will never be any real harmony and the much sought after 'one railway'.
The underlying fifth column also needs curtailing.
The good news coming from the line is that is does not appear - at the present time - to affect passenger loadings and interest in the future events.

 

I am not sure either one of us could unravel this mess Jeff & I sadly cannot think of anyone else we both know who is capable either, sadly!

What is my solution? It is to acquire another Coombs who has had no contact with anyone on the Railway, or has any Opinions on Anything connected with it but who knows how to identify problems and how to deal with them and lead us out of this wholly unnecessary mess.

This Man or Woman, it could be either, can cut through the crap and take difficult decisions, they will undoubtedly have considerable business experience and dealing with this unbelievable mess will be very small beer to them in their greater experience of business, but must obviously be done in a way that guarantees the future of what has been already achieved whilst expanding on it.

We Desperately need Objective and Independent Outside help not further Argument from Within and certainly not from the Association or those associated with it who appear to have Implemented Few of the Coombs recommendations. The Association, in my opinion is rapidly making itself an irrelevance and I am very sad about that fact following everything for which you and I strove just a few years ago.

 

Richard,

Your plan would be the second stage once the vulnerability of the current board has been dealt with.

The initial stage boils down to the current WSRplc board engaging with the railway shareholders/stakeholders and accepting some help that is acceptable to all.

This initial stage may be a short term fix that is time bound to work with the second stage as detailed in your message.

Jeff Price

 

Can't see Any of that working Jeff and would only perpetuate the Problem that been in play since 1971!

Anyway that is not the way it is done in business, as you know, and whatever we may want the WSR is a business, it just has a very considerable element of Volunteers which if anything makes matters even more complicated because you can never satisfy everybody. We all have different opinions on how the WSR should be run and not all of us or any of us for that matter are necessarily right!

We desperately need this OUTSIDE TOTALLY OBJECTIVE INPUT, anything less could have unfortunate consequences and at best will not solve anything.

For my part I urge the Board of the plc to Select a Date for a Meeting with we Shareholders and then tell us how they intend to deal with this current situation. We MUST allow them the space and the time for them to formulate a Plan which when presented can be discussed with we Shareholders and not with every man and his dog, who may or may not Volunteer on the Railway, who happens to have an Opinion.

If we want to DESTROY everything for which we have Worked over many years we will do as you suggest because if we do WW3 will break out anyway, GUARANTEED

 

I agree to an extent. (As a total steam fan I would love to believe entirely)

Some random thoughts.

Wrt fixed costs ie infrastructure, carriage stock, and to a greater or lesser extent
depreciation, marketing and staff I agree, that is Diesel or Steam the same.

Overhaul costs have a fixed element ie stating the obvious, with a steam loco you will
have a 'major' overhaul every ten years irrespective of mileage/hours run but there
will be a cost per mile run due to increased 'wear and tear' . My understanding is a
medium sized diesel loco (eg a Crompton, I am not really into TOPs but type 33)
comes out significantly better.

But variable costs:
Coal at 60lb/mile compared with oil ? Not insignificant ? c.£250-300 per day on the WSR.

(There is also the flexibility of a diesel loco ie cold to service in less than 3o minutes ?)

However I was not in the main thinking of peak period services when pax revenue
more than covers all associated costs. A saving of £100s with a 7-8 coach train
I agree percentage wise is small although in itself not insignificant. (based on our
average spend per passenger ticket ie total revenue divided by total pax as per
2017 accounts, if total saving with a diesel is £400 per day then 35 passengers.

I do not know how repair costs pan out. My feeling, is because with many diesel
classes there are locos still in main line service; spares, s/h motors etc. may
be available comparatively cheaply. Certainly DEPG keep their diesel fleet in
service with Membership Numbers c.500. I recognise of course annual
mileage run per loco is small compared with the WSR steam fleet.

I was thinking more of using the DMU. I note that when we currently run a
DMU, it's patronage is increasing. Personally I only travel by it as a last resort
but increasingly passengers enjoy the view. ( Those of us who remember main
Line BR steam are rapidly retiring to the signal box in the sky. )There are times
of the year when to run the DMU is economically viable when steam is not.
Costs are low, consequently so are breakeven pax numbers.

One could also envisage even at peak periods, rather than three steam
hauled 7/8 coach sets plus the three coach DMU we might run 2
Nine coach sets and a more intensive use of the DMU. ( or even 2 DMUs)

Note if we have a 9 coach set consisting of 6TSOs, one wheelchair accessible
TSO, a BSO and a Buffet (depending on which buffet) there are c.460 seats)
(With an 8 c.oach set c. 394 seats with a 7 coach set 330. We also use SKs when
we have three sets in operation, which are seating wise inefficient ie 3/4 people
sit in the compartment and no body else enters whereas TSOs are very efficient)

The need for a fresh look at our Timetable has been extolled regularly recently.
As part of such an exercise I think stock utilisation related to passenger densities
merits consideration. In normal service loco and stock (or DMU) finish the day
where they started, (not at Galas though). I understand that is convenient but...

I hate to also admit that a diesel loco is more amenable to flexible working and
where you overnight them.

Tom I think the cost of 'steam' on the Bluebell 11 miles, in your catchment area,
(higher population densities, higher per capita incomes etc) and with an excellent
fund raising record steam costs may not be an issue. Although I cannot fail to note
that the B4 for the HK shunt etc was replaced with a 'Noddy Box' ( I suspect you
call it a 'Gronk' ?)

Michael Rowe

 

I asked "How does a demand from the WSRA Trustees for the removal of two PLC directors (who might or might not have been on the Board as representatives of the WSRA) prevent other unspecified persons from getting onto the Board and doing terrible things?"

Sorry, but I still don't see how that has any bearing at all on putative future co-options (or indeed on anyone currently there by co-option other than at the instigation of Mssrs Greenway and Courtney).

 

There is another thread on diesel vs steam costs, but the assumption that as diesels are in mainline service, spares are readily available is proven debatable by the cost and duration of diesel overhauls, not to mention increasing suggestions that the likes of DRS may be looking to retire their first generation diesels. And I assume that as a preservationist, you don’t plan to run them into the ground to be discarded afterwards.

There is an enthusiast demand for diesel haulage, and regular operation can tap into it. However, the annoyance you would feel as a steam lover when confronted with a diesel is reciprocated by diesel fans confronted with a Manor or 7F. Insult is added to injury when well meaning station staff apologise for the diesel that they’ve come to travel behind.

As a passenger, the idea of using DMUs only holds water if loadings are low - I would suggest <100. Above that, the discomfort and perceived crowding becomes unpleasant. At which point, you are back to the question of what length rakes you need for which duties, and whether the WSR genuinely has off peak duties that can run shorter.

So, diesels may trim costs, but are no panacea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I think this is on the wrong thread

Jeff

 

It appears that the PLC board seems to be split between the Chairman Ian camp who would like to see a cooperative working with the WSR shareholders and other stakeholders as a way forward and the members of the board who would see the injection of outside influence as a solution to the WSR's current woes.

It seems that it is a hung parliament as it were.

I do not see the current financial situation as the end of the world, it just needs some careful management.

Jeff

 

@paulhitch made some interesting comments about the long term maintenance costs of coaching stock a while ago

 

This is a nice idea in theory but:

A) if you want a person (or people) of such calibre then you’ll probably have to pay a hefty salary for it - something the railway call ill afford. We’ve been down this route anyway in recent times with the recruitment of a raft of highly paid managers. It is questionable whether this has been the right thing to do.

B) would such ‘externals’ want such a challenge anyway, given the political crap associated with the (mis)management of the WSR in the last decade.

C) is such a hard-hitting ‘troubleshooter’ really going to be the best thing for the railway, surely it would better (& less disturbing) to find people from within the existing volunteer workforce with the right technical / business / commercial skills but also the ability to bring people together, who will gain the trust and respect of the ‘community’.

I have no doubt that the talent is out there, it just needs to be encouraged.

 

At the expense of adding to the thread drift..............................

1. The DMU is run down. IMHO a good quality machine such as the one on the SVR is an entirely different machine and may well be attractive to the general public
2. As I have pointed out earlier a DMU/Diesel service with its lower 'per mile' costs allows the timetable to be padded out a bit and possibly som etrains added that might make it more attractive to the passenger than a basic 'peaks only' steam one

 

Your last sentence is a wind up surely, "carefull management" is what started this thread off.