Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Which is true - and why it's necessary to decide what the project is trying to do before trying to say how it will be done.

 

I suppose all I’m saying is, and it applies to this as well, you’re joining the dots ‘because x we need to do y’ which is still not a statement of fact so much as an argument to win.

ie it’s clear what your way forward is and why, but it’s not necessarily *the* way forward, which comes back to a need for everyone to be on the same page before anything is done.

the ‘dithering’ has allowed the luxury (on all sides frankly) of holding together a wider divergence of opinion IMO than is healthy or workable.

Are we trying to do WHR Devon? Are we trying to rebuild 1932? Do we just ‘have to get up and running’ and fill in the strategy gaps later? Is it something else?

FWIW I think it needs bringing to a head with a clear agreed vision that carries the majority (whether that’s railcars or 1932 or something else, but it is an agreed vision anyway) and then everyone will know where they personally stand, and where the project stands.

 

Absolutely.

It also might be worth considering "do we need, or is it realistic to reinstate the whole line?" (I know this will be heresy to some people).
Would a reasonable run of X miles be sufficient, bearing in mind volunteer numbers, finance available, storage, planning constraints etc?
As Tom mentioned earlier, it might be better to have a shorter line and do it really well, rather than try to reinstate the whole line and run out of volunteers/money so that it becomes a mish mash of ideas and nothing is ever quite finished.

 

Nonsense! The type of door handles on the loo doors is a much more important subject.

 

Just catching up... whew!
So, it seems likely that permission for CFL will be refused. If it is indeed on the grounds that this isn't reinstating heritage then that's arguably a good thing... and at least you know where you stand.

I think the L&B community needs to step back and ask itself who this extension is for. Not for the locals of Parracombe, clearly - it's nothing more than an annoyance for most of them. So is it for Woody Bay visitors wanting a longer ride? Maybe obliquely, but I'd suggest that most of them currently don't know what they're missing, so don't care. So really, it's for the members, isn't it? Nothing wrong with that, but just keep that in mind when trying to justify whatever fanciful scheme you come up with next.

Personally, I would be looking to go to Parracombe rather than CFL, but stating that until a further extension is opened at some indeterminate future date, KL will remain the main terminus and Parracombe will only see passenger trains for (say) 4 weekends a year - these can be for gala events (which benefit the local community by bringing extra visitors) and maybe in connection with a local fete, or for school visits or whatever (so again, built around what the local community can see as benefiting them). Keep the infrastructure at Parracombe to a minimum - maybe don't even have a siding, let alone a run-round loop - because for (e.g.) 4 weekends a year it isn't such a big deal to run top & tail.

And make it so that when KL is in operation, a train can be locked into the KL-Parracombe section either as a works train (during construction), or perhaps for drive-a-loco courses (afterwards), so that the extension can serve a purpose beyond just those few passenger weekends.

Well, that's what I'd do.

As for setting up another operating base somewhere else... I think it could work, provided the two offer distinctly different things and don't end up competing for the same visitors. That doesn't have to mean battery electric railcars or whatever! It just means maybe the other base also only opens on high days and holidays and is perhaps run with a diesel; the main purpose would be to keep members sufficiently interested and to show progress, and indeed to ensure that more of the long-term infrastructure is in place, as a springboard to bigger things. I certainly wouldn't be considering closing Woody Bay... it's too near the finished article already.

 

Hi Peter, I do take on board what you say, but as I have been saying for years, what this project needs is both a business plan and a fundraising strategy to be in place. Sadly, no one listens. Flights of fancy, they may be, but I feel they are all achievable goals in time, and nothing like success breeds success in the long term, and I believe that if you want to have the support in a project, you need to tell the story you are trying to achieve. But to get there, it will take a lot of hard work.

For me, offering the Membership four different projects last year and saying that two of those options were simply too expensive to achieve shows that the trust had run out of ideas on how to progress this project and has given up on its leadership role. For far too long, the Trust appears to be happy just to run the Woody Bay Section and has not tried, as far as I know, to buy any more trackbed; if it has, it has been out of desperation to keep the membership on side. I would have thought by now that a long-term plan should have been put in place, and we should be moving forward, but I feel we are going backwards.

If you look at all the trackbed which is now owned by the L&BR group (as a whole) all of it has been purchased by Exmoor Associates and the Yeo Valley Trust at some time, the same guys who got Woody Bay together, went on to form Exmoor Associates as they could see just how important it was to own the trackbed.

We only need one land owning Trust right now and that has to be the Yeo Valley Trust. Building the railway, well that is another matter, and we could learn a lot from the Rother Valley Railway operation on this.

As to finally having an operational railway, this should, in my opinion, come under just one company, and that needs to be the L&BR CIC. But again, I feel this too needs to be looked at and to see if we have the right people at the executive level? Something else that I have been on about is having the right people with he right skill sets in the right place at the right time, am I being a dreamer to want that?

So I can hear some saying, Why don't I stand for election, Well, to be honest, I do wonder, but I do know that other people out there can perform these roles much better than I can. When I was running my own company, I did make more than a few mistakes (no one was there telling me how I should or shouldn't do something, except for my accountant). But if you have a big picture vision, then you need to try to make it fly. If you can. With the right people and the right support, anything is possible.

As a member of the Leighton Buzzard Railway said to me once before, if it has been built before, then you can build it again. I would finally say that I am not the only member who feels that we have not made any progress over the past ten years; sooner or later, this has to change.

 

All of which may be true, but the strategic vision comes first, and then the business plan - of which the fundraising strategy is an important part - sets out how that strategic vision can be made real.

There may or may not be the right people at the top, but those have been, for better or worse, our collective choices as trustees and directors. The structures may need changing, but people will be more important than organisation structures, every time.

 

Sad to say, but IMHO what sounds like a nice idea in practice is a dead duck.

Experience with the Sec 52 (?) fiasco shows that - however you dress it up - those who object will have NO truck with any sort of terminus at PE (or CFL), however short or long term, and whatever method of operation you may choose. All that they might accept - if one is lucky - is a platform that serves a track on which most trains simply pass straight through (on their way from WB to BR or wherever) and a few might just stop for the briefest of moments for the odd 1 or 2 people to get on or off once in blue moon. And if you suggest that it will only get minimal use - eg the 4 w/ends ayear etc - then they will ask 'why bother to build it at all then?'. At least some of the local residents not only fail to see any benefit from extra visitors, but actually see that as detrimental for various reasons.

I know there are other Trust members who recognised that fact after the Phase 2A PP lapsed and, after the Sec 52 debacle, simply could not see any sense in trying for CFL anyway. Sadly, those chickens may now come home to roost....