Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

The problem arises when guidance doesn't agree with statues, as we have seen in planning as well.

It leaves too many grey areas and I see this in the CC guidance as well.

What should be said is, legally there is no limit and your governing document is the ruling document, but ideally no trustee should do more than three three year terms. It will depend on the structure and size of your charity if this is suitable.

 

It is also worth thinking why that advice exists. I'm a school governor, and have been for 7 years. The advice is that no governor should serve more than two terms of 4 years. That is to ensure fresh thinking, and stop individual governors becoming over powerful. One school I'm aware of is having to do a recovery because this hasn't been observed. On the other hand, finding replacements can be difficult and may lose continuity, so a balance is required.

So, at the L&BRT, I don't have a problem with the fact that some trustees have served for a long time. I do have a problem with the idea that a significant number of trustees have served a long time, and that they are in dominant roles.

 

As Charles has explained, he said that the lamps for Number 9 have already been bought some time ago by East Group funds, and that he also said that it would look far better to have your absolutely correct ones on the more elaborate Number 1 when we do it and make a big thing of it.

The lamp tops are not cheap to make, probably near £500 or more each now at a guess, and even more if they are stove enamelled, so it makes sense we do not waste what we already have even if they are not quite correct.

I am sure we all do not wish to see money wasted, and in this, with the very rare mistakes we have made in recreating these carriages, using the incorrect lamp tops on 9 and the new ones made correctly on 1 would be a sensible thing to do.

For 99.99% of people they wouldn't know which is right, and which is wrong.

In time we can correct them all.

 

Colin, you've suggested this before, but I'm not sure it is the right way to go. If you want to build a porch onto your house, you don't set up a "Porch Construction Company", you hire specialised contractors to lay the foundations, another to put in the walls and roof, and perhaps others for interior decorating. electrics, etc. For a large extension, you might hire a Project Manager to coordinate it, if you don't have the necessary skills yourself (although in our case, we probably do among the membership). I think that would be a better model, avoiding the overhead or running yet another company.

 

I do get what you are saying, however I see it working more like the Rother Valley Railway on the K&ESR i.e. the focus of building the railway one section at a time and then at the right time handing that completed section over to either the Trust or EA to own it.

One area that concerns me is the operation of any more than the one section of the L&BR. I hope that before a second section opens, we will have been able to work on at a collaboration level on how we only have just the one operating company.

 

My view is that the first thing that needs doing is to ensure Good Governance.

Then you need to look at developing the capacity to build an extension and thats possibly for a new group of trustees

 

Yes he has, but I beg to disagree. Once built they will never be corrected, as you suggest, a moment's thought will tell you. The cost can never be justified. When someone offers the full cost of replacements, surely you abandon the significantly inaccurate ones you had as they were clearly not L & B, and, if possible sell them for the scrap. You are right the majority of visitors will not know the difference, but I will because I have tracked down every detail on these vehicles for 60 years, and it is me offering the full cost. So why when so much effort has been made on accurate replica coaches would you spoil the broth ? The roof lamps are a prominent feature of these coaches being in full view and accuracy is all about the overall look. If you see for example the Peco or Tenmille models the flaws in the detail are immediately obvious even to the casual observer. As I say, if you are going to make replicas, then within obvious constraints, they should look like the original without jarring the eye. Charles says he will put them on the next coach; but before I contribute we will have to see if my reluctance to giving the Trust any more money is lifted, and that will only happen when the management of the Trust changes.

 

I'm afraid we are the going to have to agree to disagree on this as the cost has already been paid for on Carriage 9, years ago now when Carriage 16 was being built and we had a large batch made at the time. To let our group know we are going to scrap them (think over £300 each down to a scrap value of under a fiver each) won't go down well with our group members who we also have to consider.

Don't think your generous offer isn't appreciated, it is, along with all the knowledge you have gathered over the years, that knowledge is invaluable and I really do look forward to the books you have planned for publication.

Both you and I have an eye for something which doesn't look right... Detail, and I am very particular about detail, but in this, when the things are sat there ready to use and have been for years and where 99.99% of people won't notice the difference, it cannot be justified to let a not in considerable amount of donations and fund raising go for scrap.

To be honest, because of that attention to detail we share, you and I along with a few we have discussed it with, are probably the only ones who would know the ones we have used so far are not strictly correct.

 

Dave just out of interest but just how many did the East Group get made?

 

Just want to say that 'they will never notice the difference' is a slippery road for a museum to take. I do get the rest of your argument, but I have heard too often that 'people will never notice'. A museum is there to teach.
Another famous one from my area was 'people don't look up'. And that from a (former) chairman!

 

Oh blimey, can't remember now, I think it was 17,16,11,5 and one more.. About 30 at a guess all told. The chap who was making them was retiring, and it was also cheaper with a larger batch.

 

I quite agree, and it's not something we aim to make a habit of hehe

 

Indeed. A few year ago, having myself once been a (Assistant) Museum Curator for a heritage railway Trust, I had a (polite but firm) disagreement with the Museum Curator of another similar organisation. He was giving demonstrations of the operation of some equipment of which, by his own admission, he had virtually no knowledge or experience. It showed - the results were full of the most basic howlers!

His view was that most of their visitors knew little if anything about old railways anyway, so (a) they would not know the difference and (b) as long as they went away having learnt 'something' then he had achieved the society's aim. My counter-argument was that (a) as a Charitable Trust with the objective of 'educating the public' IMHO they had a moral, if not legal, duty to educate people correctly and (b) amongst their visitors would be enthusiasts with far more knowledge of the subject then either him or myself and they might well get such a poor impression that they would go away and advise other people not to bother to visit.

Just to make it worse, the chap even wrote all about it (very erroneously) in a booklet which was sold in their shop! The book was so bad it even illustrated one set of equipment accompanied by the operating instructions for a totally different sort - so clearly no-one had even bothered to 'work through' the instructions to make sure that they worked, as they would have failed half-way through the first page :-(

 

Strictly speaking we would be getting the original oil lamps made, along with the workings and glass domes underneath. Obviously today having a glass dome hanging down a fair bit into the carriage, which could become hot, and also the fire risk it isn't practical or safe and suitable for today's service. Hence we went for a sympathetic electric light fitting inside which although isn't by any means authentic, it gives the impression of what the lights would have been like.

 

You're missing the point, @DaveE - best practice is to renew the Board over time, and three terms of three years is widely recognised as a suitable maximum. You know full well that most (if not all) of 'the six' have served longer than this, and if you were serious in your previous suggestion of renewing the Board over time, then the best way to show that that was the Board's view too would be for Mr Summers and Mr Cowling not to seek re-election this year. Pretty obviously, both of them will.

 

I don't know what the boards view is on it. I do believe in a gradual turnover in time, as and when elections allow it. But regardless of who is standing for re-election or which year, our M&As allow for existing trustees to stand for re-election.

Whether the trustees you mention put themselves forward this time is their business not mine.

Once the nominations and any re-standing trustees are known then it will be up to the membership to decide who is voted on to the board.

 

You're able to have a view on whether you think it is a good idea for Mr Cowling and Mr Summers to restand, though, @DaveE. I'd be very interested in your view, because you've previously advocated the Board changing over time - so how will this happen if the incumbents decide to restand?

 

They can stand if they wish, same as any other existing trustee can in any other year. It is not for me to dictate who can stand and who cannot.

Personally I think it is in some ways preferable to have a gradual change over time and as elections allow, but the thing is you are looking for a time frame and essentially asking me to rule on this year alone because it's certain trustees.

That time frame for that change in my view maybe short or long depending on election results and who the membership elects. If they re-elect then it will take longer. I don't make the rules.

For clarity on the CC position on terms for trustees.

It was the CC themselves who turned down the recommendation by the Lords committee in 2018 to bring in a strict 9 years maximum for trustees. They rejected it saying...

The regulator’s response says it is "sympathetic to the principle" of the recommendation and endorses the recommendation in the Charity Governance Code that there should be a nine-year time limit on trustee tenure.

"However, charities must develop their own policies in line with the requirements of their governing documents," the response says.

"The commission will look to review our draft articles of association to better reflect the Charity Governance Code, when time allows.

"The commission understands that there may be many reasons why particular charities might be unable to follow this good practice. It believes that a mandatory time limit on trusteeship does not take these into account and would therefore be unworkable."

 

I have offered to fund replacements and asked Charles for a quote not knowing if they would cost £500 or £1,000 each. Six lamps for No 9. The gas lamps were conversions of the oil lamps (proved by the fact that they still have a Bristol makers plate and that the gas pipe goes vertically through what clearly used to be the oil container), and were changed in the 1910-1911 period so are correct for the 1911-35 era, especially when the livery is post 1901/2 (albeit with a continuation of the circlets). I'm with @RailWest - in our role as a museum we have a moral obligation to present accuracy, and taking the attitude 'no-one will notice' which might mis-lead people frankly is insulting. Below I will post a picture from 'Perchance it awaketh' book over laid with one of R L Knight's last train pictures at Woody Bay, and people will judge if 99.9% wouldn't notice the difference. Then we come to a question of degree. My argument is why when it is possible as a museum railway to get it right dont we make the effort.

 

Starting with a basic standard model, governance documents evolve over time, so even similar organisations end up with widely different rules based on their progress and specific events.

Trustee terms of office is a currently relevant example for the L&B. A number of modifications could be introduced, with transitional arrangements for incumbents. I would like to see something like "Trustees can serve no more than two consecutive terms of three years" as I think this would encourage rotation, and widen experience, but not preclude former trustees from standing after a year in the background. To make such changes, however, needs a 75% vote, which as we have seen, can be difficult to achieve without an open-minded committee, a wide-ranging consultation with the members, and a persuasive argument. Not impossible, but a challenge as things stand with the current board.