Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

The point is that the IOW, at least, and I suspect also the KESR and WLLR, are unitary organisations as stated by @Miff, and aren’t split up in the way that you describe.

Without going all paulhitch, my reaction to the list of entities was “what on earth”; it seemed like a recipe for friction the moment that something doesn’t go quite right.

Many of the things that are described in L&B circles as separate organisations, are dealt with elsewhere as “Restricted Funds” within a parent organisation. They can fundraise independently, organise with a high level of independence, ring fence donations, but without the complications that go with running as separate legal entities.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I think the simplicity in that structure is apparent in your description:

"The group structure is very easy to follow"

Immediately followed by a whole bunch of caveats and corrections:

"As I understand it ..."

"You have a Trust which should ..." (So what does it actually do? You've just said what it should do).

"At some stage there then needs to be set up..." (Why?)

"The reason for the thinking about a second Trust is that in light of the Llangollen issues some of us feel the need ..." (Some feel the need? Who decides if yet another organisation, with all the administrative overhead, and confusion is required?)

"I nearly forgot ..."

That is very much a "group structure [that] is very easy to follow" - not.

Within a railway family there are four basic functions that need to be covered:

1. To set policy for the whole group (which would typically be a democratic membership body)
2. To own the assets (land, infrastructure, rolling stock)
3. To conduct commercial operations
4. To raise funds.

That could be a simple as one organisation to do all four, or more complex (for example, to make best use of charitable donation for fund raising; and to separate commercial risk from ownership of assets might suggest separate organisations). But whether you have one organisation or several; or one parent with subsidiaries to separate risk, you have to ensure those four functions are covered. And pace your neighbours over in Minehead, you also don't want separate organisations encroaching onto the roles of others such that it isn't clear which organisation is supposed to set policy, or concentrate on fundraising etc.

From your description above, I am completely baffled as to which organisation does what; how you avoid friction between them or, as someone interested in the revival of the railway, who I would join or donate to in order to see that objective met.

Tom

 

762 Club is now building more locos so not as described above 'only to build Lyn'...

 

going back to operations if they ever manage to get to Parracombe, why not just get 'Pilton' running properly and have it pulling the train to Parracombe, as i see it the only effort a steam loco would put in on the outward run is pulling out of Woody Bay, after that its all downhill, have the steam loco on the back so that its doing the work on the return journey and the passengers get the sound of a steam loco working hard, they wont notice it on the outward journey. Or splash out on an auto coach and have something different in narrow gauge

 

Hi Guys I won't be drawn in to a deeper discuss about the L&BR structure for now, since as far as we are concerned it works for us, but at some point we do realise that somethings have to change how and when this will happen will be down to the Membership to decide at an AGM.

 

Colin, you keep saying "we" in your posts as though you speak on behalf of a committee or a group of members. As far as I can ascertain you are not on any of the L&B committees and you are speaking as a member.
Perhaps it would be best to use "my own opinion is..." or "personally..." to avoid confusion.

 

I seem to recall the 762 club is also an independent company and not tied into the L&B structure (although obviously sharing certain shared objectives)

 

how exactly are you sure he is not speaking on behalf of a group of members, perhaps the Trustee's and directors should be more engaging with the members, after all it seems to be forgotten that the members own the railway and the Trustee's are there to serve us

 

We don’t. But it is helpful to know whether people are speaking as representatives of an organisation, or in a personal capacity. And when an individual is, to the best of our knowledge, neither director nor trustee nor official spokesman, ex cathedra pronouncements can cause confusion.

Other posters, with close connections to their railways manage it quite effectively, so it can be done.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I don't. That's why I said "as far as I can ascertain".
If Colin is speaking as a representative of a group of members then he should make this clear (inc numbers in the group, volunteers or non volunteers etc), as it would lend more weight to what he's saying.

 

Just going back (sorry) to the business about leaving a train full of passengers stopped on a gradient without a loco; assuming full application of the vacuum or (single pipe) air brake, how much difference does having a loco attached make? Once the coach brakes are fully applied, the loco can't do anything to keep them applied. All it can do is (a) have its own brake (vacuum, air and/or steam) and (b) when the time comes restore vacuum or air pressure to release the coach brakes. There have of course been some nasty accidents (Armagh, and more recently in South Africa) but wasn't the problem there the failure to apply handbrakes in the coaches?

 

Quite a lot, if the loco is at the downhill end

 

Thank you Keith

Let me try and clarify that, I consider myself as a life member of the Trust and on forums like this, my opinion normally comes about after I have had a discussion with a number of members who like me kept an eye on the management and the project as a whole.

Not everyone will agree with me on this which is fine. But we, as a collective group are trying to rebuild a heritage style railway in such a way that has never been done before. It is likely that it will never to be done again, unless you consider the likes of the High Speed 2 project.

The dream has alway been to rebuild the L&BR to as close as it was in 1935 before it closed. Time and tide wait for no man and over the years it has become difficult to carry on, but the faith in this project is wonderful.

Today most of the members realise that if we are to ever have this railway, we need to adapt to the current commercial way of thinking which is as far away as you can get from the days of Tom Rolt and the first stirrings at the Talyllyn.

It may not be great, but it will mean the L&BR should be able to survive the current financial and social termol.

I am not or never have been on any Trust or CIC board of Directors. My reason for this is simple, about sixteen years ago we had a coup and replaced all the management team in one go and I was more than happy with how it all went, so I considered that my job as a member who would heckle the management team at the AGM was done so I though.

Due to personal reasons I have not been able to get to the last four or five AGM's (including those with Covid).

In the last few years, I have heard on various forums that we have had issue's around the holding of past AGM's which have came to my attention. Some of these issues, if this was out in the big wide World would have seen those responsible of these issues getting their marching orders.

But as far as I know nothing has changed and having asked the question I still have not had a reply.

I then started to find I was not the only one with these concern's and a number of other members have asked questions but no one has had an answer to what is going on.

One thing I can say for sure is that in the past the membership of the L&BR group do not like being lied to or kept in the dark, as all previous management teams have found to their cost, they all need to learn that they don't own the railway, but the membership do. So if something is not right with in the L&BR Group then the membership have in the past done something about it.

My role, as I see it, is to kept the management of this project on the straight and narrow and I know I am not the only one that holds this view.

What happens now I don't know we shall have to wait for the AGM to take place and see what the membership think.

 

I couldn't agree more. The perception of the need to set up a myriad of semi-connected but separate organisations to cope with the thinking that existing laws didn't cope with today's necessities was over before the present set up was put in place. It just needed people familiar with the law and some common sense to think everything through. It inevitably leads to friction and confusion, without unified leadership. Unfortunately firms of advisers, including firms of Accountants who I have shown not always to be competent (or apologetic) at AGMs in the past, never miss an opportunity to expand their work and their fees. It is now probably too late to change it.

Added to the unwillingness to communicate properly beyond the need for discretion with the membership that provides all the support shoos people away from a natural inclination to participate. The effects of this have been seen between the different L & B organisations in the recent past. Why did the November newsletter say nothing except the abandonment of the Turntable idea after all that had clearly gone on, including the non-confidential bits of what was said at the forum open to all members (which probably included objectors in the audience) ? We have seen what can happen (for this and other reasons) on the Glyn Valley and Southwold Railways. Let's hope the same doesn't happen in ND.

 

I adore the idea of the L&B. It is the one new/extended railway I can really get enthused about. But, I would like it to succeed.

Why is that a “but”? Because what I observe from the outside is a plethora of organisations with subtly different agendas. So subtle it may not be obvious at present, but the lesson of the last 50yrs of standard gauge preservation is that simple is preferable.

The complexity of management challenge increases at the cube of the number of organisations. The KESR, WllR and even FR models are preferable. Two organisations only are required. The current structure will impede construction and operation.

 

Tom

Your four points are covered like this:-

1 2 and 4 are covered by the L&BR Trust (which is the membership controlling group)

Only point 3 is covered by the CIC (only shareholders get to elect the board for this group)

We don't need anything else unless there is a foreseeable risk involved. The big issue we have is that over time the L&BR group has allowed sub groups to be set up and we are currently stuck with them.

That said at some stage in our long term development, it would be great if we can all sit around a table and thrash out the various landownership issues which currently exist so they all come under the one body as in point 2.

Also on point 2 we also have locomotive owning groups which are based on the L&BR so that by itself can become complicated, but that is also a solution in that it allows the CIC to be flexible as to what locos it can use.

As for having only one organisation you need to look at either the 2006 or 2011 Charities Acts which now precludes commercial trading by a Charity.

As I have said the Charity World has changes a lot since many of the current Railway Societies where set up this is on going due to terrorist organisations trying to use our systems to raise money for there cause.

It may well be that a number of our railways may not be covered under current Charity Law, so if anyone is on a board they may like to carry out a check. Before the 2006 Act came in, it was assumed that charity was One of Four classes. Now the wording has changes to ' a public benefit now needs to be demonstrated rather than it been assumed to be in place' in other words what was considered charitable may no long be the case

 

No it doesn’t. A charity may trade commercially if that trading is in order to further its charitable objects. E.g. if the charity’s objects include the operation of a railway then the charity may trade (i.e. sell tickets and do marketing) in order to achieve it. It can also wholly own (the simplest ownership structure of all, retaining complete control) another trading company to carry out other commercial activities (e.g. shops & catering) if these are not within the charitable objects.

 

Please tell me where it says that because I can't find it.

 

Your own post #6377 suggests that it's a bit more complicated than that.

 

Deleted