THE controversy surrounding the three organisations running the West Somerset Railway escalated further this week when it was claimed that moves to merge two charities would only result in “bitterness, anger and distrust”.

In a report on the current crisis, which has resulted in a series of angry public exchanges, independent railway specialist John Bailey described the latest moves as a “Trojan Horse manoeuvre more appropriate to the rough and tumble of the City.”

A total of 14 members of the West Somerset Steam Railway Trust sought election as trustees of the charity as part of a possible merger with the West Somerset Railway Association, but later the number fell to ten.

The prospective trustees urged that the two organisations merge to create a charity to run the railway, with WSR as the train operator – a broad recommendation made by Mr Bailey in a previous report.

The nominations were delivered to the trust by WSRA trustee Robin White for consideration at the forthcoming WSSRT annual meeting, but AGM has been postponed until later in the year.

Meanwhile, trust chairman Chris Austin claimed that members had expressed the wish to remain a separate charity.

Mr Bailey said the three chairmen – Jon Jones-Pratt of the WSR, the WSRA’s Mike Sherwood and Mr Austin of the WSSRT – had asked him to independently assess the best way of securing a harmonious future for the WSR. They had agreed with his findings.

Ms White said this week: “I don’t have any comment to make beyond saying this was an unauthorised release of an unapproved draft and was not in fact approved by the three chairmen.”

But in his report, Mr Bailey said: “The urgency for the three chairmen’s agreement is the recently announced plan by a group planning a confrontational ’Trojan Horse’ manoeuvre.

“It envisages encouraging like-minded cohorts to join the WSSRT so increasing the likelihood that the current trustees can be overwhelmed and a merger with the WSRA forced through.”

Mr Bailey said that “the high ideals and ambitions to which its proponents lay claim, contrast starkly with the plan’s reality. It smacks of the manoeuvres more appropriate to the rough and tumble of the City. It eliminates the existing charities’ independence, seeing it as acceptable collateral damage.”

For the full report, buy today’s Free Press.