Aysgarth Station - Wensleydale Railway

[Pinza-C55]

Planning restrictions at Aysgarth are likely to be very restrictive. The site lies within the Yorkshire Dales National Park, 100 yards away from a National Parks visitor centre. Furthermore it is surrounded by woodland that is designated a Site Of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). I understand restrictions are already in place relating to noise, liquid fuel storage (not allowed) and ground contamination - there is even a restriction on the number of cars that can be parked on site so how this would relate to elderly locomotives and rolling stock is anyone's guess.

I would guess there are planning restrictions and rightly so. However, one has to either accept that
a) Track will be laid at Aysgarth by somebody and trains of some kind will be operated or
b) No track will be laid at Aysgarth by anybody and trains will never be operated.
It seems to me that a) is preferable.
No disrespect to the WR but in the 13 years since I left they aren't an inch nearer to Aysgarth so maybe it is time to let someone else have a crack ?
It must be terrible for volunteers who have toiled at Aysgarth to see their work handed over to a rich individual but that is , sadly, the way things sometimes go on restored railways.

 

[ThetrackMaster]

Sorry to raise the question of Aysgarth sale again!! But its just come to my notice that one of the reasons sited for the seemingly cheap price the site was "sold" for by the WR PLC Board, was because there was a sitting tenant on site.
Well it would seem that the poor chap who lived there has died in the last month AND THERE IS NOW NO SITTING TENANT. Given that this alone probably adds another £100k of much needed additional monies to the asking price on the site, will the WR PLC Board now take the step and request this for the prospective buyer?
I am led to believe that this is not going to happen and the site is still expected to be sold to this wealthy individual (who has yet to be named) for the original £400k.
Given that the WR is between a rock and a hard place financially, when are the PLC shareholders and members going to start asking some serious questions about the handling of this sorry affair?
The site has not been sold as of yet, so sorry this needs to be reviewed. If not could it be not seen as basically a case of not giving a toss about the shareholders, members and volunteers alike?

 

[Worf]

Interesting (and sad) news. Surely the Board are duty bound to get the best deal on behalf the shareholders? After all, it is THE SHAREHOLDERS that own the Company. An open market valuation should surely be a legal requirement. If the "wealthy individual" has any integrity, and really has the best interests of the WR in mind (which he apparently says he has), then he should be prepared to put his money where his mouth is. If he does not, then he will be showing his true colours, and proving all his critics correct.

 

[WensleyDale]

Sad news indeed - James, the sitting tenant, was always friendly towards the volunteers and kept half an eye on the site when nobody was working there.
Taskmaster - you are probably being conservative in thinking the value of the site has suddenly increased by £100k (money that WR should quite rightly leverage). Furthermore, despite my earlier contention that planning restrictions could be an issue for the new owner I now see that the National Park Authority is calling for new houses to be built on registered brownfield sites within the park. How long before the station site becomes registered (and then how much would it be worth?).
Come on WR - do the right thing for the shareholders and the railway at large. Obtain the true market value, and get some covenants in place. Otherwise the smell of fish will become even stronger.

 

[DarloRich]

I feel I should point out that the death of a tenant does not automatically bring a tenancy to an end. How the tenancy will be dealt with depends upon what sort of tenancy is in existence and the terms of that tenancy agreement.

 

[ThetrackMaster]

The question I put was rhetorical.
It’s not at this stage about what kind of tenancy is in place, it’s the matter of the WR PLC Board being open and quickly and succinctly reviewing the opportunity of possible leverage in extracting a further element of revenue.
Indeed any shareholder, member or sponsor or whoever has ever donated a penny to the WR financial cause would expect it!!
If the tenancy was indeed tied in some way, so be it, but please, investigate further and flag the result up.
The way in which the WR PLC dealt with this sale in the first place left a few questions in peoples minds.
For the sake of credibility it’s needs to be seen to do the right thing in closing out this deal!

 

[DarloRich]

The question I put was rhetorical.
It’s not at this stage about what kind of tenancy is in place, it’s the matter of the WR PLC Board being open and quickly and succinctly reviewing the opportunity of possible leverage in extracting a further element of revenue.
Indeed any shareholder, member or sponsor or whoever has ever donated a penny to the WR financial cause would expect it!!
If the tenancy was indeed tied in some way, so be it, but please, investigate further and flag the result up.
The way in which the WR PLC dealt with this sale in the first place left a few questions in peoples minds.
For the sake of credibility it’s needs to be seen to do the right thing in closing out this deal!

What extra revenue are they going to extract? The situation with the tenancy is exactly the same as is was (prima facie) before the death of the poor sitting tenant. The value of the tenancy forms part of the sadly deceased tenants estate to be dealt with by way of his/her personal representatives. It does not, by itself, create an "opportunity of possible leverage in extracting a further element of revenue" for anyone.

I am sure that will, already, have been looked at by any solicitors retained as part of this deal.

 

[ThetrackMaster]

As a person with quite a number of years in commercial law, your comments are quite fanciful.
You appear almost an “apologist in chief” for the WR.
I assume with your defensive stance you must be “quite close” to the WR board in some way?
With regards to a revised valuation you are however quite wrong.
Depending on the tenancy agreement, if indeed it ceases on the death of a tenant, then the value of that premises / property will be of a greater value without the sitting tenant.
The Board would be well advised in these circumstances and at the soonest opportunity to clarify the status of the tenancy agreement to its shareholders.
Why be defensive??
Surely it’s the duty of the WR PLC Board and WRA(T) to, in light of the present financial situation, to seek the best possible financial deal for its supporters?
Surely you could not disagree?

 

[Green ayre]

Whilst not wanting to detract from the specific issue of Aysgarth station I have literally just received the following email from the railway :

this email is being sent out on behalf of Robert Carter
Driver Experiences
Steam and Diesel Footplate and Driver Experiences have proved to be very popular, but due to a dire shortfall in diesel engine crews and the uncertainty of our current and future steam engine provision, they are placing too great a strain on the Operations Staff. The General Manager has, therefore, decided to place a moratorium these packages until further notice.

Not a good situation when these are revenue generating - especially if they are "very popular"

 

[DarloRich]

As a person with quite a number of years in commercial law, your comments are quite fanciful.
You appear almost an “apologist in chief” for the WR.
I assume with your defensive stance you must be “quite close” to the WR board in some way?
With regards to a revised valuation you are however quite wrong.
Depending on the tenancy agreement, if indeed it ceases on the death of a tenant, then the value of that premises / property will be of a greater value without the sitting tenant.
The Board would be well advised in these circumstances and at the soonest opportunity to clarify the status of the tenancy agreement to its shareholders.
Why be defensive??
Surely it’s the duty of the WR PLC Board and WRA(T) to, in light of the present financial situation, to seek the best possible financial deal for its supporters?
Surely you could not disagree?

oh dear. I have nothing to do with the WR other than:

a) I lived in Northallerton in the past and contributed financially to the railway
and
b) I paid to travel on the line from time to time (once at a forum meet up)

what I am is practical, pragmatic and an occupier of the real world.

It all hinges on what type of tenancy is in place, with whom and under what terms. IF (and it is a big IF especially if the tenancy is in joint names) the tenancy is terminated upon the death of the tenant then I agree absolutely that the landlord should look to investigate if this offers a chance to renegotiate the sale price of his asset. If it does and a buyer is willing to pay the new price then great. The problem is that the buyer in this case holds the power and knows the seller needs to sell. What is the BATNA? WR could re-market but the buyer knows this puts them at a greater financial risk especially if he is positioned to complete quickly for cash and especially if the finances of the company are as dodgy as some here suggest. Can the WR bear the costs & time of re marketing and carry the risk of failure to complete the deal on the table? They do not represent their shareholders best interests by failing financially as a company.

I would be astounded if legal advice has not already been obtained. Solicitors must be retained to deal with the sale and they would have needed to be told asap so the buyer could be informed of the change in circumstances. I agree, however, that the WR should issue a statement as soon as they can ( without prejudicing any negotiations that may be on going) to clarify the position asap. It may change nothing, or it may change everything!

 

[ThetrackMaster]

That’s very interesting GREEN AYRE.
I understand that volunteers have been getting a lot thinner on the ground “coincidentally” post AGM’s.
Whilst “on the day” I’m led to believe that the sale of Aysgarth was unanimous at the AGM’s I don’t believe this was a true representation of what the members wanted.
This decision will go down in WR history for all the wrong reasons!

 

[ThetrackMaster]

oh dear. I have nothing to do with the WR other than:

a) I lived in Northallerton in the past and contributed financially to the railway
and
b) I paid to travel on the line from time to time (once at a forum meet up)

what I am is practical, pragmatic and an occupier of the real world.

It all hinges on what type of tenancy is in place, with whom and under what terms. IF (and it is a big IF especially if the tenancy is in joint names) the tenancy is terminated upon the death of the tenant then I agree absolutely that the landlord should look to investigate if this offers a chance to renegotiate the sale price of his asset. If it does and a buyer is willing to pay the new price then great. The problem is that the buyer in this case holds the power and knows the seller needs to sell. What is the BATNA? WR could re-market but the buyer knows this puts them at a greater financial risk especially if he is positioned to complete quickly for cash and especially if the finances of the company are as dodgy as some here suggest. Can the WR bear the costs & time of re marketing and carry the risk of failure to complete the deal on the table? They do not represent their shareholders best interests by failing financially as a company.

I would be astounded if legal advice has not already been obtained. Solicitors must be retained to deal with the sale and they would have needed to be told asap so the buyer could be informed of the change in circumstances. I agree, however, that the WR should issue a statement as soon as they can ( without prejudicing any negotiations that may be on going) to clarify the position asap. It may change nothing, or it may change everything!

Good, you had me there for a while!
The “problem” is much deeper than you suggest.
I would agree entirely with your logic.
With a business and not a moral hat on, I if I were the buyer, knowing the financial situation would back off for a while and then when I felt backs were to the wall offer a lower amount.
I’ve seen it done countless times over the years and nearly every time in those circumstances the seller has taken their hands off in desperation.
I think this situation has a while to play out yet!

 

[DarloRich]

Good, you had me there for a while!
The “problem” is much deeper than you suggest.
I would agree entirely with your logic.
With a business and not a moral hat on, I if I were the buyer, knowing the financial situation would back off for a while and then when I felt backs were to the wall offer a lower amount.
I’ve seen it done countless times over the years and nearly every time in those circumstances the seller has taken their hands off in desperation.
I think this situation has a while to play out yet!

Likewise. A good surveyor helps no end in getting the price down further

I am far from happy with what is happening but I am not a shareholder so my views don't really count!

 

[ThetrackMaster]

Likewise. A good surveyor helps no end in getting the price down further

I am far from happy with what is happening but I am not a shareholder so my views don't really count!

Your replies and the views of others always count, that is what is called free speech!
Sometimes, just sometimes people in authority when faced with a groundswell of anti-feeling, realise the error of their ways and change tack.
I do hope the members and shareholders see through what is happening here and arrest this.
At the end of the day, this sale wasn’t thought through by the Board.
How many on the board are bonafide businessmen or fantasist rail modellers??

 

[Worf]

The problem is, WR never "marketed" Aysgarth Station in the first place. Shareholders/WRAT members were given the sale to the "wealthy individual" as a take it or leave it done deal. If WR want to dispel the rumours that something shady is taking place, then now is the opportunity to seek an honest and open valuation and give others the chance to save the station.

 

[A0wen]

Before Thatcher the bus services were publicly funded as a public service regardless of whether they made a profit.

Arrant nonsense - and one which is often peddled, yet is wrong.

As far back as the 1970s what ACTUALLY happened, were the local NBC companies ran a network of routes and did some cross subsidy of the profitable routes onto less profitable routes, HOWEVER there were a lot of routes, particularly in rural areas which were funded by the Local Authorities - as a result it was not uncommon for such routes in areas where you had more than one operator for them to change hands. Some of the cuts in the 1970s (before Thatcher) also resulted in depot closures - for example London Country's Luton depot closed because Beds / Herts CCs changed their funding policies which basically killed off the routes that garage used to operate.

All that changed with the 1985 Transport Act which brought about deregulation (and was separate to privatisation of the NBC) was - local authorities were obliged to tender routes which required a subsidies which allowed many independents to tender for routes which had previously been inaccessible to them. And for de-regulation, which again allowed for private operators, many of them small, to start operating routes commercially without needing the permission of the local authority.

The problem in the intervening years has been local authorities were still basically funding the route networks they had in place in 1985, without ever commercially looking at what the real demand was and how it could be best delivered. But that's a problem with local authorities generally employing people with little or no commercial acumen and being too conservative (note, small 'c') and risk averse.

 

[TBirdFrank]

If no "Contract for Sale" has yet been entered into and the whole site is about to become "Vacant Possession" the W Ry Co must stop this transaction now and re-offer the site in the open market if that is their decision and a proven necessity.

That way real supporters of the integrity of the line - if they exist - can come forward with their own proposals and argue their merits against the man of mystery and his as yet unquantified bid.

The alternative is a railway rapidly losing its way ad its supporters which would be a real tragedy as the undeveloped portion of the line holds such potential.

 

[DarloRich]

If no "Contract for Sale" has yet been entered into and the whole site is about to become "Vacant Possession" the W Ry Co must stop this transaction now and re-offer the site in the open market if that is their decision and a proven necessity.

That way real supporters of the integrity of the line - if they exist - can come forward with their own proposals and argue their merits against the man of mystery and his as yet unquantified bid.

The alternative is a railway rapidly losing its way ad its supporters which would be a real tragedy as the undeveloped portion of the line holds such potential.

As pointed out there is no certainty that vacant possession will be granted. WR must not do anything. It may do something if it thinks a better deal is available and it is in the interests of the shareholders to pursue such a deal. It may continue with the deal, even at an alleged undervalue, if it so wishes and has grounds to justify that decision to its shareholders.

 

[TBirdFrank]

W Ry has a responsibility to the Charity Commission and to its donors and supporters to act prudently, openly and honestly.

I fear that to date it fails this test and that is why I wrote what I did the way I did.

It is no use finding out years after that what occurred was wrong when there are doubts right now - so let the leading lights prove their stance - or step aside if they are found wanting - or is that why they are being so secretive?

 

[DarloRich]

W Ry has a responsibility to the Charity Commission and to its donors and supporters to act prudently, openly and honestly.

I fear that to date it fails this test and that is why I wrote what I did the way I did.

It is no use finding out years after that what occurred was wrong when there are doubts right now - so let the leading lights prove their stance - or step aside if they are found wanting - or is that why they are being so secretive?

The PLC runs the operation, maintenance and development of the railway. The WRA ( the charity) deals with fund raising, volunteer working, providing training and supporting work on the heritage side of the asset.

What I am not clear on, and hopefully you can assist, is who actually owns the assets of the line and the station area in question. If the PLC then they don't have to answer to the Charity Commissioners.

 

[otto52]

As I understand it the PLC owns the Aysgarth Station site.

 

[Green ayre]

Why & when did the PLC become the owner of Aysgarth ?

The original bond issue to purchase the site was before the creation of the PLC ?

If so, what did the PLC pay for it and to which organisation ?

Thanks

 

[TBirdFrank]

In most preservation operations the asset remains firmly within the owning charity and the operating company is merely a vehicle to separate the business side of things and protect the charity in case of a business failure. It appears that lines here are blurred and that there is no clear statement of the facts - hence why I am seeking one - and if the Charity Commission is the route to discovery - then so be it. If there has been any sleight of hand along the way to the detriment of the charity it needs rooting out and demonstrating.

 

[DarloRich]

In most preservation operations the asset remains firmly within the owning charity and the operating company is merely a vehicle to separate the business side of things and protect the charity in case of a business failure. It appears that lines here are blurred and that there is no clear statement of the facts - hence why I am seeking one - and if the Charity Commission is the route to discovery - then so be it. If there has been any sleight of hand along the way to the detriment of the charity it needs rooting out and demonstrating.

Go on the land registry website and download the site ownership details. It will cost you £6

 

[Pinza-C55]

Arrant nonsense - and one which is often peddled, yet is wrong.

As far back as the 1970s what ACTUALLY happened, were the local NBC companies ran a network of routes and did some cross subsidy of the profitable routes onto less profitable routes, HOWEVER there were a lot of routes, particularly in rural areas which were funded by the Local Authorities - as a result it was not uncommon for such routes in areas where you had more than one operator for them to change hands. Some of the cuts in the 1970s (before Thatcher) also resulted in depot closures - for example London Country's Luton depot closed because Beds / Herts CCs changed their funding policies which basically killed off the routes that garage used to operate.

All that changed with the 1985 Transport Act which brought about deregulation (and was separate to privatisation of the NBC) was - local authorities were obliged to tender routes which required a subsidies which allowed many independents to tender for routes which had previously been inaccessible to them. And for de-regulation, which again allowed for private operators, many of them small, to start operating routes commercially without needing the permission of the local authority.

The problem in the intervening years has been local authorities were still basically funding the route networks they had in place in 1985, without ever commercially looking at what the real demand was and how it could be best delivered. But that's a problem with local authorities generally employing people with little or no commercial acumen and being too conservative (note, small 'c') and risk averse.

"Arrant" ?
Wow, there are some hot tempers here !
"arrant in British
(ˈærənt
adjective
utter; out-and-out
an arrant fool
Collins English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers"

I said "Before Thatcher the bus services were publicly funded as a public service regardless of whether they made a profit."
You replied "HOWEVER there were a lot of routes, particularly in rural areas which were funded by the Local Authorities"
That's hardly an out-and-out difference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_deregulation_in_Great_Britain
In the early 1980s much of the British bus network was in public ownership, either by the state owned National Bus Company or by municipal owned bus operators. It was regulated with operators not subject to competition.

The Thatcher Government commissioned a white paper into the bus industry. This resulted in the implementation of the Transport Act 1985 on 26 October 1986 and the deregulation of bus services in England, Scotland and Wales. Deregulation did not apply to London Buses which in April 1989 was split into 11 quasi-independent companies that were privatised in 1994/95

 

[Baxenden Bank]

As an aside to debates on the subsidy of bus service and the technicalities of residential tenancies:

RAMCO1707 LIMITED

Company number 10852046

Nature of Business: 49100 - Passenger rail transport, interurban

Incorporated 5 July 2017

William David Smith (born August 1946) appointed director on 27 September 2017


WEST CALEDONIAN RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED

Company number 10802980

Nature of business: 49100 - Passenger rail transport, interurban

Incorporated 5 June 2017

Thomas Richard Smith (born July 1977) appointed director on 5 June 2017

 

[Baxenden Bank]

In April 1979 there were between 12 and 16 bus services between Hawes and Leyburn weekdays.
In 1989 6 plus 3 more on Tuesdays and Fridays.
In 1999 17.
In 2009 13.

 

[DarloRich]

As an aside to debates on the subsidy of bus service and the technicalities of residential tenancies:

RAMCO1707 LIMITED

Company number 10852046

Nature of Business: 49100 - Passenger rail transport, interurban

Incorporated 5 July 2017

William David Smith (born August 1946) appointed director on 27 September 2017


WEST CALEDONIAN RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED

Company number 10802980

Nature of business: 49100 - Passenger rail transport, interurban

Incorporated 5 June 2017

Thomas Richard Smith (born July 1977) appointed director on 5 June 2017

what is that telling us?

 

[theblackwatch]

what is that telling us?

Absolutely nothing! RAMCO1707 is now Northern Belle (Holdings) Ltd so this is clearly a firm set up in relation to the purchase of the Northern Belle operation.

 

[TheBeard]

So Northern Belle York to Aysgarth? tbh if WCRC took over the line and ran it with their lovely locos, it might be great for the local community/tourism. The current management haven't managed to get a steam loco or a shed up and running, and ignoring the knockers who have never been there, its clearly got a big potential with decent management to be an SVR or an NYMR. Time for openness or a grass roots rebellion and change of board?