Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

A cynic might argue that it will be even more 'interesting' to see exactly how the Trust chooses to report the results of their 'consultation'. For example, might they just confine themselves to reporting the number of actual votes cast for each Option? In other words, anyone who does not tick anyone of the boxes, but simply writes 'none of the above' or similar, may not get 'counted' and reported at all.

 

Come on friends. Try thinking outside the box!

 

I can just imagine an example, 100 for option c and 100 for none of the above so option c wins because that was a proposed option and the other wasn't

 

If you knew how the local council thinks and what their desired aim is then a possible answer is staring us in the face, simplify the idea and the answer is there, it's not going to be cheap but it never was going to be, I'm not going to give my idea away until I get it down on paper but its highly feasible

 

Well said Meetman.

 

Why was that then? The layby for Snapper Halt is perfectly good to use, as Is foot access

 

Th elayb

The lay-by itself is fine, but....when you try to pull out you have to contend with those coming from the Barum direction coming at speed around what is almost a blind bend. Even worse if, as I mistakenly did once, coming from the Chelfham direction I pulled across the road and parked facing south....getting out and across the north-bound lane to go southwards was even more of a nightmare, as those coming around too fast can't then swerve to avoid you :--(

 

I'll recheck when I'm down in May - but it was horrible when I last tried.

 

Lol, it's not exactly constant traffic but they do nip along, maybe we are just used it down here, quite a few people use it now as some locals are friendly with the owners of the fields down there and they walk their dogs around the fields and down the line, there were good local reviews of it being somewhere to walk during the lockdowns, luckily we have plenty of space to get in a footpath alongside the railway when it gets reinstated

 

Meanwhile, in Wales... http://762club.com/news/april-2023-progress-update

 

I certainly think that any consultation on the future restoration of the L& B needs to include Exmoor Associates. Whatever differences of opinion there may have been in the past between the Trust and EA, these need to be consigned to history. Whether or not a future railway in the Yeo Valley is possible, engagement with EA to establish which land purchases are likely and which are not is essential in order to achieve a proper overview of possible strategies.

 

I wonder whether Exmoor Associates should be asked to investige possible Land purchases between Woody Bay and Lynton.

 

I have suggested previously that a 'mixed' approach to land purchase seems an unnecessary duplication of effort and potential confusion to all. Giving that EA appear to be having more success than the Trust in negotiations with local landowners, why not let EA take on the whole task of buying land and leave the Trust to concentrate on more urgent tasks ? 'Horses for courses' sort of approach...

 

Up until a few weeks ago I thought that was the arrangement and was not aware of a division between the two. Now it has been pointed out that not only EA and the Trust but also Yeo Valley have interests in purchasing track-bed. This seems to me to be an unnecessary duplication and waste of resources and would be better served by having one body responsible for negotiating and purchasing land and dealing with the planning issues (probably EA as that appears to be their forte ). The Trust's job would then be to oversee the development plan and co-ordinate the activities of the rest of the associated organisations to ensure the best use of resources.

 

My understanding @The Dainton Banker is that YVT and EA operate hand in glove, but because YVT is a charity, it can claim gift aid on donations (+25% or so) whereas EA could not (and still may not be able to). So concerns about overlap there should not cause too much worry.

 

I must admit (as a distant viewer) my understanding had been that basically the Trust ran the railway, and EA purchased land for future extensions. So it was news to me that there were geographic spheres of influence.

Not for the first time in heritage railways, we see a structure which not only has multiple organisations, but where there is overlap between roles. That is inevitably a recipe for friction. I could be persuaded that there is logic splitting land purchase away from railway operations, but in which case, at least make it explicit that one organisation is about land and has no operational function; and one is operations and isn’t involved in land purchase for future use; and clearly define the governance between them, ie on what terms land gets transferred from one organisation to the other.

Ultimately, if you have a “family” with multiple organisations, it is absolutely essential that you have clarity of roles and boundaries between them - a lesson from West Somerset that should only need to be learnt once.

Tom

 

I suspect you're close Tobbes. I believe that the EA/YVT relationship will be clarified before too long.
Don't forget that legacies will be increasingly important to the L&B regeneration (we’re all getting older!) and EA can't benefit from them. Also I can't take my EA shares with me when I report to the great railway in the sky.

 

In which case, this interested party rather wonders why set up another organisation, with associated overheads, rather than convert the existing one.

 

The problem is that, as I understand it, there is little love lost between EA and the Trust. Many will have noticed critical postings about the Trust on here from Meatman; he is a director of EA. I'm not sure I see EA and the Trust getting along unless there are some major changes in management of one or the other.
(As a footnote: I've not always been complimentary to Meatman, but it appears that he was right all along and I was wrong - mea culpa.)