Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

The L&B livery certainly shouts its uniqueness, but it may be worth remembering that Southern Railway green was certainly not "plain"- it was fully lined out in black and gold, and as such can only be seen on a handful of carriages at the Bluebell, plus a couple at the KESR. It's certainly not common, and is, IMHO, very attractive on its own right, and would be to the average Joe Punter, too, particularly if, as was the appearance of the railway from 1923 until at least the early 30s, independent and corporate liveries intermingled.
There's room for everyone's favourite here, without being in any way non-authentic to the spirit of the original railway, so let's not denigrate too much.
Particularly as there is such a long, long way to go from here.

 

There are many question regarding the L&BR steam locos. the first one has to be why did Manning Wardle come up with a 2-6-2 design, while Baldwin's done to the same speechification a 2-4-2T and it turned out to be more powerful?

Coming from a maintenance background then yes it would make sense to have the same type of loco to reduce the amount of spares you need. that said how do you go about making each locomotive visually different so that little Johnny insists that he travels behind each loco, well to start with different liveries will help.

But I do disagree about not having different locos the FR has the ladies and the England's for the quite periods and when it get busy then the Fairlie's take over, again we too will need that flexibility in our own loco fleet.

This is not a complete list of what is wrong with the Manning Wardle's, but I hope you can take this away and understand why this needs to be looked at from a modern point of view:-

1 The boiler is to small in size diameter wise and there is not enough space to produce enough steam in an economical manor.
2 The boiler is the old fashion Stephenson long boiler design good for Industrial use, but not so good for passenger haulage.
3 The firebox is also too small for a loco of this size and again can present steaming issues.
4 The original design did not have superheat only LYD has that and that too is also limited due to once again the size of the boiler
5 There are reports that when running uphill the MW suffered from a cold front end and making steam became a very hard thing to do.
6 The wheel base is out of basic principles have you guys looked at who the wheel base has been worked out? have any of you noticed that the gap between the front pony truck and the rear pony trucks are different? which could make going backward a bit rouge at line speed.
7 Water capacity? never enough water to do a round trip or depending who was driving a complete run from end to end, during the summer it was well known that Lynton ran out of water so it was necessary for the locos to fill up at Parracombe before heading toward Lynton.
8 Coal capacity photos show that coal was carried in the cab at floor level as there was not enough storage space for the coal in the coal bunker, hence why the coal capacity was extended with an extra wing between the boiler and coal hole.
9 As it was pointed out to me why were the tanks fitted with flush rivet's then at a later date just before the cab there is a row of round head rivets? was this due to trying to make the water capacity larger?
10 Most of the weight of a MW loco was carried on the last driving axle and why it was rated at 10 tons
11 It must be remember that Manning Wardle built industrial tanks mainly and it is quite possible that they had the wrong head on when this design was put together.
12 Colin Pealling many years ago suggested that if we were to build them again then we should at least consider updating the South African Avontuur 2-6-4T design to our needs or at worst (and I think Toby would be pleased with this) build them as a 2-8-2 super tank design.
13 One last point the driving axle was in the wrong place as well as it should have been on the rear axle, but then you wouldn't have got the Joy Valve gear to fit.

With longer side tank's it would also be possible to increase the diameter of the boiler itself thus also being able to have a much better steam circuit, also it would become possible to add in the SR design water syphon system to increase hot water flow around the boiler. Also not forgetting to have more superheat available and of course a much higher boiler pressure.

I am not dead set against the Manning Wardle's, but I do wish the above had been looked at before now, Since they have a number of engineering issues I do wish they could have look at before they started to cut metal.

 

Hmmm. An interesting document. If, as described here, the motion was delivered appropriately to the appointed person, or at least his representative, within the AGM deadlines, then I'm sure this will appear on the agenda and ballot papers. If, in the unlikely event an error has occurred, and it does not appear as expected, then (for the fourth time in a row?) an administrative error will cause the AGM to be declared null and void. I'm sure that every effort will be made to appraise all members of this, and if a meeting does go ahead at the appointed time and date, all attendees will be able to collect a copy on arrival.

 

As you observe if it was delivered withing the AGM deadlines. My understanding is that once the AGM has been called by the Directors there is no means by which any member proposed resolutions can be added to the agenda.

 

Meanwhile, in other news, a porcine murmeration has been spotted heading south-westerly down the Bristol Channel...

 

But the deadline for formal notification of the AGM has not yet passed. There appears to be no formal deadline set for the submission of motions for inclusions in the Agenda (only for the submission of Trustee nominations), although clearly there must be an informal one in practice in order to allow for printing etc.

 

There most certainly is! Assuming there is a need for perhaps 3 x 5-coach trains (as has been mentioned elsewhere), it wouldn't be impossible (although not cheap!) to produce three rakes, plus perhaps a spare for each, one in the current livery, one in SR livery (was there only one?) and another in either the original 1898 livery, or the intermediate chestnut livery. I'm sure that @DaveE - if he hasn't already - could design a light-weight higher-capacity modern-build carriage to fit the approved standard underframe that would offer modern comforts but still look to all intents and purposes exactly in the style of the originals. Jut a thought...

 

Nominations for the election closed on Friday 5 April, @Lineisclear , so the Agenda cannot have been finalised when this was submitted on the 3rd of April. As an ordinary motion to remove a Director under s168 CA 06 needs Special Notice, it needed 28 days notice (s312(1) CA 06) which has clearly been met.

So, this should be on the Agenda. Why hasn't Tony Nicholson confirmed it?

 

Easy to design something like that, mind you, it might not be wise to go for something especially lighter, otherwise it could start making for an unconfortable ride or jumping points. Would seem silly to make a light weight carriage only to have to add a ton or two of bricks or lead in the underframe as ballast.

 

And here's a clean copy of the motion to remove Peter Miles as a Director.

Well done to Chris Lane and Steve Ball for putting this forward.
_______________________________________________________

Motion to Remove Peter Miles as a Director / Trustee
Peter Miles has chaired the Board of Trustees since 2008. The first duty of the Trust Chairman is to the future best interests of the Trust. Mr Miles has promised a great deal and delivered little. His one clear success was achieving planning permission for an extension from Killington Lane to Wistlandpound, for which he and the Board received deserved praise.

Unfortunately, it immediately became obvious that Mr Miles had no strategy to satisfy the planning conditions (so-called “Grampian Conditions”) required to take the construction forward.

Worse still, four years were lost due to incorrect maps being included in the planning documents – an entirely avoidable mistake which cost the Trust in both time and money to correct, and for which the planning consultants were never held responsible.

With time running out and no plan, the Miles-led board then launched an attempt to reach Parracombe Halt via a Section 73 (s73) application in early 2022. The Exmoor National Park Authority (ENPA) planners informed the board in August 2022 that it would be invalid, and that ENPA would act unlawfully if it granted it.

Instead of being honest with Members, local people and the planners whose support we need to extend the railway, the Miles-led Board accused the ENPA planners of inaction, publicly and wrongly blaming them for the failure of the s73 application. Since then – and on the website even now – Mr Miles and his friends misrepresent the amount of money available for the extension in the ‘Return to Parracombe’ Fund: lying to the Members is certainly not in our railway’s best interests.

As Chairman, Peter Miles conspired with Tony Nicholson as Company Secretary to keep Anne Belsey’s valid nomination off of the 2023 Trustees Election ballot, libelling her in Newsletter 81 and on email. At the 2023 AGM, after pressure from the floor, he changed his mind and allowed her name onto the ballot – at a cost of several thousand pounds for a second posting and ballot to be arranged. Given that this was exclusively caused by Mr Miles and Mr Nicholson, it would have been reasonable for them to reimburse the Trust for the costs of their actions. They have not.

The Chairman’s core job is to create consensus on order to take the railway forward. After this unnecessary second vote, at least two of the board members then outright refused to work with Anne, Chris Duffell and Mike Whiteaker, and no constructive Board meetings have been held since August 2023. Calling a completely unnecessary EGM in March 2024, at a further cost of several thousand pounds, was a transparent attempt to control who could stand for election at the AGM.

At the EGM itself, Mr Miles claimed that the main purpose of the meeting was in fact to remove Anne Belsey and Chris Duffell, and that the motion to approve the proposed Articles of Association (AoAs) had been added afterwards. It soon became clear (from the minutes of the February Board meeting) that the opposite was true, and that the EGM had originally been called to approve the proposed AoAs. The motions to dismiss Anne and Chris were in fact added to the agenda after the Board meeting had closed; again, lying to the Members is unacceptable.

The denigration of ENPA officials, the rigging of votes, opaque transactions around the purchase of the OSI, making statements which are demonstrably untrue, and wasting thousands of pounds on an unnecessary EGM in a clear attempt to shut out those who would disagree, demonstrates that Mr Miles is not capable of building the collaborative and effective management structure and culture the railway needs to succeed. In his actions and choices, Mr Miles has failed in his duties to the charity, the railway, and to you, our fellow Members.

Mr Miles should therefore be removed as a Director and Trustee, and barred from standing again, to allow the railway to move forward.

Proposer: Chris Lane
Seconder: Steve Ball

 

A valid motion to remove director pusuant to section 168 does indeed require special notice of not less than 28 days ahead of the meeting at which it is to be moved. The question then is whether such a motion can be vaidly moved at the AGM?

As I understand it an AGM is "called" when the directors resolve at a board meeting to call it, not when the Notice of Meeting is sent out. If such a board decision has been minuted than the business to be voted on at the AGM has been fixed i.e. including the election of four trustees even thought their identity may not be apparent until the Notice of Meeting is sent out. Despite compliance with Section 312 in terms of timing if the board agreed to call the AGM before the receipt of the special notice the "can be validly moved" condition in section 312 would not be met and, if so, the motion to dismiss could not validly be added to the business of the AGM.

Maybe Mr. Nicholson perceives the need to seek advice on what is a complex legal area?

 

A lot of your posts do seem to come across as being about finding ways that the rules prevent an ordinary member using a general meeting in any way other than to rubber stamp what the board have already decided!

Genuine question - are you aware of any mechanism by which an ordinary member of a company can unambiguously require a particular motion to be debated at an AGM and voted on in a binding fashion?

Tom

 

Just one idea of what could be done for a modern clientele, whilst maintaining a classic L&B exterior appearance:
No.14 in 2019

 

How does that explain the secretary's repeated failure to acknowledge receipt of the motion?

 

If that is the case, the meeting was resolved upon before it was known how many vacancies would be open.

 

@Lineisclear - it's clear from s168(1) that such a motion could be moved at an AGM - the legislation simply requires "at a meeting". The Special Notice requred by s168(2) and defined in s312 of 28 days has also been met, so I struggle to see how this motion cannot be allowed onto the Agenda, especially as the Agenda could not have been compiled by Wednesday 3 April as the window for Trustee Nominations didn't close until Friday 5 April.

The second problem for Mr Nicholson and 'the six' is that this what you are proposing as the route to a General Meeting Agenda is not how they got the motions under s168 to remove Chris Duffell and Anne Belsey onto the EGM agenda - the EGM was called on the proposed Articles of Association (which couldn't even garner a majority, let alone the requried 75% when the Members saw it as the power grab it was) - and then these two ordinary motions were added by six members, who also happened to be Trustees.

So, whether you want to look to the law or look to recent precedent, this is a valid motion and needs to be on the Agenda. If Mr Miles were confident of winning it, presumably Mr Nicholson would have had it on the Agenda immediately.

Instead, failure to even acknowledge recepit looks like an attempt to bury it - not acceptable and not going to wash.

 

Didn't that happen once before - or maybe even twice?

 

No. 14 at Ffestiniog has had a number of alterations to enable the interior to be used as seen in that photo. The biggest is to widen the carriage out to the running boards retaining a very thin sliver for a ducket.

The L&B has running boards for a step down onto the rural platforms. Barnstaple had a tuck under platform which meant the platform was level with the door thresholds and the running board under the cantilevered platform edge. I believe Blackmoor may have done as well.

This platform design is being considered for any platform at WLP to enable disabled access for the Calvert Trust.

The widening of the carriage body on No 14 enabled them to introduce a passage way down the carriage and have 2 seats one side and and 1 the other. Essentially sacrificing the running board, and one seat to create space for the passageway.

Our carriages are 6' in width over body, 5'6" internal, No14 now is probably somewhere around 6'6" internal.

For a carriage of say type 11, 12, 13, 14, an all weather third, what can carry 56 Victorian backsides or 42 modern backsides we would only get one table per compartment and due to width restriction one table in width and no single seat on the other side, each seating 4... Somewhere around 28 passengers for that what was once a 56/42 seater.

If we were to add carriage corridors we would then lose space either end and probably see that 28 go down to 24 and lose a table.

That is a huge reduction in carrying capacity which would have to be reflected in ticket prices due to building a carriage for 24 seats instead 56/42.

Hence you could have carriages with things like tables etc, but to carry the same amount of passengers as we currently do in 4 carriages, you would need 7 or 8 with the added headache and cost of trying to extend platforms and find engines capable of doing so.

 

The WHR is very successfully being neither a heritage railway nor a commuter or transport service but a modern tourist railway. Insofar as the original L&B was a tourist railway, with equipment appropriate for that function at that time, the re-creation for the present century will certainly need some differences to keep modern tourists happy, as discussed on this thread. The extent of such differences needs to be explored thoroughly, and decisions reached, before too much is built.

 

I assume that is a leg pull. Cushions were provided in third class in the winter of 1904/05. (per a local newspaper). The Office Manager where I worked in London in the mid sixties recalled that they were red and went across the carriage. A long standing member, Percy Howell of Lynmouth 30 years later had one with provenance from a friend which I measured and photographed in the 90s. The drawing I did was transcribed and appeared in 'Measured and Drawn', page 55, but, of course without any photographs to illustrate it, as was my intention, and one of the reasons I was so annoyed with this book being published without notice (or credit for my work). So the picture I took at Percy's is below. Charles Gardner has just advised me today that he thinks the covering is probably pre-grouping, and therefore could date from 1904 rather than the Southern Railway period.