Llangollen Railway appoints receivers

[221129]

I suppose in simple terms, the Trust is analogous to Network Rail and the plc to a TOC, yes? (even if the track access fee is £0)

No not really.

 

[M7R]

Hopefully it will be saved and back up and running, I have been Llangollen a fair few times and always enjoy it, I rather like The Grouse Inn pub at Carrog, good food and good beer and nice views from the outside seating.

 

[geoffk]

South Tynedale Railway are (or were) in a similar dire financial position.

West Somerset?

 

[TheEdge]

West Somerset?

No, the plc and trust there just seem to be in an eternal knife fight with each other.

 

[swanhill41]

West Somerset?

There are strong rumours ref above

 

[TPO]

South Tynedale Railway are (or were) in a similar dire financial position.

Indeed.

The South Tynedale seem to have been somewhat noorty in how they responded though.

The story I have had (from a reputable source) is that they decided that their suppliers were contracted to the shop/trading company rather than the railway and then they put the shop/trading company into liquidation. As the shop/trading company had no assets, the suppliers will be left with nothing. (Of course any govt grants would have been made to the railway so they kept those ).

I know someone who works with one of the suppliers stung that way. They have had the paperwork from the liquidator and wondered if it was worth suing STR for breach of contract as all their paperwork and contract info indicates that it was the railway society they were contracted to not the shop/trading company. Not sure where that is, most likely they decided the amount in question wasn't worth the hassle given the clogged courts. But they won't be supplying STR again, indeed I expect that they will be checking very carefully the status of ANY Heritage body they deal with now.

Is this the sort of Heritage railway management that should be surviving one asks? Whilst it's (probably just about) legal, it's certainly reprehensible.

TPO

 

[bramling]

Hopefully it will be saved and back up and running, I have been Llangollen a fair few times and always enjoy it, I rather like The Grouse Inn pub at Carrog, good food and good beer and nice views from the outside seating.

Given Llangollen is a tourist honeypot, I can't really envisage a scenario where the railway would disappear, even in the current times.

 

[John Luxton]

Given Llangollen is a tourist honeypot, I can't really envisage a scenario where the railway would disappear, even in the current times.

Llangollen is a honeypot - but as quite a regular visitor I wonder how many visit spend money?

There always appears to be more "gongoozlers" rather than travellers at Llangollen Station than one sees at say Porthmadog or Tywyn.

Also over the past few years an number of hotels have gone in to liquidation in the area.

One is currently up for sale, or was when I passed a few weeks ago, there is another on the way into Llangollen on the A5 heading west which has never reopened and appears to be just a private house and of course Chainbridge at Berwyn closed for a while as the previous owners went into liquidation though it reopened quite quickly under new ownership and was appeared to do very well as they appear to have invested in it.

I get the feeling one has to be quite skilful to make money in that area - it is not as easily tapped perhaps as other locations.

Llangollen Railway has a lot of potential but I think it needs really skill full management to tap the tourist pound.

Personally I love the railway - it is the nearest GW heritage line to me here on Merseyside but it needs careful handling and I hope it comes through this well.

 

[WesternLancer]

Indeed.

The South Tynedale seem to have been somewhat noorty in how they responded though.

The story I have had (from a reputable source) is that they decided that their suppliers were contracted to the shop/trading company rather than the railway and then they put the shop/trading company into liquidation. As the shop/trading company had no assets, the suppliers will be left with nothing. (Of course any govt grants would have been made to the railway so they kept those ).

I know someone who works with one of the suppliers stung that way. They have had the paperwork from the liquidator and wondered if it was worth suing STR for breach of contract as all their paperwork and contract info indicates that it was the railway society they were contracted to not the shop/trading company. Not sure where that is, most likely they decided the amount in question wasn't worth the hassle given the clogged courts. But they won't be supplying STR again, indeed I expect that they will be checking very carefully the status of ANY Heritage body they deal with now.

Is this the sort of Heritage railway management that should be surviving one asks? Whilst it's (probably just about) legal, it's certainly reprehensible.

TPO

I think this trading method is standard for any sort of museum type body or charity that you purchase things from - next time you buy something in a gift shop at such places look at your receipt, I suspect even things like bird seed orders from the RSPB shop works this way for example.

I would argue that it is absolutely vital way of protecting heritage assets from unpredictable things in your trading business. After all, isn't this what happened to Flying Scotsman on its US tour? Loco was at risk due to debts run up by the then owner, despite his best efforts...(probably all a bit different as the issue was under US law not UK law I guess, but the general point would seem valid).

Covid being a big risk issue but imagine something as daft as a shop manager or even volunteer over ordering perishable stock that could not be sold and gets thrown away, and then you having to sell an item from your museum (even just say an enamel station name board) to meet the debt. You would not want to be in that sit'n - and a small heritage railway might be all volunteer run with people in positions where they could make such errors if not suitably experienced or supervised.

I can imagine that a supplier would see the actions you describe as bad faith (I would) but they too would be being naïve if they supplied a heritage railway and thought - 'oh look, they have all these expensive trains they must be a sound business to deal with'. Some would say they would not have done due diligence before supplying items on credit to said railway.

Having said that of course I realize small suppliers will be as up against it as their customers and even more so in these times so it is not great at all. But I'm assuming South Tynedale, in that example, didn't just call in the liquidator for the heck of it - as if nothing else, they will find out that they will never get offered goods on credit to their shop etc in future - it will be 'cash up front please' in future, making life more difficult for them to run the operation. STR paperwork and orders ought to be absolutely clear who the order is placed by though, or they are indeed jeopardizing their collection in the event of supplier suing for what they are owed.

 

[John Luxton]

Indeed.

The South Tynedale seem to have been somewhat noorty in how they responded though.

The story I have had (from a reputable source) is that they decided that their suppliers were contracted to the shop/trading company rather than the railway and then they put the shop/trading company into liquidation. As the shop/trading company had no assets, the suppliers will be left with nothing. (Of course any govt grants would have been made to the railway so they kept those ).

I know someone who works with one of the suppliers stung that way. They have had the paperwork from the liquidator and wondered if it was worth suing STR for breach of contract as all their paperwork and contract info indicates that it was the railway society they were contracted to not the shop/trading company. Not sure where that is, most likely they decided the amount in question wasn't worth the hassle given the clogged courts. But they won't be supplying STR again, indeed I expect that they will be checking very carefully the status of ANY Heritage body they deal with now.

Is this the sort of Heritage railway management that should be surviving one asks? Whilst it's (probably just about) legal, it's certainly reprehensible.

TPO

Unfortunately this is the way big businesses appear to operate these days. I recall a consumer programme on TV once stating it was known as "change the name and do the same". I once had shares in a brewing company which became insolvent. The two directors put the company into liquidation, therefore zilch for shareholders and creditors, but then bought the business back privately from the receivers cheaply and obviously the debt had been wiped.

 

[35B]

Unfortunately this is the way big businesses appear to operate these days. I recall a consumer programme on TV once stating it was known as "change the name and do the same". I once had shares in a brewing company which became insolvent. The two directors put the company into liquidation, therefore zilch for shareholders and creditors, but then bought the business back privately from the receivers cheaply and obviously the debt had been wiped.

Without commenting on events in Alston, there's a significant difference between what you describe, and the structures in many preservation organisations. What you describe is where someone structured matters to protect themselves to the disadvantage of others, in what was at best an unethical manner. The structure at many preserved railways is declared up front, and it's open to any supplier (or indeed customer, given the issues with the contracting arm are what appear to have precipitated the collapse) to look at the structure to assess their creditworthiness. That does not condone sharp practice like loading debts on the insolvent part of an organisation, and shielding the solvent part.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately this is the way big businesses appear to operate these days. I recall a consumer programme on TV once stating it was known as "change the name and do the same". I once had shares in a brewing company which became insolvent. The two directors put the company into liquidation, therefore zilch for shareholders and creditors, but then bought the business back privately from the receivers cheaply and obviously the debt had been wiped.

Sounds like pre-pack adminstrations, which are like Chapter 11 but worse.

That said, both those and Chapter 11 are made for COVID, where businesses are failing through no fault of those managing them (unlike the Llangollen Railway, where it appears there has been a considerable period of mismanagement and COVID was just a "last straw").

 

[TPO]

I think this trading method is standard for any sort of museum type body or charity that you purchase things from - next time you buy something in a gift shop at such places look at your receipt, I suspect even things like bird seed orders from the RSPB shop works this way for example.

I would argue that it is absolutely vital way of protecting heritage assets from unpredictable things in your trading business. After all, isn't this what happened to Flying Scotsman on its US tour? Loco was at risk due to debts run up by the then owner, despite his best efforts...(probably all a bit different as the issue was under US law not UK law I guess, but the general point would seem valid).

Covid being a big risk issue but imagine something as daft as a shop manager or even volunteer over ordering perishable stock that could not be sold and gets thrown away, and then you having to sell an item from your museum (even just say an enamel station name board) to meet the debt. You would not want to be in that sit'n - and a small heritage railway might be all volunteer run with people in positions where they could make such errors if not suitably experienced or supervised.

I can imagine that a supplier would see the actions you describe as bad faith (I would) but they too would be being naïve if they supplied a heritage railway and thought - 'oh look, they have all these expensive trains they must be a sound business to deal with'. Some would say they would not have done due diligence before supplying items on credit to said railway.

Having said that of course I realize small suppliers will be as up against it as their customers and even more so in these times so it is not great at all. But I'm assuming South Tynedale, in that example, didn't just call in the liquidator for the heck of it - as if nothing else, they will find out that they will never get offered goods on credit to their shop etc in future - it will be 'cash up front please' in future, making life more difficult for them to run the operation. STR paperwork and orders ought to be absolutely clear who the order is placed by though, or they are indeed jeopardizing their collection in the event of supplier suing for what they are owed.

Whilst I don't disagree that such a structure can help to protect the assets of an organisation, equally it's not there to be abused like this. And I'm in no doubt from what I was shown that the STR abused this. Morally the Board that did this is reprehensible and yes I think the same way about any business that behaves like this. It's too easy a mechanism to abuse, and why should their assets be protected? What makes them so special?

Heritage railways are fundamentally businesses- they take money from the public to fund their hobby- and as such screwing their suppliers is as much reprehensible behaviour when they do it as when other companies do it. "Oh but we use volunteers" is not an excuse. If any railway had such competence issues with volunteer staff managing a shop then I would suggest they have no place carrying the public on their trains where the competence requirements are so much higher. Instead they should set up as a 12-inch to the foot model railway in a field and go fund their own hobby.

Also, in the case of STR the supplier I know was led to believe they were dealing with the railway trust which does have assets..... but got caught out in a situation which whilst techically legal is basically a scam. I have seen the paperwork and reckon they could sue for unpaid invoices as it's clear they were not informed that the entity they were trading with had changed, the stationary and written authority to supply (not a PO as such) didn't make it clear.

To be fair, I doubt the STR board fully realised the implications of what they were doing, probably just thought this was a simple way to make their debts go away so they could play with their trainset without interference. Doesn't excuse it though. I have seen too many volunteer committee types being oh so very clever and ignoring advice about finances, management, maintenance and so on right up until they face the consequences. (That's why for many years I have stayed away from any volunteer groups whether railway or otherwise- too many egos running them). I hope that they learn the consequences of their immoral actions the hard way. When you take on a role with a responsibility- volunteer or paid- you then have a duty to do it properly, you get the status so you need to get yourself competent.

I have come to the view that Heritage railways need some serious reform, should be on a similar footing to other businesses (i.e. it should be mandatory to be a limited company, CIC or PLC to run a passenger-carrying railway). You either have a proper company running the railway with volunteers in a supporters trust permitted to work on the railway according to the rules, or you do what the model flying lot do and fund your own hobby (I say model flyers as they comply with a lot of regulation, build their own aircraft at their own expense and some even have acquired their own small airfields).

TPO

 

[WesternLancer]

Whilst I don't disagree that such a structure can help to protect the assets of an organisation, equally it's not there to be abused like this. And I'm in no doubt from what I was shown that the STR abused this. Morally the Board that did this is reprehensible and yes I think the same way about any business that behaves like this. It's too easy a mechanism to abuse, and why should their assets be protected? What makes them so special?

Heritage railways are fundamentally businesses- they take money from the public to fund their hobby- and as such screwing their suppliers is as much reprehensible behaviour when they do it as when other companies do it. "Oh but we use volunteers" is not an excuse. If any railway had such competence issues with volunteer staff managing a shop then I would suggest they have no place carrying the public on their trains where the competence requirements are so much higher. Instead they should set up as a 12-inch to the foot model railway in a field and go fund their own hobby.

Also, in the case of STR the supplier I know was led to believe they were dealing with the railway trust which does have assets..... but got caught out in a situation which whilst techically legal is basically a scam. I have seen the paperwork and reckon they could sue for unpaid invoices as it's clear they were not informed that the entity they were trading with had changed, the stationary and written authority to supply (not a PO as such) didn't make it clear.

To be fair, I doubt the STR board fully realised the implications of what they were doing, probably just thought this was a simple way to make their debts go away so they could play with their trainset without interference. Doesn't excuse it though. I have seen too many volunteer committee types being oh so very clever and ignoring advice about finances, management, maintenance and so on right up until they face the consequences. (That's why for many years I have stayed away from any volunteer groups whether railway or otherwise- too many egos running them). I hope that they learn the consequences of their immoral actions the hard way. When you take on a role with a responsibility- volunteer or paid- you then have a duty to do it properly, you get the status so you need to get yourself competent.

I have come to the view that Heritage railways need some serious reform, should be on a similar footing to other businesses (i.e. it should be mandatory to be a limited company, CIC or PLC to run a passenger-carrying railway). You either have a proper company running the railway with volunteers in a supporters trust permitted to work on the railway according to the rules, or you do what the model flying lot do and fund your own hobby (I say model flyers as they comply with a lot of regulation, build their own aircraft at their own expense and some even have acquired their own small airfields).

TPO

Fully understand your line of thinking. But it's down to charitable status and charity law - which to my mind is very broad and generous in the way it allows things to be in this country. And if you do business with a charity's trading arm you need to be aware of what you are dealing with.

And being on a similar footing to other businesses would not stop such things really - see the brewery example posted a few post up thread.

It's a about a UK wide reduced regime for businesses to operate in, as a way of encouraging business to operate at all, versus "over regulation" = no one bothers. This has guided UK govt since, well, since the railway age. See Hudson

 

[bramling]

Llangollen is a honeypot - but as quite a regular visitor I wonder how many visit spend money?

There always appears to be more "gongoozlers" rather than travellers at Llangollen Station than one sees at say Porthmadog or Tywyn.

Also over the past few years an number of hotels have gone in to liquidation in the area.

One is currently up for sale, or was when I passed a few weeks ago, there is another on the way into Llangollen on the A5 heading west which has never reopened and appears to be just a private house and of course Chainbridge at Berwyn closed for a while as the previous owners went into liquidation though it reopened quite quickly under new ownership and was appeared to do very well as they appear to have invested in it.

I get the feeling one has to be quite skilful to make money in that area - it is not as easily tapped perhaps as other locations.

Llangollen Railway has a lot of potential but I think it needs really skill full management to tap the tourist pound.

Personally I love the railway - it is the nearest GW heritage line to me here on Merseyside but it needs careful handling and I hope it comes through this well.

You may well be right. It's a strange place in some ways, for sure. We've actually had two indifferent hotel experiences there, one hotel had no hot water for pretty much the entire duration of the stay, yet they didn't seem in the slightest bit bothered about it. And another hotel was run-down to the point of being comical. Perhaps it's more of a daytrip / weekend break destination, and perhaps the same people tend to go there over and over - meaning once they've "done" the steam train once they're not interested in doing it again. It's fair to say that the place (along with Betwsycoed) attracts a fair number of a certain "type" of weekend-break type, again perhaps the types for which a train ride is beneath them.

 

[Llanigraham]

Llangollen is a honeypot - but as quite a regular visitor I wonder how many visit spend money?

There always appears to be more "gongoozlers" rather than travellers at Llangollen Station than one sees at say Porthmadog or Tywyn.

Also over the past few years an number of hotels have gone in to liquidation in the area.

One is currently up for sale, or was when I passed a few weeks ago, there is another on the way into Llangollen on the A5 heading west which has never reopened and appears to be just a private house and of course Chainbridge at Berwyn closed for a while as the previous owners went into liquidation though it reopened quite quickly under new ownership and was appeared to do very well as they appear to have invested in it.

I get the feeling one has to be quite skilful to make money in that area - it is not as easily tapped perhaps as other locations.

Llangollen Railway has a lot of potential but I think it needs really skill full management to tap the tourist pound.

Personally I love the railway - it is the nearest GW heritage line to me here on Merseyside but it needs careful handling and I hope it comes through this well.

Very much agree with John over the situation in Llangollen. Last time I passed through, pre-Covid, the town has started to look very tired again and lots of shops looked like they were closing. The lack of decent hotels has resulted in the dropping off a coach parties staying and the poor parking hasn't helped with day trips, both by car and coach. The only time they seem to make any money is with the International Eisteddfod, cancelled last year and in doubt this year I understand.
And as for the railway, a couple of us did a trip up there 2 years ago and found it very unfriendly. We arrived just before 11 and were told that we couldn't have any bacon sandwiches as it was "lunch time" and then the crew of our train arrived and had the exact same things we'd asked for. Even worse was that no-one smiled or said please or thank you throughout our visit; not what we find on other railways.

 

[alexl92]

A question;

Are there any other heritage lines in a financial bind,or is a one off special situation.?

I believe quite a few are in a bit of a delicate position, partly as a result of Covid and partly because operating a steam railway is always expensive.

In simple, more easy-to-understand, terms, what exactly has happened at the Llangollen, other of course than the cashflow drying up because of COVID-19?

My understanding (and if I am wrong then I would like someone to correct me) is that some of their contract engineering customers had issues with the quality of the work produced and asked for it to be remedied with Llangollen bearing the cost of the extra work (understandably) which has had a major impact on a) their profits and b) their ability to complete all their contracted work on time.

 

[simonw]

Whilst I don't disagree that such a structure can help to protect the assets of an organisation, equally it's not there to be abused like this. And I'm in no doubt from what I was shown that the STR abused this. Morally the Board that did this is reprehensible and yes I think the same way about any business that behaves like this. It's too easy a mechanism to abuse, and why should their assets be protected? What makes them so special?

Heritage railways are fundamentally businesses- they take money from the public to fund their hobby- and as such screwing their suppliers is as much reprehensible behaviour when they do it as when other companies do it. "Oh but we use volunteers" is not an excuse. If any railway had such competence issues with volunteer staff managing a shop then I would suggest they have no place carrying the public on their trains where the competence requirements are so much higher. Instead they should set up as a 12-inch to the foot model railway in a field and go fund their own hobby.

Also, in the case of STR the supplier I know was led to believe they were dealing with the railway trust which does have assets..... but got caught out in a situation which whilst techically legal is basically a scam. I have seen the paperwork and reckon they could sue for unpaid invoices as it's clear they were not informed that the entity they were trading with had changed, the stationary and written authority to supply (not a PO as such) didn't make it clear.

To be fair, I doubt the STR board fully realised the implications of what they were doing, probably just thought this was a simple way to make their debts go away so they could play with their trainset without interference. Doesn't excuse it though. I have seen too many volunteer committee types being oh so very clever and ignoring advice about finances, management, maintenance and so on right up until they face the consequences. (That's why for many years I have stayed away from any volunteer groups whether railway or otherwise- too many egos running them). I hope that they learn the consequences of their immoral actions the hard way. When you take on a role with a responsibility- volunteer or paid- you then have a duty to do it properly, you get the status so you need to get yourself competent.

I have come to the view that Heritage railways need some serious reform, should be on a similar footing to other businesses (i.e. it should be mandatory to be a limited company, CIC or PLC to run a passenger-carrying railway). You either have a proper company running the railway with volunteers in a supporters trust permitted to work on the railway according to the rules, or you do what the model flying lot do and fund your own hobby (I say model flyers as they comply with a lot of regulation, build their own aircraft at their own expense and some even have acquired their own small airfields).

TPO

If the paperwork stated the purchaser was the Trust then the Trust are liable. If the paperwork stated the purchaser was the Ltd company then the Trust are not liable. Presumably the paperwork indicated who should have been invoiced ?

 

[35B]

Whilst I don't disagree that such a structure can help to protect the assets of an organisation, equally it's not there to be abused like this. And I'm in no doubt from what I was shown that the STR abused this. Morally the Board that did this is reprehensible and yes I think the same way about any business that behaves like this. It's too easy a mechanism to abuse, and why should their assets be protected? What makes them so special?

Heritage railways are fundamentally businesses- they take money from the public to fund their hobby- and as such screwing their suppliers is as much reprehensible behaviour when they do it as when other companies do it. "Oh but we use volunteers" is not an excuse. If any railway had such competence issues with volunteer staff managing a shop then I would suggest they have no place carrying the public on their trains where the competence requirements are so much higher. Instead they should set up as a 12-inch to the foot model railway in a field and go fund their own hobby.

Also, in the case of STR the supplier I know was led to believe they were dealing with the railway trust which does have assets..... but got caught out in a situation which whilst techically legal is basically a scam. I have seen the paperwork and reckon they could sue for unpaid invoices as it's clear they were not informed that the entity they were trading with had changed, the stationary and written authority to supply (not a PO as such) didn't make it clear.

To be fair, I doubt the STR board fully realised the implications of what they were doing, probably just thought this was a simple way to make their debts go away so they could play with their trainset without interference. Doesn't excuse it though. I have seen too many volunteer committee types being oh so very clever and ignoring advice about finances, management, maintenance and so on right up until they face the consequences. (That's why for many years I have stayed away from any volunteer groups whether railway or otherwise- too many egos running them). I hope that they learn the consequences of their immoral actions the hard way. When you take on a role with a responsibility- volunteer or paid- you then have a duty to do it properly, you get the status so you need to get yourself competent.

I have come to the view that Heritage railways need some serious reform, should be on a similar footing to other businesses (i.e. it should be mandatory to be a limited company, CIC or PLC to run a passenger-carrying railway). You either have a proper company running the railway with volunteers in a supporters trust permitted to work on the railway according to the rules, or you do what the model flying lot do and fund your own hobby (I say model flyers as they comply with a lot of regulation, build their own aircraft at their own expense and some even have acquired their own small airfields).

TPO

You seem to confuse structure with competence; I've seen very well structured organisations fail due to incompetence, and I've seen bizarrely structured organisations thrive. I disagree fundamentally with your prescription, because it denies the reality of the regulations preserved railways have to comply with, and the significant efforts they go to to meet their obligations.

I am a volunteer in an organisation (non rail). Those who volunteer do so for love of, not money, and take their responsibilities seriously. If they - we - didn't then a lot wouldn't happen that we would all miss.

As for your contact and their alleged mistreatment, I am with @simonw - the obligation lies with what's on the paperwork. If your contact's firm have chosen to give it up as a bad lot, that's their choice. If they have been subjected to a switch, then that is unacceptable, and there should be consequences on those who effected the switch. But that doesn't mean that all volunteer run organisations should be tarred with that brush, just as it doesn't mean that I should assume that all suppliers like the one you are familiar with are incapable of following basic due diligence for falling foul of the alleged behaviour.

 

[paul1609]

Whilst I don't disagree that such a structure can help to protect the assets of an organisation, equally it's not there to be abused like this. And I'm in no doubt from what I was shown that the STR abused this. Morally the Board that did this is reprehensible and yes I think the same way about any business that behaves like this. It's too easy a mechanism to abuse, and why should their assets be protected? What makes them so special?

Heritage railways are fundamentally businesses- they take money from the public to fund their hobby- and as such screwing their suppliers is as much reprehensible behaviour when they do it as when other companies do it. "Oh but we use volunteers" is not an excuse. If any railway had such competence issues with volunteer staff managing a shop then I would suggest they have no place carrying the public on their trains where the competence requirements are so much higher. Instead they should set up as a 12-inch to the foot model railway in a field and go fund their own hobby.

Also, in the case of STR the supplier I know was led to believe they were dealing with the railway trust which does have assets..... but got caught out in a situation which whilst techically legal is basically a scam. I have seen the paperwork and reckon they could sue for unpaid invoices as it's clear they were not informed that the entity they were trading with had changed, the stationary and written authority to supply (not a PO as such) didn't make it clear.

To be fair, I doubt the STR board fully realised the implications of what they were doing, probably just thought this was a simple way to make their debts go away so they could play with their trainset without interference. Doesn't excuse it though. I have seen too many volunteer committee types being oh so very clever and ignoring advice about finances, management, maintenance and so on right up until they face the consequences. (That's why for many years I have stayed away from any volunteer groups whether railway or otherwise- too many egos running them). I hope that they learn the consequences of their immoral actions the hard way. When you take on a role with a responsibility- volunteer or paid- you then have a duty to do it properly, you get the status so you need to get yourself competent.

I have come to the view that Heritage railways need some serious reform, should be on a similar footing to other businesses (i.e. it should be mandatory to be a limited company, CIC or PLC to run a passenger-carrying railway). You either have a proper company running the railway with volunteers in a supporters trust permitted to work on the railway according to the rules, or you do what the model flying lot do and fund your own hobby (I say model flyers as they comply with a lot of regulation, build their own aircraft at their own expense and some even have acquired their own small airfields).

TPO

To be honest as somebody who has been involved with the railway preservation movement on the commercial side for some years and also as a trustee for approaching 10 years the situation you are suggesting sounds strange to me. Normally it should be apparent to suppliers exactly who they are dealing with, the invoices should be made out either the charitable trust or the trading company and the supplier should be paid from the bank account of that entity. At the railway Im involved in we have separate card machines and epos for the different identities. I can sell cross products but there has to be a cross company accounting move at the end of the day. All this should be audited by HMRC and the Charity Commissioners (if the company is charitable) as well as the accountants.
What I am saying really is that I think that generally heritage railways are properly set up and audited. The current situation has certainly stressed some companies beyond survival but that is circumstances that people would have not foreseen 18 months ago and that is as true for preserved railways as it is for the likes of Debenhams and Top Shop.

 

[Bevan Price]

I think that the local council must share the blame for making Llangollen less attractive. Over a few years, their charges for using a car park on the edge of the town centre were increased from "quite reasonable" to "somewhat excessive".
I was surprised to find someone reporting that the railway was "unfriendly" - you must have caught them on a bad day. I suspect the workshops may have overstretched their resources by trying to take on more work than they could feasibly perform on schedule.

As for the South Tynedale, I think they were always going to struggle, due to their remote location, many miles from any large towns, and inaccessible by public transport.

 

[John Luxton]

Very much agree with John over the situation in Llangollen. Last time I passed through, pre-Covid, the town has started to look very tired again and lots of shops looked like they were closing. The lack of decent hotels has resulted in the dropping off a coach parties staying and the poor parking hasn't helped with day trips, both by car and coach. The only time they seem to make any money is with the International Eisteddfod, cancelled last year and in doubt this year I understand.
And as for the railway, a couple of us did a trip up there 2 years ago and found it very unfriendly. We arrived just before 11 and were told that we couldn't have any bacon sandwiches as it was "lunch time" and then the crew of our train arrived and had the exact same things we'd asked for. Even worse was that no-one smiled or said please or thank you throughout our visit; not what we find on other railways.

I have always tended to park at Carrog - it is free for a start and close to the trains.

I must admit I don't tend to look around the town much, though I did wander through this summer.

After a visit to the railway I usually head off for the Britannia Inn, about a mile away, at the foot of the Horseshoe Pass for a meal and if staying in the area always stay there.

It is only around 40 miles from home but I find the food good and the place welcoming.

I can't say I can find fault with the attitude of staff on the railway - always seems friendly enough.

Though in recent years if I was to be critical it would be about the cleanliness the loco hauled carriages.

I recall taking a family friend there a few years back and I was a bit embarrassed as clouds of dust erupted as she sat down in the comprtment.

The railcars, by comparison, appear very well well maintained and clean. However, when I paid two visits in February and again in March just before the shutdown I noted that some seating had been reupholstered.

John

 

[Deepgreen]

I have a horrible feeling that there will be many more to follow. With a deep economic depression only just starting, the preserved railways will presumably continue to attract far fewer visitors. Disposable incomes must inevitably drop and therefore all such 'luxury' activities will consequently suffer. The same goes for main line tours, etc. Very lean times ahead, sadly.

 

[Ianigsy]

The LR has the advantage of going from somewhere to somewhere else and, when coach trips are running again, the coach can drop the party at Llangollen at 12, hand out tickets for a train at, say, 2 and then pick everybody up in Corwen at 3. At one point there was also a joint ticket you could buy for a train trip to Berwyn and return on the canal.

The knock-on effects on the organisations owed money for the engineering contracts remain to be seen, however - at best some of them might have to take a haircut and accept that they’re not going to get it all back.

 

[plannerman]

What concerns me about Llangollen is the major infrastructure they have - the Dee Bridge and the tunnel. Neither of those are cheap or easy to maintain, and any period of neglect could lead to costs mounting up to the point where the infrastructure is unusable.

 

[Worf]

I remember, many years ago at an AGM of the PLC, someone (a shareholder and GM of another heritage railway) pointing out that shareholders money was being used regularly to cover day to day running costs and that this was unsustainable in the long term. They have been proved correct.

 

[reddragon]

I have tried to visit the railway on many occasions without success. Parking in Llangollen was always full, expensive, difficult and timetabling just never worked for me. I am sure that I am not alone on this. I was hoping the opening of Corwen would make visiting the line easier, but only if trains started and ended there earlier rather than just from Llangollen.

When they had their appeal last year I looked and it was a faff to do. Just looking now it seems much easier. The Trust remains open for donations to save the railway. Perhaps we should donate to save our heritage!

 

[steamybrian]

As a former member and occasional working volunteer on the Llangollen Railway I discovered it was one of the largest employers in the town. In those days the railway had about 35 full time paid staff plus usual contractors. On the many mid week "off peak days" the income would unlikely to have covered the wages and operating costs.
Some of the mark 1 sets were in very poor condition and I suspect that the C&W workshops concentrated on more lucrative external paid contract work than keeping their own stock in order.
Finally I agree that Carrog is the best place tp park particularly with the Grouse Inn a short walking distance away. Did not like parking at The Grouse Inn as their car park is difficult to access.

 

[Titfield]

Heritage Railways do not, imho, employ paid staff because they want to. They employ paid staff because they have to. A combination of the need to ensure certain roles are staffed on every running day, roles that are full time business critical, roles that volunteers are not willing to carry out or have the skills set / competencies to carry out create the need to employ paid staff. Ironically the problems of recruiting seasonal staff seems to have encouraged some heritage railways to employ staff on a full time basis when perhaps arguably they are not needed 5 days a week year round, but 6 days a week in the summer and not at all in November, January and February (excluding half term).

As staff costs seem to rise inexorably year on year (in part caused by NLW / NMW and compulsory pension schemes) heritage railway finances are put under more and more pressure. Farebox revenues alone will not meet the total cost of running a heritage railway. Donations, legacies and grants are all needed to balance the books.

I fear that the economics of the industry are moving towards the point where some of the weaker heritage railways will go to the wall simply because they can not balance the books.

I do wonder if rather than trying to do more (which seems invariably to require more paid staff) , some heritage railways would be more financially secure if they did less so they could dispense with some paid staff and possibly dare I say it reduce the fleet size.

One point to ponder is "Santa Specials". yes they are a big revenue generator but do they justify all the costs which are incurred especially if it means having year round paid staff compared with say opening for Easter and Closing end of October (or even perish the thought closing end of September when the traffic on many heritage railways falls very considerably).

 

[reddragon]

There are too many Heritage railways on the go (many I'd never visit) and far too much stock that's in scrapyard condition, that will one day be scrapped.

You have to choose to be a volunteer only run museum that runs trains it can afford or a Commercial railway that needs paid staff and needs to make money.

After this and maybe next years stay at home boom, many may need to think hard as to how much they need and what realistically they can do. Opening an extension is one thing, maintaining and operating it is another.

The West Somerset Railway should just give up and join the mainline public railway system for example