Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Meanwhile, I don't understand why the Trust does not put a copy of the plans and proposals on its own website - that would probably be a lot easier for members to find than buried amongst the mass of ENPA pages.

 

In the past, external links to the official documents were on the website, as will be the case here, but posting the documents on the website too could lead to outdated versions being available - the planning portal updates our documents, plus consultancy responses, plus neighbour comments, etc. in real-time as the application proceeds. They are legally obliged to, so we (the L&BRT) don't have to.

But don't worry, as soon as I have a link to the application documents, I will post it on here, and on Facebook, plus it will no doubt appear on the L&BRT website around the same time too!

Here, for example, is the link to the Carriage Shelter Application:
https://exmoor.planning-register.co.uk/Planning/Display?applicationNumber=62/43/24/005

 

I challenge you to find a steam loco that covers its overhaul costs from steaming fees.
Whether you like it or not, additional funds will always be required to top up steaming fees funds.

Again, I'm not sure how you think the L&B will be rebuilt in part or whole without volunteer help in the form of time and funds. It simply won't be funded from grants or income from Woody Bay. To think otherwise is delusional.

What exactly is it that you think is not open, honest and 'more of a business feel'? You do not have a right to the minutiae of the railways accounts and decisions.

I refer you back to my first point - do you honestly think the steaming fees will cover the cost of an overhaul? Why does this need to be raised at an AGM? If it really concerns you, why not write or email and ask the railway directly? I doubt they will tell you exact figures as some of it will be commercially sensitive.

You seem to be trying to create problems at every turn Colin.
Why don't you let the Trust board members do their jobs and judge them when they come up for re-election?
They have made the PP application, they are producing regular video updates, established a friendly relationship with the B&YVRT and established a youth group.
I think that's a pretty good start. They can't make everything perfect overnight, so why not give them a chance?

Alternatively, put yourself up for election at the next AGM, and if you get elected we'll see how good a job you could do, oh and we'll make sure we constantly criticise you at every step just so you know what it's like...

 

>>>> I challenge you to find a steam loco that covers its overhaul costs from steaming fees.....

I think that 5542 does a fairly good job at that

 

It would be a rarity then, at least amongst standard gauge locos.

One of the issues with funding overhauls from steaming fees is setting the right fee, because it is difficult to predict the future overhaul requirement, and the price of one overhaul may lull you into a false sense of security. For example, you may find after the first overhaul, the boiler repair is quite cheap, amounting to not much more than a retube, all the plate thicknesses remaining acceptable. But then by overhaul 2, you suddenly find you need new half sides and suddenly it is a lot more. Similarly, you typically won't need to replace tyres, or a new tender tank, or a new cylinder block, very often, but when you do, it gets very expensive. The difficulty is that if you budget for a £500k overhaul in ten years' time and on that basis set a hire fee of £500 per day based on 100 steamings per year, it all looks fine until the condition of the loco requires it to be withdrawn after 9 rather than 10 years; and a mid-ticket P&V cost £25k and lost you 30 steamings; and suddenly you are already £90k down on expected income. And then the £500k budgeted overhaul actually comes in at £600k, and all of a sudden your business plan of funding a loco from steaming fees has a six figure hole in it.

(Of course, that is still better than having no income at all. But it would be a brave loco owning group that thought that steaming fees alone would cover an overhaul, with no recourse to additional fundraising activity).

Tom

 

I'm sorry to say this Colin, but I find a lot of this to be absolutely mind- numbing, and I do find myself automatically zoning out of it. I'm sure I'm not alone.
I'd guess that 99% of us on here don't wish to see the L&B as some kind of Kafka-esque bureaucracy with an incidental railway attachment. I'm sure that it's not what you intend, but its just how it comes across.
The issues which do concern you will be dealt with by the changing of the guard. Just give them the time, and the opportunity to breathe some new-found air.

 

That's an outrageous suggestion! I have submitted a form 247/4 through the plenary expedited process to register my disagreement about this...

 

No, it won't be that; if anything, you only have to look at the B&YVRT as a possible model of how to go about doing things. The one thing I am always conscious of is that the L&BRT is a members-based Trust and long so it will remain.

On the other hand, the 762Club is owned and controlled by just three people, and those who had subscribed with their own money in the past have no say in what happens inside the 762 Club or how it is run. I suppose that none of you would give me a grand if, after, say, six months, you asked me what I had done with your money, only to be not answered. I don't think you would be best please would you? And that is the rub here.

In commercial terms, the 762Club is no more than a contractor to the L&BR CIC by providing a steam loco to run the service; it would be up to the CIC to obtain the best terms from the 762Club for their locos, but if, say, another locomotive-owning group was to be based at Woody Bay and could offer a similar-sized loco but at say 2/3 the costs from the 762Club, then the horse trading would begin.

The point which I think is being missed is that if the 762 Club was to become too expensive for the Woody Bay operation, then what would happen to their locos? There are not that many 60cm gauge lines that could or would want to use them. And I am sure the L&BRT membership would be most upset if LYN or any of the Manning Wardles were never to be used at Woody Bay. What needs to be remembered is that while many support the idea of having these replica locomotives, the trust does not own them and, as things stand, never will.

The volunteers and members of the Trust may have to get used to the idea of seeing other bigger industrial-type locos operating out of Woody Bay, as it simply can't be held to ransom over what locos work out of Woody Bay; sometimes business needs to overrule the heart other wise you end up with no railway.

Is there a solution to this issue? Of course there is, but some people will certainly not like it.

 

At this point I’m almost tempted to start counting the many and varied ways in this thread in which your personal hobby horse (to which we always return) is the solution to problems real or imagined.

We’re *well* into double figures. Do you think Statfold needs some L&B Manning Wardles? Or is the traffic all one way?

 

Whilst we all want to see replica authentic locos on the L&BR the overall question has to be are they profitable compared to annual income, it would seem that LYN's steaming fees are considerably higher than SIR GEORGE's, add in a couple of MW's and what would those annual steaming costs be, lets not forget the 762 club is independant of the L&BR Trust, it is only asset locked to the trust. The CIC is the operating company at the moment and it has to make the income and profits and surely must be run as a viable business

 

hang on, surely the first question, assuming that point about steaming fees is true, is ‘why?’ - followed shortly afterwards by ‘do they need to be?’

And then by ‘what happens when amortised over a longer run?’ (Regardless of the answer to questions 1 and 2)

when those have been answered it would be safer ground to running things as a viable business.

If the answer after that is ‘Statfold in the South west’ then so be it.

Though at that point I would be withdrawing my membership and financial support. I’ve no interest in building or supporting ‘a’ railway between Lynton and Barnstaple. I’m supporting the recreation.

Which would be emotional but at least the railway’s decision would be understandable.

 

Looking at this in a very simplistic way....

The FR had 'LYD', which is seems to be quite happy to loan to the L&BR from time to time. 5542 (with which I have a minor connection) started off really as a WSR loco, earnt lots of money from being loaned ot various other lines and is now effectively a SDR resident. The S&DRT loaned 'Kilmersdon' to the Helston Railway. Etc, etc. So lets suppose that a MW or two was loaned to another railway for a while. All these things help to 'fly the flag' for the parent railway.

On the other hand, if I were subscribing/loaning/donating to the 762 Club in the expectation/understanding that this was a way to ensure that new MWs ran on the reborn L&BR in the not-too-distant future, I think that I would be quite peeved if it turned out that for the forseeable future not only would they be running somewhere else other than the L&BR (despite the publicity that would derived therefrom) but also that there would be very few - if any - takers for that opportunity anyway.

 

What does 'asset locked' mean? E.g. if the locos cannot work anywhere except the L&B that wouldn't sound particularly 'independent' to me.

 

As I understand it, an asset lock is a legal promise that keeps a community interest company's (CIC) money and property safe for its community, stopping people from taking the profits or selling things off for personal gain. It covers two main rules: keeping assets used for social goals while open, and giving leftover items to another good cause if it closes. Should the 762 Club business fail, all assets would be transferred to the Trust, so LYN can't be sold off to any other party. While the 762 Club still exists, it owns LYN, and can loan/lease/hire to whoever it so chooses. Although the 762 Club is not a CIC (it is a Private Limited Company by guarantee without share capital) and has no legal need for an asset lock, it has chosen to do so.

 

This proves why point's mentioned a page or so ago about why accountability and the ability to be able to ask questions is essential

 

As a member you should of course have received the accounts for the trust and CIC, I would assume you have read the CIC accounts.