1995 Annual General Meeting

Dear Sirs,
I will make it clear that I am an associate member, not a full member and so do not have a vote; I did, however, attend the recent AGM, my first, though I have been an associate member for two years and an interested visitor before that.

As you will realise, I have no previous experience of a BRC AGM, but if the recent one was typical then I can assure you that it was very disheartening for a new member. With constant recourse to the Rule Book and the invocation of Civil and even Criminal Law, it was more like a convention for barrack room lawyers than the meeting of a Society of members with a common aim in a situation where it would seem essential that everyone pulls together. It may be that the Centre could survive without taking any money at the gate; financing itself from subscriptions, gifts and the income from Driver Training Courses. I do not know whether this would be feasible but no one at the meeting suggested it as a possible course of action. If it is not, then all members have got to accept that we live in afar more competitive time and when the Rule Book was drawn up and that some individual sacrifices may have to be made for the benefit of the Centre as a whole.

To return to the subject of the rancour and the diametrically opposed views so vehemently expressed at the meeting, I would like to touch on a personal note. My son and I occasionally visit other preserved railways, and, when we leave, our feelings always seem to be the same; the site is tidier than at the BRC, more seems to have been achieved since our last visit than in a like period at the BRC and, most important, the members seem to agree on what the aims of the organisation are and are working towards them.

I had originally intended to send this letter for publication in the Society newsletter, but, on reflection, I decided to send it to the Executive Committee to let them know how two fairly new and initially enthusiastic working members felt.

If you wish to publish it as a letter in the Society journal, please do so.

Yours faithfully,
R I Cousins
MILTON KEYNES

Withdrawal Symptoms

I was so looking forward to the AGM this year as I felt there was so much to discuss and so much for the Executive Committee to explain. I was to be disappointed almost immediately. There was no meeting. Instead we had an emotional membership reacting on reflex not reflection and judgement. As a shareholder and long time member I would like to make a few observations and comments.

Firstly the order of the meeting was wrong. By dealing with 7200 almost immediately the members were not able to discuss the reasons for selling the stock or the possible requirements needed by both Rail Trak and Days Out before the point goes in. Once the point is installed we face the awkward situation of having no plated stock, no money to get stock plated, no space for visiting stock and locos to be stored and almost no locos of our own to get out on Main Line.

Secondly, the Executive left Mr Bratton hanging out to dry for most of the time with minimal to non-existent backing. I hope for next Chairman receives the support he has every right to expect.

Thirdly, there was, on the part of some supposedly responsible members, no consideration for other views and constant expression of theirs without waiting for the chair to recognise them. I heard more than one shareholder say "What's the point of saying anything ... they won't listen". It was sad to see respected members being so stubborn over the sale of stock. There is almost no Society of what ever nature that doesn't change and adapt with time if it wants to remain dynamic. Rules can be changed. Our Society has frequently talked about getting rid of one or other piece of oxidising metal, and we have rule 48 for that purpose. What went wrong at the AGM was that the membership first heard about the proposed sale of some relics in the worst possible way. The Railway Press. By mishandling the release of this information and the AGM, the Executive didn't just shoot itself in the foot, it shot itself in the head.

Many thanks to Eric Miller for proposing a rescue plan for 7200 to the members, although the proposal will have to be closely scrutinised by the new Executive. 7200 will now remain at Quainton though in the process we lose the opportunity to sell her for over £30,000.

Lastly, the rules on voting the Executive will have to be amended because we are faced with an under strength Executive for another year. The sooner an EGM is held in order to decide, as Tony Lister so rightly said, what sort or Society we want, the sooner we can work as a team again.

Chris Hanscomb

Editors note
The Cousins and Hanscomb letters sum up the feedback received in the 'editorial office' regarding the AGM. Regrettably, no details had been received concerning the 7200 trust mentioned, by press day on May 1st. It will be given detailed coverage to all members via this magazine.

The Appearance of the Buckinghamshire Railway Centre

Dear Sir,
I think that there are two questions that each member who holds a position of responsibility should be asked:

1. Would you pay to gain access to the site?
2. Do you think that it looks like a railway station?

In my view, the answer from a responsible member should be:

1. No.
2. Perhaps, it must have once.

The fact is that the condition of the site does not compare with other sites that you pay to get in, for example a castle or museum. This is the market that we have entered, we cannot withdraw from this.

The fact is that the condition of the site does not compare with other sites that you pay to get in, for example a castle or museum. This is the market that we have entered, we cannot withdraw from this.

The route we have all taken is a long one, from a railway society in the mid 1970's to attempting to become a major tourist trap in the 1990's.

We have perhaps one of the best collections of railway stock in the south of England, certainly it is one of the best individually owned collections in the UK, bearing in mind that most railways are a collection of privately owned stock.

The majority of this collection is in a presentable condition, as is a high percentage of privately owned stock. The Society has moved forward in the presentation of relics and buildings, the running of our own stock on London Transport is a prime example, of which we are all proud.

However, we are overlooking one major asset which has become overlooked, and one that in my mind is perhaps as important as the collection. This is the site that they are stored on (I would like to say displayed).

How can any sane person expect a family to pay to gain access to a site where the main entrance is surrounded by stinging nettles? This is not what people come to see, they vote with their feet.

Why is it acceptable to leave piles of junk and items removed from relics lying in public areas (look around the Ivatt shed). I have spent a large amount of time clearing up the rubbish left by the society on site. I have received a fair amount of criticism and verbal abuse while doing this. Frankly, I don't care.

I have cleared up areas and then come back a few weeks later and found surplus concrete dumped in that spot, I cleared that too. What I have cleared has in general stayed cleared, though I have often had to remove the rubbish (sorry, valued relic) deposited again to do so.

However there are still members who seem to carry on regardless. This is either that they are unaware of what is trying to be achieved or total contempt of the railway society and its aims.

One can walk around the site, identify areas of problems and trace the source back to a hard core of members.

Frankly it must be bought to the attention of the Executive that in continuing to allow an unguided approach to the site we will in the long term be doing ourselves damage.

There must be guide lines as to what can and cannot be stored in certain areas, there must be a policy of what can be landscaped, since we are in grave danger of becoming overgrown with hawthorn, junk and irrelevant relics, what is worse, it is being accepted as the norm.

If an area is cleared it generally stays cleared and is appreciated.

The point I am trying to make is that the society has progressed in many ways and learned how to deal with problems and its collection as they have arisen. The next move is to learn to manage the site since it is as important as the collection.

We have to entice people to the site and a lack of management will firstly fail to bring those people, and their money, also it will restrict interest and investment from the very bodies that we are trying to entice to the site.

The will is there, the ability is also, the fact is we have come to a managerial 'log jam', it is simply a matter of those in authority to appreciate that the site has expanded and therefore must be managed in a more professional manner.

The stupid part is that the activities require to perhaps gain the highest return are low budget.

Yours faithfully,
D C Gomarsall (name proudly supplied)
BICESTER

Dear Sirs,
Over the past year I have heard several remarks how much apathy there is in the Society these days: nothing is happening, it is difficult to roster people for the various jobs, things are old hat. As a long standing member of QRS (I joined in 1969) I think we are apt to be too inward turned, just looking at how things affect us.

Rather we should be looking at how the public sees us: are we giving them what they want? For after all it is the visitors who bring in the money and we are there to show them our collection to the best advantage. Last year I did a number of train guard duties, particularly 'Driver Experience', 'Thomas' and 'Santa' days where the bulk of the visitors are not gricers. The same refrain was heard over and over again: "The place is so interesting, so many things to see and everything is labelled". It made me realize that what is old hat to us may be of importance to others, particularly younger people who will never have seen steam on the railways as I have done. I must admit that until I started typing up the artefact notices from the Stock Book and other places, under the direction of Curator Roy Miller, I had not realised what a wonderful collection of industrial heritage items in particular we had, and I know that members as well as visitors have since found the information interesting: I have also received a lot more information / corrections (including typing errors!) from members and visitors alike, which has been very useful. Members, please keep this up and let me have any further information / suggestions you may have.

When acting as guard last September on the Thomas train in the down yard, I was most touched to see how much the visitors appreciated how we tried to enact some of the Thomas stories and how interested that the brake van was Toby and the loco was Arnold (alias Gibraltar). We want to give the visitors a good run for their money so they tell their friends an come again, and if they like the same old enactment of Arnold going off without Annie and Clarabelle coaches for the umpteenth time, then that is what we must continue to do. The crowds loved it every time I had to run to get into the guard's van because Arnold had gone without me; I might have got out of breath but I kept the visitors happy! The same goes for running the trains on time etc. - the public like to see the complete railway, with guards waving green flags, platform inspectors seeing the train off, drivers looking to see that the train is following in a safe and proper manner, etc; as for the freight and passenger trains pacing each other and crews waving across, their enthusiasm knows no bounds. The old hat becomes pleasure because we are giving other people enjoyment.

Janice Uphill

Dear Sir,
To avoid any speculation about my resignation from rostering guards, I would like to set the record straight.

I did this job quite happily for many many years with a reasonable degree of success - there were four occasions when a rostered guard failed to tum up.

Lately, however, particularly during 1994 there was an increasing number of times when I was either not asked to provide a guard, or requested to do so with unjustifiably short notice, for a steaming or driver experience day.

In spite of asking on several occasions to be kept as informed as other departments, there was no improvement. Towards the end of 1994, I wrote to the Director of Operations expressing my dissatisfaction with the existing system, which led people, quite incorrectly in most cases, to assume that a guard had not bothered to tum up.

It was also made clear that I could not go on working in this way, and that I would give the job up if the same situation prevailed in 1995.

After the third time this year I decided that enough was enough, and tendered my resignation. In closing, I would like to thank all those guards who allowed me to pressure them into doing far more turns that they really wanted to!

Trevor Paice

Notes:
The text in this Quainton Railway Society publication was written in 1995 and so does not reflect events in the 20+ years since publication. The text and photographs are repeated verbatim from the original publication, with only a few minor grammar changes but some clarifying notes are added if deemed necessary. The photos from the original publication are provided as scans in this internet version of this long out of print publication.

Reference:
Postbag continued - Quainton News No. 76 - June 1995