Page 2 of 2

Re: RO 2014 Index

Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 9:03 pm
by Paddy
The RO Index 2014 appears to have disappeared from the archive?

Re: RO 2014 Index

Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 9:09 pm
by pdeaves
It looks like it's still there to me. Goto http://www.rcts.org.uk/about/members/pagesuite and then click on "Archive". Hope this helps!

Re: RO 2014 Index

Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 11:05 am
by Paddy
Thanks again Phil. I am embarrassed to say I was looking for 2015 colours, forgetting it would be in 2014 livery. I'm going for a long walk.

Re: RO 2014 Index

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:56 pm
by Peter Hall
cmmunton wrote:Could somebody please instruct me how to read ?Branch Newsletter 59A? as referred to under ?Noticeboard? ?2014 RO Index? of the February 2015 RO.
Apologies if this is the incorrect place to ask this question but I am 'Very' new to the 'Forum'.
The arrival of the April RO along with the AGM supplement has caused me to review what has been said on this topic as I feel sure someone may raise it in Coventry and I wish to be well briefed if they do. On p.74 of the February RO under '2014 RO Index it says "For those interested a summary of the OC discussion is included in Branch Newsletter 59A' Clearly that was not well worded as it only made sense to MC and Branch officials. Ideally, what should have appeared was the text of that summary or at least a referral to members Branch officials.

As I am now branchless following the Sheffield coup d'?tat and no longer in receipt of the 'Branch Newsletter' as a result I am still none the wiser to what the summary says. However, I presume 'Over the Points' in March RO probably covers the same. It states their that as only one in eighty officers present in Llandudno commented adversely on the plan then that suggests fewer than fifty members are concerned by the development. Fair comment but I would suggest this is not the best sample for at least two reasons.

Firstly, prior to the conference, had Branch officers been asked to solicit the views of their constituents? If so, I would be surprised that in only one Branch had concerns been expressed.

Secondly, when Chairman of the Sheffield Branch I continually asked in my annual letter to all members attached to the Branch for their reasons for being a member. It was interesting to note that all those who never or very rarely attended Branch meetings sighted the RO as the main reason for their membership. These members would also to have little if any contact with Society officials other than perhaps editorial representatives. I would be surprised if only 2.5% of that segment of the Society membership.

Surely it would have been better to have said in Llandudno that it was proposed to make the change commencing with the 2015 RO index and solicit the views of all Society members before making a final decision.

Re: RO 2014 Index

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:11 pm
by Peter Hall
Peter Hall wrote:Sorry, if I am missing something. But surely its not the case that a properly printed RO index will not be dropping through the letter box of those, like me who still receive a printed version of the RO in that way. Unbelievable if true!
It has been suggested that I was being mischievous or even sarcastic in making this posting. That was certainly not the case. At the time I had not seen my copy of the RO and had not realised a decision had been taken to dispense with the properly printed RO index. Obviously I now know it to be true but still find the decision Unbelievable.

Re: RO 2014 Index

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:45 pm
by Peter Hall
As mentioned in an earlier posting I no longer see Branch Newsletters. However. a copy of the infamous 59A has come my way. This includes the minutes of the Officers Conference held in Llandudno. Item five on the agenda was 5. The Railway Observer ? Report by Mike Robinson No where in the report is a mention made of the decision regarding the index. It actually appears after matters arising from the report have been discussed and I repeat what was said here.

"Mike Robinson (10606) said that a topic omitted form his report was the intention not to produce a printed version of the RO index in 2015, instead it will be available as a pdf from the RCTS website. The main reason behind this was to reduce costs. Bob Barby (5843) said that he was unhappy with this development while Callum MacLeod (12817) added that he could print his own index, David Kelso (4827) reminded everyone that all ROs are now available as pdfs which make them all searchable anyway. Gordon Davies said that as there was no major objection then this would be implemented as planned."

It certainly appears that this is the first time Branch officials were made aware of the plan and no request being made for them to solicit the views of their flocks. Sadly as the concerns of Bob Bardy, a member of very long standing, appear to have not been supported by others it appears that the guillotine came down on any further debate.

Perhaps a re-think on this decision is needed by those at the top table.