Aysgarth Station - Wensleydale Railway

[otto52]

This time next year there will be wringing of hands yet again except there will be even fewer options having sold the Crown Jewels for peanuts.

Agreed, and I suspect the whole situation could be a PR disaster for the WR. Perhaps it will then cease to be the "invisible railway"! If the eastern extension were abandoned does that mean the two level crossings east of Leeming would not need to be upgraded? I find it extraordinary that the incident last year which caused that section of the line to be closed apparently cannot be sued for compensation?

 

[Shenandoah]

Otto mentions in one of his posts that local authority and communities favour the expansion - as was planned originally and that is often the case with heritage/community projects. The main issue as I see it is being in support is fine but only as long as someone else pays for it.
A local mayor in my territory has mooted a similar but very much smaller 'community' scheme despite the fact that the original terminal is not longer achievable, due to house building, a bridge or two missing and last, but just as important, the connecting railway is firmly against the idea.

 

[option]

Is the trackbed at Aysgarth owned by WR, or is it still NR?


Looking at the site, theres an old goods shed in the north-east corner. Could some carriages be placed alongside it & converted into 'interesting' accommodation, hopefully producing some more revenue.


Selling the site only gives one flush of money, good chance it will be frittered away on pet projects 'because the moneys there', & it won't do anything for running costs.


Realistically, I think they chose the wrong end of the line to start from.

 

[DarloRich]

Is the trackbed at Aysgarth owned by WR, or is it still NR?


Looking at the site, theres an old goods shed in the north-east corner. Could some carriages be placed alongside it & converted into 'interesting' accommodation, hopefully producing some more revenue.


Selling the site only gives one flush of money, good chance it will be frittered away on pet projects 'because the moneys there', & it won't do anything for running costs.


Realistically, I think they chose the wrong end of the line to start from.

the line at the other end was there already, usable and accessible.

 

[otto52]

The whole station site is owned by WR plc, but the trackbed from there to Redmire is in private hands.

TASP have installed and renovated a mkII carriage which is used as a meeting room and café on Open Days and other occasions and there is a short length of track which was/is to be used to offer brake van rides to the public.

There are public Open Days at the site coming up on August 27-28 Bank Holiday Sunday and Monday - why not come along and see for yourselves, it might be your last chance!! Open from 10am to 4pm both days.

 

[YorkshireBear]

For those of you who think the management is dire, the Chairman's post is vacant! Nice salary of nothing, lots of grief from complaining people, and lots that needs doing with a budget of zero... Do I see everyone rushing forward or heading out of the door?

The "everyone is an expert" fas that has struck recently is a different beast when it comes to volunteers on heritage railways...

There is this sort of arrogance of a lot of volunteers that because they volunteer they must be right and then the stomp their feet and leave when things are not done their way to try and effectively blackmail people. Which in a company such actions would not even be thought of.

Please Note - Not all some.

 

[alexl92]

For those of you who think the management is dire, the Chairman's post is vacant! Nice salary of nothing, lots of grief from complaining people, and lots that needs doing with a budget of zero... Do I see everyone rushing forward or heading out of the door?

Wait... so they're taking a decision that is potentially pivotal to their entire survival and future and they don't even have a chairman in place?

 

[Worf]

Wait... so they're taking a decision that is potentially pivotal to their entire survival and future and they don't even have a chairman in place?

The plan is being lead by someone recently co-opted onto the board.

 

[WensleyDale]

The plan is being lead by someone recently co-opted onto the board.

The only person that springs to mind who meets that description is the ex-Director of NRM. Looking at his track record things certainly didn't go too well under his tenure.

 

[Worf]

I see that some of the volunteers have set up a website to try to purchase the station independently as a tourist attraction in its own right - open to the general public, and to be used by the Wensleydale Railway if and when it reaches there. This must be the way forward! http://aysgarthstation.co.uk/

 

[alexl92]

Another thought - Pete Waterman is now an honourary president, isn't he? Anyone fancy trying to persuade him to buy Aysgarth to secure its future?

 

[theblackwatch]

Another thought - Pete Waterman is now an honourary president, isn't he? Anyone fancy trying to persuade him to buy Aysgarth to secure its future?

That might be what they have done already....

"wealthy railway-focused individual"

 

[Bevan Price]

Agreed. Unfortunately, that end of the line is where all the tourists are. Whilst running services to Northallerton might sound like a good idea, it only makes sense if it were possible to run into the existing station, which is pretty much impossible. The scenery at the Northallerton end is pretty uninteresting, and Northallerton itself (and Leeming Bar) are hardly tourist destinations.

Ho - but having a Wensleydale station at Northallerton - within easy walking distance of the main line station - would make the railway much more accessible to visitors. The reason I have not visited the Wensleydale line in preservation is that it is very difficult for me to access by public transport.

 

[Worf]

Ho - but having a Wensleydale station at Northallerton - within easy walking distance of the main line station - would make the railway much more accessible to visitors. The reason I have not visited the Wensleydale line in preservation is that it is very difficult for me to access by public transport.

Wensleydale in general relies on tourists and what they spend. The vast majority come by car. Most don't go anywhere near Northallerton. Whilst a connection with the national network would be nice, it just is not cost effective or viable for such a cash strapped operation. Enthusiasts, although very welcome, only make up a very small percentage of paying travellers on most heritage lines. There is an excellent bus service from Northallerton to Bedale also.

 

[Worf]

That might be what they have done already....

"wealthy railway-focused individual"

I can assure you - it aint him (unfortunately)
He has been contacted for support.

 

[theblackwatch]

I can assure you - it aint him (unfortunately)
He has been contacted for support.

Or perhaps fortunately given his track record with his apprentice schemes at Crewe and Peak Rail...

 

[backontrack]

So far, we seem to have established:

1) An extension to the WVR from Redmire to Castle Bolton, Carperby and Aysgarth is highly-desirable.
2) The WVR lacks the funds to create this extension, and needs money to run in any capacity so is selling its station site at Aysgarth.
3) The loss of Aysgarth station is not a good thing at all.
4) Therefore, we are all helping that the new owner of Aysgarth station will aid the WVR eventually extend the railway to Aysgarth, even though this seems very unlikely.
5) The WVR also suffers from a lack of connectivity at its eastern end - which may not be easy to rectify, particularly given the WVR's lack of resources with which to do so.
6) Any WVR closure east of Leyburn, particularly between there and Bedale, is a massive waste of resources and could jeopardise the future of the railway.

Now what?

 

[Worf]

So far, we seem to have established:

1) An extension to the WVR from Redmire to Castle Bolton, Carperby and Aysgarth is highly-desirable.
2) The WVR lacks the funds to create this extension, and needs money to run in any capacity so is selling its station site at Aysgarth.
3) The loss of Aysgarth station is not a good thing at all.
4) Therefore, we are all helping that the new owner of Aysgarth station will aid the WVR eventually extend the railway to Aysgarth, even though this seems very unlikely.
5) The WVR also suffers from a lack of connectivity at its eastern end - which may not be easy to rectify, particularly given the WVR's lack of resources with which to do so.
6) Any WVR closure east of Leyburn, particularly between there and Bedale, is a massive waste of resources and could jeopardise the future of the railway.

Now what?

7. A group is being formed to purchase the station and trackbed.

8. This group will guarantee use of the station by the WR (unlike the "rich person" ) if and when they ever reach there.

9. The WR will receive some much needed cash.

10. The future of the WR is jeopardised by its inability to break even, being responsible for maintenance of a very long (by preservation standards) line, half of which is basically unused. Resources are being wasted at the moment, and the crunch will come pretty soon, with or without this cash injection.

11. You are all welcome to get involved in this exciting fund raising opportunity http://aysgarthstation.co.uk/blog/

 

[XDM]

Didn't we also establish that the present management/board could do with some limited shuffling & the injection of new energetic capable can-do people?

 

[ThetrackMaster]

I've reflected and considered all the various posts on what possibly is the most emotive subject I have seen for some time in the heritage railway sector and I would like to take a different perspective on the current situation;

A previous writer suggested that the WR PLC hadn't handled the PR correctly on this matter and I would agree wholeheartedly!

Its becoming more like the brexit episode everyday particularly with the doom mongering.

Lets start with the facts as to why we are at this sorry state of affairs.

The railway is loosing money from its operations and cannot \ does not have the financial back up to re-invest in the infrastructure it so urgently requires.

This isn't exclusive to the WR, most of the heritage railway sector are in the same boat, particularly the larger ones, however they tend to handle things somewhat differently on the surface.

I don't think there is any member, be it a PLC shareholder or a WRA(T) member who would disagree that is perhaps the issue and something desperately needs to be done to support the railway's continuation.

How the railway has got to this point financially, is open to debate and a pretty large one at that. Perhaps this needs addressing \ discussing at a later date at an extra ordinary meeting of all members and shareholders together, such is the magnitude?

However what I think is most wrong is the way in which this proposed sale of Aysgarth has been set up.

Out of the blue, we get a notice about the proposed sale and the fact that approval is being sought at the PLC AGM to sell it to an as yet unnamed individual (which incidentally is the worst kept secret).

The fact that the PLC Board was to get this on the agenda in double quick time and presumably pushed through at the AGM with equal alacrity holds no bounds.

I doubt very much that every shareholder will attend the PLC AGM so how will this "vote" be ratified when the majority of shareholders will unlikely be in attendance?

Furthermore, I note that the proposed sale note states "that the PLC Board in concert with the trust, therefore began the process of seeking a buyer". Im sorry but I didn't see \ receive any communication from the WRA(T) as a member, that they supported the PLC in this venture?

Whilst I appreciate the the railway is in desperate times financially, what should have happened is that the PLC Board (and WRA(T) if need be) put this to a referendum vote.

Had this happened in the first place, perhaps who knows, it may well have arrived at the need to sell the site and if this was found to be the case, whilst it would have been bitterly disappointing for some (including myself), we would have been all man enough Im sure to have accepted it.

Instead we have now got an autocratic PLC board, in cahoots with WRA(T) providing no time period, no major voting set up and above all presumptious of what they believe the members and shareholders needs may be.

This is what is causing the emotion and suspicion amongst members.

Come on PLC Board - Admit you have addressed it wrongly - take a step back and put it to a proper vote, not a few hands at an AGM. Surely waiting 4/6 weeks longer isn't going to sink the WR? If its that bad, selling Aysgarth isn't going to be the great hope and is akin to casting the lifeboats adrift as the ship goes down.

 

[DarloRich]

It is clear from reading this thread that there is a complete misunderstanding of what being a member of a trust entitles you to by way of news or influence. There is also a complete lack of understanding about how the owning company must behave.

It could be a possibility that an offer from a cash buyer was made for the station site and the owning company is obliged to consider that bid and put it to it's shareholders for approval. They have to be governed by company law and not by emotion or what may, or may not, be the "right thing to do".

If you are a shareholder and don't want this to happen vote against it. Get to the agm and make your voice heard. Use whatever communication channels exist to ensure shareholders that cant attend the agm appoint a proxy to vote on their behalf. Make sure that postal ballots are returned in good time. If you are a trust member and not a shareholder petition the trustees to vote down this proposal via their shareholding block. Find out who the big shareholders are and petition them - let them know your views and try and get them to vote against the sale. Set up a small shareholders group and use your individual votes to make up a block vote.

Ultimately if you are not happy with the officers of the company or the trustees of the trust use the agm to force a vote of confidence, get them out and stand yourself.

Dont whine. Organise.

 

[Worf]

It is clear from reading this thread that there is a complete misunderstanding of what being a member of a trust entitles you to by way of news or influence. There is also a complete lack of understanding about how the owning company must behave.

It could be a possibility that an offer from a cash buyer was made for the station site and the owning company is obliged to consider that bid and put it to it's shareholders for approval. They have to be governed by company law and not by emotion or what may, or may not, be the "right thing to do".

If you are a shareholder and don't want this to happen vote against it. Get to the agm and make your voice heard. Use whatever communication channels exist to ensure shareholders that cant attend the agm appoint a proxy to vote on their behalf. Make sure that postal ballots are returned in good time. If you are a trust member and not a shareholder petition the trustees to vote down this proposal via their shareholding block. Find out who the big shareholders are and petition them - let them know your views and try and get them to vote against the sale. Set up a small shareholders group and use your individual votes to make up a block vote.

Ultimately if you are not happy with the officers of the company or the trustees of the trust use the agm to force a vote of confidence, get them out and stand yourself.

Dont whine. Organise.

All in hand already!

 

[DarloRich]

All in hand already!

good

I am a shareholder and trust member in my football club. I can never attend the agm so always appoint a proxy. It is really easy and works really well and if enough get involved can really boost the numbers voting for or against issues.

The overarching issue here is that the plc may feel they have no choice but to recommend acceptance in order to keep what they have already. If this offer is rejected that money needs to be found asap. Someone needs to produce a realistic alternative.

 

[ThetrackMaster]

Thank you DarloRich for your pearls of wisdom!

Clearly you are not an expert in company law then by your opening paragraph?

That aside, my point, which you appear to fail to understand, is basically that it would appear that this proposal presented to shareholders is a "fait accompli".

As it is a very big decision in the terms of the WR, this shouldn't be decided at a show of hands and possibly a few proxy votes at the soon to be had PLC AGM.

In hindsight, this should have been presented months ago to the shareholders with the statement that it was going to be voted on at the PLC AGM. At that point, I don't think anyone would have disputed any result as any opposition would have had the chance to state their case and if possible have presented an alternative offer.

Given the timing, doing it this way will always leave it open to speculation and immeasurable scrutiny, whereas a proper vote with suitable time scales to allow it to take place, would have addressed it once and for all, even with a good chance that it would have been voted for sale anyway by the shareholders?

I would agree that one way or the other the money has to be found, however this generation of cash by asset disposal is only one part of the problem.

How does the PLC board stop the losses? The WR will continually suffer from no monies for re-inevestment and operations unless profit loss can be addressed with its ensuing cash flow issue.

Who knows and again pure speculation of course, this mystery buyer may wish to joint venture with the WR in some partnership arrangement, or even take over the operation in the fullness of time? Who knows, but this is pure conjecture on my part.

 

[otto52]

Not only is it being presented as a fait accompli, the Trust's AGM is on the same day as that of the PLC but after it, so WRA(T) members will have no say in the matter unless they put pressure on the Trustees beforehand.

 

[DarloRich]

Thank you DarloRich for your pearls of wisdom!

Clearly you are not an expert in company law then by your opening paragraph?

That aside, my point, which you appear to fail to understand, is basically that it would appear that this proposal presented to shareholders is a "fait accompli".

As it is a very big decision in the terms of the WR, this shouldn't be decided at a show of hands and possibly a few proxy votes at the soon to be had PLC AGM.

In hindsight, this should have been presented months ago to the shareholders with the statement that it was going to be voted on at the PLC AGM. At that point, I don't think anyone would have disputed any result as any opposition would have had the chance to state their case and if possible have presented an alternative offer.

Given the timing, doing it this way will always leave it open to speculation and immeasurable scrutiny, whereas a proper vote with suitable time scales to allow it to take place, would have addressed it once and for all, even with a good chance that it would have been voted for sale anyway by the shareholders?

I would agree that one way or the other the money has to be found, however this generation of cash by asset disposal is only one part of the problem.

How does the PLC board stop the losses? The WR will continually suffer from no monies for re-inevestment and operations unless profit loss can be addressed with its ensuing cash flow issue.

Who knows and again pure speculation of course, this mystery buyer may wish to joint venture with the WR in some partnership arrangement, or even take over the operation in the fullness of time? Who knows, but this is pure conjecture on my part.

How else should the company comply with its legal duty to its shareholders? Note shareholders, Not interested people. An offer has been made to purchase an asset of the company, for all we know on a very short timescale ( and with a limited timescale for acceptance) and is being to put to those who matter - the shareholders.

How else should it be decided on if not by vote at the agm? By way of some kind of referendum in which every man and his dog has a say to bind a company they have no interest in?

It isnt a fait accompli. You have the choice IF you are a shareholder to reject the offer. If you do reject it you do so knowing the risks.

An example: This summer an offer to buy our football club was tabled. An EGM was called at very short notice and we voted on the proposals. We rejected them despite the board reluctantly endorsing the offer. We knew that the finances were in a bad state and that onward progression ( even standing still) on the field would be hard and that investment in the infrastructure off the field was lagging behind

our board had a duty to offer us that choice just the officers of the WR PLC have the duty to recommend this sale. It is their duty to do so as they are responsible for the financial health of the company and know this money ( short term as it is) could address financial issues in this financial year.


It is up to the shareholders to accept or reject that recommendation. MY view ( which is worthless as I am neither a shareholder nor a trust member anymore) is that to sell the site without retaining access rights in the future is pointless unless there are such poor cash flow projections that closure is almost certain without this investment.

All in hand already!

PS I haven't noticed any local press comments this. Give the Echo/D&S a bell...........

 

[ThetrackMaster]

Despite what you may think, I believe we are on the same page.

The shareholders have to be given a reasonable amount of time to consider and vote on this, whether its sold or retained or whatever.

At the end of the day, the PLC Board \ Officers of the company have a responsibility to the shareholders.

Any decisions made by a board of Directors must be in the interests of the shareholders as they are the people with the greatest amount to loose financially.

Therefore given the magnitude of this sale proposal, this isn't a simple one to be debated and passed as it significantly affects the balance sheet going forward including the value of shares.

If you liquidate an asset, cash is viewed by financial institutions as fairly liquid, something which could be here today and spent tomorrow unlike a piece of property or other salient asset.

All I am saying is that this should have been laid out perhaps six months ago as an emergency motion for the September AGM so that when it arrived, shareholders had been given due consideration to it and their choice endorsed either way.

My take on the Trust is slightly different. Their membership should also have been consulted purely on the basis that the Trust owns a considerable percentage of shares in the PLC and therefore is deemed a major shareholder.

Let us not forget, at the end of the day, the WR needs a significant cash injection from somewhere, much greater than the surplus raised by selling Aysgarth.

One would hope that the PLC board is considering the bigger picture outside of this side show and how to ensure security of the railway going forward.

 

[DarloRich]

Despite what you may think, I believe we are on the same page.

The shareholders have to be given a reasonable amount of time to consider and vote on this, whether its sold or retained or whatever.

At the end of the day, the PLC Board \ Officers of the company have a responsibility to the shareholders.

Any decisions made by a board of Directors must be in the interests of the shareholders as they are the people with the greatest amount to loose financially.

Therefore given the magnitude of this sale proposal, this isn't a simple one to be debated and passed as it significantly affects the balance sheet going forward including the value of shares.

If you liquidate an asset, cash is viewed by financial institutions as fairly liquid, something which could be here today and spent tomorrow unlike a piece of property or other salient asset.

All I am saying is that this should have been laid out perhaps six months ago as an emergency motion for the September AGM so that when it arrived, shareholders had been given due consideration to it and their choice endorsed either way.

My take on the Trust is slightly different. Their membership should also have been consulted purely on the basis that the Trust owns a considerable percentage of shares in the PLC and therefore is deemed a major shareholder.

Let us not forget, at the end of the day, the WR needs a significant cash injection from somewhere, much greater than the surplus raised by selling Aysgarth.

One would hope that the PLC board is considering the bigger picture outside of this side show and how to ensure security of the railway going forward.

I agree that in an ideal world rushing to vote is not helpful. More time should be given for exploring options, considering information and certainly that the trust should hold their agm first and agree their response to the offer.

I fear the potential buyer knows the financial circumstances of the company and has put a short time frame on the offer knowing they have little option but to recommend acceptance. Personally I think that is the wrong thing to do but understand the finances may place them in a very difficult position.

I am also surprised the local media haven't picked this up. The Echo has always been happy to offer publicity to the railway.

 

[WensleyDale]

I agree that in an ideal world rushing to vote is not helpful. More time should be given for exploring options, considering information and certainly that the trust should hold their agm first and agree their response to the offer.

I fear the potential buyer knows the financial circumstances of the company and has put a short time frame on the offer knowing they have little option but to recommend acceptance. Personally I think that is the wrong thing to do but understand the finances may place them in a very difficult position.

I am also surprised the local media haven't picked this up. The Echo has always been happy to offer publicity to the railway.

Totally agree that the Trust should hold it's AGM first otherwise how can it have a mandate as to how to use its vote at the plc AGM?

 

[TBirdFrank]

Is Aysgarth a Charity asset or a Plc asset?? - or both.

If it is a Charity asset has the charity fully marketed the site to the satisfaction of the Charity Commission, obtained a certificate of value franking any deal and obtained Charity Commission approval to the sale and its terms.

If the answer to any of these puts the Charity Trustees or Plc board in an invidious position with the Charity Commission then the sale cannot proceed and it would be perfectly in order for an AGM to dismiss both bodies

But of course they would then need new people to take over the wreckage and go forward.

Interesting times!