Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I am delighted to be in agreement; despite our differences in view, I believe our concern for the viability of preservation is in common.

As for the consequences of change, my main hope is simply focused on sustainability. Aside from anything else, the approach to governance seen over the past year requires a change towards inclusivity.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

It is, or would be a most unusual development. I think you’re wrong about the last part though. I really do not think this is about sailing a different course or travelling at a different speed. That is NOT nature of the disagreement. This is actually about how the captain and his officers deal with the crew and with the leaders of other vessels in the flotilla. “Mutiny” is in the air only because the Captain and his officers have created the conditions for it. Let’s hope that what comes next is about conciliation and cooperation.

 

Indeed it should be, @Lineisclear , hence my post.

But as @21B and @35B have indicated, if this is correct, what we should see is a different style, along with some clarity about what the actual financial situation is. It still isn't clear, for instance, whether there is in fact the £700,000 in the 'Return to Parracombe Fund' that the website says is there: https://www.lynton-rail.co.uk/news/view/parracombe-appeal . It didn't accord with the accounts presented in Lynton, for instance.

 

You have repeatedly stated that those seeking change within the trusteeship are seeking radical change of direction or want immediate action and results. I believe this is incorrect.
We are all intelligent enough to realise that any development of the railway can only come with relevant planning permission etc. I think most are also in agreement with the basic direction.
My personal view is that there needs to be a significant change of style in the approach. If the leadership refuse to listen, refuse to be accountable, and give a 'my way or the highway' response to anyone questioning anything- well, I've seen good leadership, and that ain't it.
Apart from the very significant success of the 762 project, it seems that in 15 years the L&BRT have achieved very little.
The same few people , continuing the same hopes, dreams, wishes and plans in the same way suggests that in the next 15 years, very little will be achieved.

Elsewhere on the greater project, stuff is happening. EA and YVT continue with successful land negotiations and acquisitions, Meatman and his ilk are restoring derelict structures- but little is heard of all this as it all gets very little publicity. This is very disappointing as the principal funds-collecting, publicity needing body apparently does not want to admit that anything happens anywhere but Woody Bay.
However, until the railway breaks out from the confines of its current operation, interest and support, and crucially funds, will continue to dwindle.

The Corris Railway, in contrast, despite being in an area quite filled with rival* railways has made persistent steady progress during that time. And as there is steady progress, they get steady funding from people like me. All those photo diaries, at times it seemed there was a photo for every sleeper laid, every piece of wood cut for the new carriage, all those photos were evidence of progress being made, and of a team working together to get stuff done.
They make it very easy to click the 'donate now'.

* Rivals for public interest and donations

 

Dave Old Chap, Indeed, there is much speculation here. Why? Because the Trustees' Officers treat its members as if they are all mushrooms so that they might continue their secretive cabal functioning (after a fashion)!

 

There are nine L&BR Trustees of whom there are three 'new guard trusties' (Chris Duffell, Anne Belsey and Mike Whiteaker) and six 'old guard'. My question is how do the 'old guard six' play the game?

There are three Trustee Officers (Chairman Miles, Secretary Nicholson and Membership Cowling) who I imagine act as one, an unholy triumvirate. If anyone can tell me I'm wrong, please do so.

Then there are the three ordinary Trustees (Funding Curson, Heritage Summers and Phase IIA Barton I believe). I gather that Phase IIA Overview Hunt and Volunteer Liaison Snashall stepped down but I'm not sure about Treasurer Swainson (he might still be there as an Officer for all I know!). If I'm not correct here please help me out.

Anyway, my question is really do we know how well the ordinary three fall into line with the triumvirate? Is there any possibility that the ordinary three might be talked around so that we could have a quiet internal re-positioning and re-direction without all the unpleasantness boiling over as otherwise seems likely?

@DaveE, this is what I see as the best chance of any sort of rapprochement in the near future, though it won't satisfy you I know.

 

Ross, I'm sorry but I think that's very unfair and especially to those who have been volunteering and the staff.

There has been much more achieved besides 762.

Although EA has made great strides in purchases, they are equalled by the L&B purchases further north. Across both entities in the past 10 we have seen at least these sections acquired..(And Meatman will add any which I miss)

Bratton Fleming (EA)
The trackbed at Fairview. (L&B)
The trackbed at Ivy Cottage. (L&B)
The bungalow which gives us Parracombe Halt (L&B)
Budds wood (EA)
Old Station Inn (L&B)
Snapper Halt (EA)
The latest section below Chumhill (EA)

They have both done fantastic in my view and on many bits which we thought would not be available for many years yet or perhaps have a battle to get.

We have also in that time seen...

Snapper restored,
Chelfham restored (especially since Nigel Thompson became involved).
New tea rooms.
5 carriages restored and now in service.
Pilton acquired and now in service.
Other rolling stock useful for tracklaying acquired.
Track improvements and other general improvements at Woody Bay.
The never ending maintenance of all sections of the railway and it's buildings, clearing yearly growth vegetation, maintaining fences, further clearance of the trackbed, painting, weed killing etc etc etc.

Although some of these such as land husbandry may seem unglamorous and mundane, they are just as important as building 762. It takes a huge amount of volunteer time to do that, and I know how much time Meatman puts in to keep the EA part as clear as possible.

The various entities of the L&B family have over the past 15 years achieved a huge amount, each doing thier bit, EA quietly raising funds and acquiring the trackbed in the south, L&B in the north.

The biggest let down in that past 15 years has been the issues surrounding the planning, probably the first major stumbling block the L&B family has had and understandably there has been a huge dismay and disappointment with that.

But as I have already said many times, planning can be a lottery and although mistakes were perhaps made, an awful lot of the problems were due to external factors. Bala Lake has seen similar despite huge backing.

I note you say about photo updates, eventually I want to try and get it so that the East Group has a monthly update on the website, but with what we do it's a balance, between it becoming stale and boring (often the same stack of timber gets moved from A to B and back again multiple times thorough a machine or moved back and forth while being painted, eg internal panelling ... primer, sand, primer, sand, under coat, sand, undercoat, sand, top coat, sand, top coat) that it would almost appear we are posting the same photos over and over. People will switch off and won't bother looking at all in the end. I guess after 5 carriages nearly all of interest has already been put out there. But I am trying to think of ways to bring some interest out there without being mundane.

So, much more than just 762

 

Its not going to happen at a faster speed in all honesty and i dont think people are expecting that, instead of immediately have a set of weighted options shoved at us it would have been nice to have had a period of consultation and reflection on what went wrong and why, not just a point the finger at everyone else explanation, a full audit of the railways financial situation and exactly what money has been used for what and some serious openness about how the trust and OSHI are tied together also wouldn't go a miss

 

@Ross Buchanan appears to have forgotten (or is perhaps unaware of) all the many things which have been achieved by the L&BRT during the past 15 years. I will list those which spring to mind but there are so many I will perhaps forget some.

In no particular order:
Obtaining planning permission for and building the new toilet block
Obtaining planning permission for and erecting the refreshment marquee
Obtaining planning permission for and replacing the refreshment marquee with the excellent new tearooms
Relaying all the track with better quality rail
Purchasing Rowley Moor Farm in order to obtain the field ready for the new engine shed
Getting N Devon Council and ENPA to include the reinstatement of the L&B in their long term plans, thus protecting the trackbed for future railway use
Obtaining planning permission for and rebuilding bridges 54 and 55
Obtaining a major grant from the EU for reinstating those two bridges
After lengthy negotiations purchasing Fairview with its trackbed
After lengthy negotiations purchasing Ivy Cottage with its trackbed
After lengthy negotiations purchasing The Halt with its trackbed
Obtaining Planning Permission to reinstate the line from Killington Lane to Wistlandpound. Yes, the ENPA part did expire but given the onerous Grampian Conditions that was fas from unexpected.
After lengthy negotiation purchasing The Old Station House Inn.

I would suggest that is hardly 'very little'

Mike

 

In haste, Tony Nicholson is not a Trustee - he was defeated by Chris Duffell in the 2021 election and was then brought back as Company Secretary where he has distinguished himself in having to have rerun two elections (cost c. £10k) and an illegal AGM to his "credit".

The current Trustees (unless they've resigned....) alphabetically by surname are: John Barton, Anne Belsey, Ian Cowling, Paul Curson, Chris Duffell, Peter Miles, Charles Summers, Martin Swainson, Mike Whiteaker.

 

Indeed, it's a considerable amount. However, these are all of limited value without usable planning permission for an extension, or achieving purchase of some of the remaining parcels of land between Woody Bay and Blackmoor Gate. And it's on that point, combined with the lack of clarity about the import of ENPA's advice, that questions of confidence arise. In this exam season, I'm not overly interested in marking the homework done by the Trust, so much as it's ability to pass the resit(s) to get to where all members of the Trust want the L&B to be.

 

Quite. There have been many posts in recent weeks in various parts of 'social media' which have included variations on this list of 'good things done'. No problem in that, but - with respect to all concerned - those are past events. As @35B says, many of them are of limited value until such time as they can become part of an extended operating railway. To put it bluntly, how many parcels of land do we need if they never carry trains? How many engines and rakes of coaches do we need if (a) we still run no further than WB-KL and (b) have no proper protected storage for them?

At the moment we - the railway and its members - seem to be in a protracted period of uncertainly. Regardless of the 'hype' about Option 'C', who really knows where and how we go next ? Meanwhile the Board - or at least some members thereof - appear to be expending valuable time and effort arguing amongst themselves rather than concentrating on the future - and in order to do that, first they must revisit the past to see what, where, why and how it all went wrong. Yet there is no indication that such a process is under way any time soon...:-(

 

According to the Companies Office there are currently eleven officers, being ten Trustees plus the Secretary. Peter Snashall is still listed despite having resigned (not stepped down for possible re-election) before the aborted AGM. I presume he was brought back on to fill the gap until the results of the re-run election, in which case he should have been stood down again once the results were known.

 

Of course, one might expect to be able to go to the Trust's new website and find details such an up-to-date list of Trustees and their responsibilities in a 'corporate information' section, but sadly that appears to be non-existent.

I note however that it still contain a section about Exmoor Enterprise in which it states inter alia "...Discussions were held with Exmoor National Park and North Devon planning authorities and we now have planning consent to reconstruct the railway from Killington Lane to Wistlandpound. Having achieved this objective, we are now seeking a Transport and Works Act Order to provide us with the powers to rebuild and operate the railway......". Apart from being out-of-date and misleading about the current situation with regard to planning consent, when were they ever actively seeking a TWAO? More to the point perhaps, IIRC was it not reported some while ago that EE had been closed down as "no longer needed"?

 

Before I say anything else, I want to reiterate that all the 'new blood' trustees are there with my vote - lest I be accused of standing up for the 'old blood' too much - but the reply above, and in particular the highlighted bit, does represent a conversation along the following lines in the last couple of days of posts in the thread:

Person 1 'in 15 years the L&BRT have achieved very little'

Person 2, in response 'well, we've done this list'

Person 3 'with respect to all concerned - those are past events'

My head hurts.

 

According to the list in the latest Magazine Mr Summers is Heritage Carriages (Mr Miles is 'Heritage and Land Negotiations). Many readers will know I have been potty about the carriages on this railway for 60 years. My drawings of them were transcribed and appeared in 'Measured and Drawn'. You don't need to be a fanatic comparing pictures and the carriages with their historical equivalents in old pictures to realise that the roof lamps are not the right shape. I borrowed two semi-complete originals many years ago (still with their Bristol makers plates on them, confirming the acetylene lamps were a modification of the oil) from which I drew them full size, inside and out. Last September I gave Mr Summers copies and said I would sponsor replicas on Coach No 9. We agreed that replacing the significantly inaccurate ones on the existing 5 coaches was impractical, but at least future ones would be right. This July, 10 months later, he writes that 'we have enough made up (based on a squashed copper lamp top found at Landkey)'. 'So for the moment it will be only No 1' when that is built in a few years time. I had offered to pay for the right lamps on No 9 a year ago, so why persist with this attitude. I despair ! By the way L & B roof lamps had steel tops.

 

Disappointing. As someone who has contributed quite a reasonable sum to the restoration of the original carriages over the years I share your frustration on this.

 

To be fair we have had a stock of current lamp tops in store for some years. No 9 uses up that batch made back when I think it was No 16 was being rebuilt.

For No 9 to match the existing No 7 it does make sense to use the same lamp tops even if slightly inaccurate otherwise it is money that has been spent some time ago going to waste which I don't think anybody really wants.

No 1 will be a grand affair when it's done, and perhaps having the adjusted lamp tops Mike is offering would be fitting for such a great carriage and much could be made of it when it is revealed and put into service.

Edit: that's my view anyway, what's been said between Mike and Charles I don't know.

 

I must admit, even with respect, it's not especially heartening to those who have achieved so much across the whole L&B family that what they have done is seen of "limited value" or now insignificant because they are in the past.
There has been huge amounts of time and effort put in by at times very few and what they have achieved is nothing short of miracles. Much of what was said to be impossible has already been made possible, it's not insignificant.
Such talk is not the way to inspire new volunteers or new staff to get involved.

 

I agree - but the questions that matter are about what will happen in the future, not what has happened in the past.

I'm always reminded of the story about Fawlty Towers, where the team stopped after a dozen episodes because they wanted to go out with people wanting more, not make more and no longer be wanted.