Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I share your frustration. Some years ago, having just sold a business, I offered (to Chairman Miles amongst others) to fund an interim cover for the new carriages. I had in mind a sum into 5 figures if required. I had no response.

Seeing these lovely carriages deteriorating at 1000ft above sea level does not give one heart that the Trust protects its assets. This followed the lapsing of planning for the extension, followed by the remarkable discovery that key planning consents for WB had also lapsed.

I for one would not consider further investment with this management team.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

Umm, we had covers, but they were not ideal tbh. The carriages sweated underneath in the winter due to the humidity and moisture at that elevation and went very mouldy inside, and also they risked rubbing and scuffing the paint work on the outside in the wind.
Also it isn't easy to cover them at the end of the day being 35' long and over the reach of a person, it's another task being put on volunteers at the end of a busy day especially in high season. They have to then uncover them again in the morning. With limited volunteer time available they have other things that need doing too to get ready for a day open.
It was a good idea, and each carriage did have one, but just not really practical.

 

I’m more interested in the response to the offer than whether it was for the right thing - a potential five figure donation isn’t to be sniffed at.

If the lack of response has left the would be donor feeling that he’d not invest in that leadership, surely that’s a significant loss?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It has been established for many years that putting tarpaulins over carriages can make them deteriorate from the damp even more than leaving them uncovered. These carriages only lasted the 37 years the railway was open because they were all put in Pilton carriage sheds (or Lynton locomotive shed) overnight. If covered accommodation is impossible anywhere between Martinhoe Cross and Killington Lane then planning permission (and an appeal) needs to be instituted to put them under cover at Rowley Farm during winter. There would be no danger of damage when being moved if that was the case. In my view planning permission should now be sought as an interim measure as part of the scheme that had it until it expired.

 

As I say I was fully prepared to fund their replacement, so what's the problem ?

I cannot see that as a valid argument to repeat the inaccuracy on another carriage for long into the future, maybe permanently. Refer to above answer.

Agreed it will be a grand carriage. Which is why I joined Andrew Dow in getting sister No 2 somewhere before it disintegrated as it was rapidly starting to do. Towyn had refused, and in the mid 70s the NRM was the only possible solution.

The relevant bits of what passed between me and Charles I quoted above.

 

Don't know Mike, just putting my personal view across. The rest is between you and Charles and whatever you agree on or is decided.

 

The carriages are a remarkable achievement and the recent award of the BEM for the group as a whole is richly deserved.

But it is remarkable/infuriating that a direct five-figure offer from @Isambard! resulted in no interest from Mr Miles and his friends, leaving the coaches to suffer the depredations of the weather a 1000' up on Exmoor. @DaveE if that's not a working definition of insanity, then I'm struggling for what else is.

 

Very generous and very sensible. And thank you so much for 'Measured and Drawn', it's a fabulous and much-cherished thing @Michael B .

 

I don't know the details or when the offer was made, but some years ago we had tarps custom made, but they did the carriages no good at all. They were used I think for one winter and then it was decided that they were causing more damage than if the carriages were left in the open.

 

@Isambard! can fill us in. But this clearly is different to the ill-fated tarps and it is both self-defeating and downright rude not to follow up with donors who come forwards.

 

I've seen too many examples of situations where generous donors expect to change or influence the spending priorities of the board. Ideally there should be a capital plan which drives fundraising and not the other way round. That's very hard when someone cares deeply about a project or development that doesn't figure on that plan and their generosity is spurned but that may be the right decision. It's not just individuals. It can happen where supporting charities have different priorities from those of the operating entity.
Of course that assumes that there is a prioritised capital plan. If not spending, which can sometimes create on going costs, may be decided by donors'/fundraisers' priorities not those of the people with responsibility for the railway's finances. Maybe protection for the carriages would be very sensible but the judgement of that, and responsibility for the decision, has ultimately to lie with the trustees.

 

If we are talking a more permanent structure to cover the carriages, the only place I know had been suggested is the cutting beyond the engine shed.
The cutting has its own problems in as much as air stagnates in the cutting particularly in winter. Any breeze flows straight over the top. I have worked in that cutting in winter and everything is just drenched in dew and condensation.
Meatman and I have often mulled over what could be done there but it would have to be very carefully done to maximise air flow to reduce mould due to trapped moisture in stagnant air.
I know when I spoke to John Uphill about the damp at Woody Bay he said steel pretty much anywhere on site goes rusty in a matter of a couple of days.
Just getting a cover, permanent or temporary, is only half the battle, it requires a lot of thought about wind resistance, position, air flow, humidity and access.
Up to now it has been seen best to let them be in the open, preferably with the top vents open so that when it is windy it at least dries and airs the interior and hopefully dries the exterior somewhat.
Woody Bay is what it is, has a lot of humidity and moisture in the air, can be windy, and at times almost biblically drenched for days on end. (I've been there when it's like it too).

 

A little belatedly, the Companies House website was updated today 21/08/2023 to record the termination of Peter's directorship. Strangely, Geoff Hunt's termination as a director was recorded on 13 May 2023. maybe the Company Secretary explain these discrepancies?

[Updated - L&BRT is a Charity AND a company - got my trustees/directors mixed!]

 

All valid. And perfectly reasonably explained to a prospective donor making an unsolicited approach, possibly with an explanation of the priorities.

Or, alternatively, capable of being seen as an opportunity to do something previously too far down the pecking order.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This is not restricted only to cash-based fundraising. As the result of a no-doubt well-meaning "generous donation", Woody Bay is home - right next to the station building - to a post-closure QEII red telephone kiosk in a location that never had one in the past.
Whilst it is useful as home to a defribulator, and provides local telephone service, it is, to me, inauthentic and out of keeping with the ambience that the L&B is trying to develop.

 

Ditto Broadway. We managed to have it installed along the approach road, so not too close. Another is coming somewhere, it's being done up now, and of course Winchcombe has one.

 

None of that excuses ignoring the potential donor. At the very least a written response or offer for a chat to explain the challenges of storage should have been made. I very much doubt that @Isambard! was trying to dictate or influence policy and I don't see how you can reach that conclusion from what has been posted here. I think an apology would be appropriate.
I'm not quite sure why you always assume that everyone else is wrong/misinformed/ignorant/naive and only management have the right answers.

 

Exactly right, @ghost, couldn't have put it better myself.

 

I’d agree with Ghost that if an offer of financial help is made that a railway decides not to accept then it should certainly explain why.
I didn’t suggest management is always right. Their decision could be wrong but it’s their responsibility to take it and to be accountable for the outcome.

 

I can't help thinking of Dennis Potter's Singing Detective here, when he says: 'Am I right, or am I right?' (Could be an aphorism for the Trustees...)