Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

As I have said before, as I see it the Board is responsible for the proper management of the Trust in pursuit of its legally-defined Objectives, one of which is to rebuild the L&BR from Barnstaple to Lynton.

The Board decided - for better or worse - that the 'next step' would be Phase 2A. It is clear now that the part of Phase 2A which covers the area between KL and the ENPA/NDC border at Blackmoor has been a failure. Yes, they have purchased more track-bed, including the station site at PE, and 'well done' for that, but...they have NOT delivered any obvious hope of a working railway between KL and BR for many years to come. Indeed it could be argued that, in their approach and methods so far, they have 'poisoned the well' for future attempts.

Newsletter 79 and the recent News Bulletin appear to push the message that it was all the fault of some one else other than the Board, whether the objectors with their legal challenges, the allegedly dilatory authorities or whoever. That may well be the case - who amongst the members really knows for certain? - but ultimately it was still the responsibility of the Board to steer the process to a successful conclusion; they failed. I would suggest that in such circumstances in the corporate world the first reaction is usually for the Chairman to 'take the rap' and resign.

IMHO Chris Duffell has expressed various concerns which have been all too obvious to many other members for some while past and he should not be made a 'scapegoat' in any way to deflect attention from where it is most needed. Sadly there are those who need to take off their rose-tinted spectacles and 'smell the coffee' asap.

I think that's enough metaphors for now

 

There's much in that, but I for one am not calling for resignations or scapegoats. The important question (though it does need answering) is not "why did this fail?" but "how will the L&B succeed?". From the answers to that question will then come answers to "who should lead the next stage?" - where the old definition of idiocy (keep trying the same thing in the hope that it will work differently next time) needs to be avoided.

The answers may ultimately be the same, but the reasoning will not be.

 

I don’t know any of the characters, but what Chris Duffell has said seems very sensible. A period of reflection would be advisable. A future with a more professional approach to what is an enormous task, and a more joined up one that includes all the (too many) different organisations. I’ve said before I would like to see this project succeed. Rushing forward into anything isn’t going to bring that success about, so this is a very sensible approach to the immediate next step.

 

To be honest this is the one thing that has been missing and it is that profession approach to all the problems, I am not saying it will go away, but once the new team is in place, I could see a huge turn around in progress very quickly.

I think that if any one still has any concerns about what Chris has said you can drop him an email

 

"The new team" ???

 

You will have to wait and see what happens at the AGM.

 

Lots of sensible comments here about the way ahead, particularly the detailed response from Chris Duffell. However, the reason the L&BR Trust is in this pickle is because of the imposition of Grampian Conditions in 2018. Why did the Trust Board not put the planning application on hold then as it surely knew that it could neither finance nor purchase all the land required even if the money miraculously became available?

Several have wisely suggested taking a deep breath and reflecting on how to proceed given where we are currently. True, but nevertheless Phase IIa is the logical path forward and efforts should be made primarily over time to build a genuine communication with the community and to purchase all land still required between Wistlandpound and Parracombe so as to further that ambition. When that reduces solely to the 'Grob patch' (forgive me for naming 'that which shall not be named' and indeed whether this is the only parcel outstanding!) pressure can be applied through an increased community desire to see the project through. This may not happen for some time but I would think that when a breach seems likely it might be quite rapid. After all, no-one is suggesting, or has ever suggested, that the Grobs be deprived of their home, merely that a narrow gauge railway will occasionally operate trains at the bottom of their garden! This isn't an issue of earth-shattering importance to the Parracombe community, greater north Devon or even, dare it be said, the Grobs themselves. This must surely be the context of the difficulty faced. Once that stage has been reached, then the L&BR Trust planning application is ready. This was always a long-term project and we must learn to hasten slowly (much as we might wish to see trains operating along an extended L&BR in the next few years).

 

herein lies the biggest problem with the majority of the current Trustee's
They are totally incapable of open, honest and regular communication with locals and members alike

 

Don't forget that members of the trust have a say in the elections of trustees.
From you remark about a 'new team', I take it that you standing for election as a trustee then?

 

I believe from looking at the map that there is another section of trackbed not in L and B's ownership.

With regard to not being "deprived of their home" reminds me of a comment on social media when RVR applied for its S73 - someone used the phrase 'having to fight for your home again' - which was clearly not the case.

 

My concern here is about whether that community pressure would be forthcoming or, if so, be effective on deep seated opposition.

Whatever approach may be chosen needs to consider both how people may be won over, and what may be necessary if that opposition remains irreconcilable.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

No I am not, but my understanding is there are plenty of others who are.

 

There is quite a bit of the trackbed that none of the L&BR groups currently own and when it does become available, it is not going to be cheap either.

 

I hope to God someone is going to co-ordinate all this. As we edge closer to what I've been asking for all along, which is an alternative vision to the trust's which has actually been thought through, and as I say I voted for Chris as a trustee to get some new blood and new thinking on it, I'll not apologise for saying again, communication is crucial.

There are what? 3,500 members of the Trust? The overwhelming majority are not on here and are not on facebook. They/we only really know what the railway wants us to know, through the newsletters and the magazines. *If* we need a new approach, then those spearheading that need to get out well before the AGM, noisily, with a plan. Otherwise there'll be 100 people in the room and regardless of if the alternative plan is any good, a board of trustees sitting on a couple of thousand proxy votes from members dutifully returning their ballot papers.

Ideally there would be co-ordination that a slate is put up of as many people from the 'alternative' gang as there are vacancies being competed for - and no more than that. A second list can be kept in reserve for if there are any unexpected resignations on top of that leaving gaps to be competed for. Otherwise, if there're 'plenty' of people standing, then that just dilutes the effort. Remember that when Chris got elected it was something of an upset, and the most recent contested election didn't go the way of the candidates standing against the incumbents.

Personally, I'd like to see a 'one railway' approach now - where L&BRT, EA, YVT etc all get together or get out of the way*. Maybe the AGM can be the start of that.

*and yes, that will probably be a case of all of them giving up something that they each want, for the greater good. And I say that as a Trust member and EA shareholder.

 

Do you mean in the Phase 2 area? Because that what the question was.

 

You have read my mind and some of the others as well. The biggest problems is contacting the membership in the first place there are now various rules that the trust has to do and one of those is being compliant with data protection.

You are right about only a few being on line or on a site like NP. As an example the majority won't have a clue as to what is going on and for them to receive a News Bulletin about the way forward they will wonder what is going on. You may even get a few who are so concerned that they will try to find something out about what is going on, then you will have others who will follow the party line and vote for C as they know no different.

The only sure fire way to get to most of the membership will be via the railway press, and that approach may only in flame the situation even more. We all know what happens when something like this hits the railway press and they get to hear about it.

While there will be no doubt a lot of vocal opposite to what is going on at the AGM I can't see that much happening unless all the current trustees resign either before or on the day itself.

Of course if some of those who want to be elected are not on the ballot form like it happen a couple of years ago with Chris then it will kick off, what is needed is to have a complete independent election officer to over see all of this.

 

I didn't see any reference to just Phase 2 I took it you meant all of the railway

 

There is another category (I'm in it) - people who, seeing apparently little chance of anything happening between now and the AGM, have already sent back their papers for Option C as the best of a bad job...

 

Details of all the candidates with their election statements would be sent out with the voting papers. I do not attend the AGM due to distance and vote by proxy. I do carefully read the candidates statements before deciding how to vote

I am not sure that merging the various organisations would be beneficial. Each of the organisations has a role. EA in particular has the skills to acquire land. Maybe their remit should be extended to purchase land in other areas.

 

I think my point it more that *if* over 3,000 members with no idea what if anything is going on beyond what they've been told in official communications suddenly get confronted with a raft of candidates they've never heard of, accompanied by the usual short statements, then with the best will in the world it's unlikely to persuade a solid lump of people to vote for them. It's akin to being told everything, while disappointing, is broadly fine/someone else's problem but here's the plan to move forward - and then 8 people you've never heard of countering with 'no it isn't, vote for me' right at the last minute.

It's not quite doomed to failure but let's say I think it would be a naive approach and fairly surprising if it worked.

I don't think full merger is the way forward either, but I do think that EA and LBRT should be intrinsically and overtly linked. For obvious reasons I think we'd need new trustees for that probably - and maybe on both sides....The one organisation that less clearly has a role in a One Railway approach, which is probably going to go down like a lead balloon, is YVT (except potentially as an organisation to provide manpower to do the same sort of ground clearing/maintenance work on EA's land that Chris Duffel envisages Trust members doing on LBRT owned land). Clearly this is just my opinion.