Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I agree with Meatman on this, as it was a mistake to let her go, but what is more telling is the guy who owned her also owned Fairview at Parracombe who not wanting to have anything more to do with the L&BR mainly as I understand it was the trustees attitude to him, sold his house to what has turned out to be someone who is sadly opposes to the rebuilding of the railway.

As I understand it she will never be allowed to set a wheel back in Devon, due to how the owner was treated. It does not take much to make yourself unpopular, but for Issac to end up at Statfold where the great and the good of the narrow gauge world meet, I was told that no one is now willing to take their loco to Devon anymore.

Sure we have two steam locos, AXE and LYN, but both are due for their ten year overhauls soon and with CW out of action due to requiring a new boiler and the major share holder having her membership removed well it couldn't get any better could it?

We may not need them every day, but we sure could do with another one or two locos of the same size as LYN on shed. But locos of the size we need, just don't appear out of the mist. Building four replacement Manning Wardles is a great thing, but only when we had a big enough railway project to run them on.

What is required now is a spare standby steam locomotive for Devon.

 

One might also need to look carefully as to which body actually needs to have the TWAO.

From what I can recall with the WSR few years back, the LRO was held by the operating Plc and could not simply be 'handed over' to the WSRA were the latter to take over any operations. Given that the L&BR structure is different, in that the CIC is a subsiduary of the Trust, then maybe it would be acceptable for the Trust to have the TWAO but then delegate the actual operation to the CIC.

 

I am not sure if that is how it works, my understanding is that the operating company needs to hold the TWAO so it would be the responsibility of the CIC.

The trust needs to reflect on its role of what it is good at, those I have spoken too have a consensus that it should take on the following:- land/trackbed ownership, setting the direction of the project, fundraising and financial oversight.

I have in the past suggested that a new construction company should be set up and that deals with not only the planning issues and land purchase but the construction of the railway and the issues of civil engineering contracts etc.

However the AGM goes this weekend, there will still be a lot of questions that need answering.

 

The last thing the L&B needs is another company

 

Quite agree, sub-committees maybe, but layer and layers of companies to over see companies etc. No. Inefficient use of personnel and miles of self made red tape.

 

Has Isaac actually been purchased by Statfold or just residing there?

 

Isaac was taken away from the railway because the agreement was up for renewal and the owner declined to do so. My understanding is that the owner was asked to pay for some major work that has been done at WB, didn't do so, and then took the engine to Statfold.

 

Not necessarily. The RVR holds their new TWAO but they've always intended the railway to be operated by the K&ESR Co. which already owns and operates (under their 1973 Light Railway Order) the existing KESR. Therefore the new TWAO specifically allows RVR to "transfer to KESR its right to construct, maintain, use or operate the railway"; or lease it to them for an agreed period; or in fact to transfer or lease it to somebody else (although I'm not aware of any such proposal).

Incidentally the K&ESR Co. is the landowner; LRO holder; Operating Company and democratically controlled Membership Charity of the existing railway, and wholly owns a trading subsidiary co. for their non-charitable activities (shops, catering etc). Heritage railway organisational structures don't always need to be as complicated as some people seem to think.

 

Hi Dave the reason I am suggestion a new construction company is that it or some one will need to deal with some seriously big contracts and I don't think that the CIC or the Trust have that sort of capacity in their liability cover.

Besides if either of the above took on such a role and something did go wrong, do you really want to risk losing all that has been built up so far, I know I don't. I also note that the CIC could do this role and again they might be able to do so. But that company runs the railway and running a railway and working on construction site requires two different management skill sets and I for one would prefer to keep them apart.

This is more about taking care of the risks that will be involved in the construction phase of this project. I would personal like to keep what we have at the railway away from any possible risk, so it is not just about setting up yet another company, it is about what could happen and what we could lose if it went wrong and I don't want to see that happen.

One thing which I have not mentioned is that as a construction company it would in effect be at arms length from the rest of the project. But if we set it up as a subsidiary of the trust, the trust would be in effect be building the railway via a contractor who would be taking on and dealing with the construction risks involved.

 

But my understanding was the work was carried out without any consultation with him before it was done, but I would be happy to be proven I am wrong.

 

Yes, I had heard that too, but what was the nature/extent of that "work"?

 

Will the AGM, have a zoom/teams link, as not able to attend in person?

 

In construction were you? Just wondering

 

On past experience, sadly not :-(

It is rumoured that in days gone by the natives would stand on hilltops to communicate by semaphore across the valleys - nowadays the people standing on hilltops waving their arms about are visitors desperately trying to get a mobile signal....

 

Yes mainly Electrical Contracting, Installation, Maintenance, some computer network and security systems installation and finally some Facilities Management there is also some Mechanical and Millwright work in there as well.

 

take a wild guess

 

OK. Just wondered. Most of what the L&B is looking to do isn't all at once, much perhaps by volunteers, some seasonal as allowed, some will be dependant on previous projects being finished and the managing of that will be different to your usual corporate construction environment. Would be too easy to get too many "chiefs" as it were.

We need to keep it simple. The biggest contracts is bridge work I should imagine, just contract it out. The companies already have the gear to do it, can deal with logistics, will be up to date on regulations and will have the insurances etc.

The most I would do is set up a subsidiary for small works and maintenance.

 

It all depends on what you would call small works and maintenance, most railways can call on various craftsman that know there job inside out. But the bonus is that a number of them will be members and volunteers, the bit which would be missing is a site supervisor or a hands on project manager who could organises this sort of work in a business way.

Finding some one who could competently carry this role off may not be that easy, At the same time a construction and design team will be needed so that contracts can be issued, up until now any work carried out has been to replace missing bridges with new ones in accordance to current building regs and any other local regs that may be in place. I know for instants that at ENPA have there own building regs and guide which we will need to kept to or face having to remove a building which does not comply with them.

As I see it, the construction company will in fact be dealing with most, if not all of the Bureaucracy of rebuilding the railway. From a raft of national building regulation to H&S Regulations and on to any other regulations to do with running a railway.

It will also need to act in the most efficient and effective way possible to get the project done and to monitor the budget. No one is going to thank us if we can't control the budget for the rebuilding of the whole railway.

 

OK, I know of one who could project manage it, but is retired and it's surprising how quickly you become out of touch. Major works, out it, they take the risks, they have the insurance, they have the legal backing etc etc.

 

I don't see the need for a whole company to manage the construction - just a very good Programme/Project Manager with expertise in railway or similar civils-based construction. There are many specialist companies around that are used to being contracted to various phases of a project such as this. Why re-invent the wheel? We're not exactly building HS2 (which might even be finished first at this rate) It may also benefit the project for the board to take an arms-length approach, and concentrate on the very considerable fundraising efforts that will be required.