Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Why do you think it wasn't? I had enough trouble with the update on the Bratton Fleming Goods Shed construction post!

 

Forgive me for asking , but how accurate is the goods shed to the original? Size wise, materials, aesthetics etc, I’ve only ever seen 1 grainy picture of the original one, and it’s not a close-up.

 

As I understand it, It is similar in size, shape, and external cladding, although with an internal steel frame, more windows, doors, and rooflights. I believe the original had stone-built end-walls, and didn't have any rails running into the building, just alongside.

 

It's the same length but approximately 4 feet wider, its of modern steel frame construction, it will have insulated corrugated steel roofing,a cavity block wall to just above DPC level with a dwarf external wall made from recycled bricks from the original Chelfham viaduct parapet walls to support timber framing between the steel uprights,the finished building will be clad with shiplap timber as was the original shed

 

This is a drawing as originally planned, some layout alterations have since been made but in essence this is how the building is planned to look

 

Brilliant, cheers everyone

 

I believe there’s a new trackbed trails out with some details of more trackbed aquisitions, please can anyone share the gist of it and what other interesting developments were covered in this issue?

 

The new stretch of track bed is number 38 on the BYVRT map, 277 metres at Narracott including the old bridge, thats north of Bratton Fleming
BYVRT has a new chairman. Bruce Knights
Spring track bed walk is along the route that has been secured through the scouts camp, Saturday May 16 between the hours of 2pm and 4pm
Copy of the joint statment released by the L&BRT and BYVRT
I think that covers the gist of it

 

that it do, thankyou 277m is a good chunk, The pesky 23 metres at chelfham that stands in the way of a long stretch of continuous ownership (bar the highways agency bit) makes my eye twitch.

 

I don't want to open up old wounds, but there is a reason why this is so. What is needed is a new, clear development plan for the station site itself, with no fuff or extras, just a basic reinstatement plan of the station and necessary public facilities and the railway itself. Forget the holiday cabin in the woods idea, just be open and honest about the long-term plan for the station, along with the Grow Forward project below the Viaduct, and the whole area could become a well-used hub site on the railway in time.

Of course, there remains the thorny issue of site ownership and shareholders in the CIC to be dealt with as well.

 

Let's go with one thing at a time, and bank the progress as it comes.

 

I agree, however, nothing is that simple when it comes to the L&BR

 

The 2026 L&BRT AGM is at Lynton Town Hall, on Saturday 16th May
(see https://www.lynton-rail.co.uk/news/view/members-notice-2026-agm for more details)

Earlier in the day, there are open general meetings of Exmoor Associates and Barnstaple & Yeo Valley Railway Trust, taking place at Growforward Trust, Chelfham Mill
(see https://www.exmoor-associates.co.uk/2026/04/ea-byvrt-open-general-meetings-2026-at-chelfham-mill/ for more details)

 

For any modellers among you:

L&B Chairman Giles Perkins has issued a request for layouts and traders for the first L&B Model Railway Show, at Woody Bay, on Sunday 15th November.
10 am - 4 pm.

Please contact him directly by email at giles.perkins@lynton-rail.co.uk

 

L&BR Trust/CIC AGM papers have arrived

Some interesting discussions to be had, I think.

 

One thing which puzzles me about the Trust AGM Agenda is how the voting for Trustees will work.
There are 6 candidates for 4 vacancies. Each candidate is the subject of a separate Resolution.

IMHO the normal (correct?) practice for AGM Agendas is to take Resolutions in order and to complete each one before proceeding to the next item of business. This would mean therefore that, assuming each candidate gets more 'for' votes than 'against', then once you have voted for the first four candidates there is no scope to vote for the remaining two as all places will have been filled. Surely all the voting should be the subject of one single Agenda item?

And why is 'Abstain' now 'Witheld'? Is this some form of new-speak ?

 

I think I may well need a hip-flask for this coming AGM

 

I have been advised to take sandwiches, a thermos flask of coffee and a blanket, as it could be a long session, may the ghost of Colin Pealling make a spirited return.

Seriously, folks, this upcoming session has been a long time coming, and I doubt that it will be sorted out in one go.

I want to refer all L&BR Trust members to read the Governance review document very carefully before filling in the green sheet and returning it. Think about how this could change your standing within the L&BR Group; could you lose any voting rights, for instance, if the structure changes?

Could the membership, if so desired, call for a vote of no confidence in the management if they feel that they are not doing a good job?

Do we also want to see a more open and accountable management system in place to run the project on the members' behalf?

While I agree in principle that the Trustees will know what skill sets they need to run the Trust, or that the Directors of the CIC will also know, come to that, the final choice should remain with the membership.

I did notice that there was a mention that they are finding it difficult to recruit new Trustees and Directors. Maybe we need to rethink this and set up training workshops after all, many national companies have training days for their staff, so why not do it for our railway?

From my first read through, I can only see one option that I can follow. It may not be perfect, but it is a start in the right direction. I must admit that I can't see this being ready for a vote by the 2027 AGM, as there is just too much work that will need to be done before that. It is not just a case of changing the M&A for the sake of it, but there has to be an understanding to go along with each change, and also how it will affect the running of the project as a whole.

I also feel that before we start down this road, we all need to agree and identify the long-term vision of the project. This can then be followed up with an outline Business plan, which could then help with the options as to what sort of legal bodies we need to make it all happen.

Having said that, I still think that a Trust and a CIC offer the best way forward for rebuilding the L&BR.

 

No, not as part of the formal AGM, because you'd disenfranchise proxy voters who didn't have it on their agenda.