Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

But at the AGM , it was made clear that talks where happening and there is a push to co-operate with all groups.

Wounds take time to heal

 

I hope that’s the case, but if the L&B Trust were serious about considering possibilities for any meaningful collaboration or joint strategy then surely the ‘next steps’ membership consultation was premature.

 

On the other hand, now that their members have given them a clear steer, they are better-armed to negotiate and collaborate with other stakeholders to produce a concrete, forward-looking joint strategy. Let's see what the next 6-12 months brings...

 

Not sure why that would be the case?

 

I hope you’re right.

I think the best leaderships don’t need to carry out ‘consultation exercises’ with their memberships very often, if at all. They should already know what their members want, or would support, by frequently talking to people and listening to what supporters’re saying via all available channels.

And not just supporters, I do think the current trust is rather inward looking and running the risk of another unsuccessful planning application if they (again) fail to understand the requirements of the planning authority; and the difference between those residents’ objections that really matter and those that really don’t.

A bit of courage & leadership, would help to resolve the differences between the various factions and develop maybe a 10yr+ pan-L&B vision which might generate a bit of excitement outside the current membership. Then consult on that, if you still think you need to.

 

I think you're being unduly harsh on the Trustees.

At the AGM 2 years ago, we saw "leadership". A lot of noise about "we want to build a railway", and very little real engagement with the obstacles in the way, all tied up with a number of significant governance issues. That led to a stacked "consultation" in favour of the CFL extension, with the results we've seen.

The credibility of the Trust leadership has taken a serious dent through this time, with members, local authorities, neighbours, and others. Some Trustees have changed, others (including some perceived as a cause of problems) have not.

Consultation along the lines of what we've seen is part of regaining trust, and re-establishing the credibility required to lead. There are a number of ways things may be done, all overlapping and none ideal. Building an evidence base for a consensus gives them a chance of building credibility to progress in whichever direction. Remember - leaders need followers.

I am in a minority in my view of the wisdom of going for a Parracombe extension. To the extent that, as an ordinary member I have a voice, I shall be exercising it as the project develops. But by getting that consensus, and working within it, the trustees have regained an authority that they'd lost. Badly.

 

A break for little bit of history, all quoted from the Engineer's evidence at the arbitration with Nuttall in October 1899 when the argument was whether the rolling stock had damaged the track and caused Nuttall more expense during the 12-month maintenance period (so there were details of engines running too fast crashing through curves raising the dog spikes). The evidence about the fourth engine (according to the Engineer) is of some interest. He was asked how it came about that he had this new additional engine to which he replied: We found that we had not got a sufficient number to work our trains. He was asked if he selected it - No ----- Nothing to do with it. I had nothing whatever to say to the design of the new locomotive. How came it to be selected ? He said : Some details were given in a description or schedule that I sent to the various makers of engines to get their tenders and this was provided in which nothing was said about wheelbase, or wheels or any description. (The engine) was ordered, I understand, by cable from America. I understand that the English Agent of the American Company (who conveniently had his office opposite Broad Street station, not that far from Newnes' office near Chancery Lane) has a book which shows various patterns, from that he picked out a pattern which would, he said, give the power and do the work that I required. Who ordered it ? Sir George Newnes, the Chairman. Chanter was asked : Had you anything to do with it ? Nothing. I disdain having anything to do with it. Was there any engineering discussion about it ? None whatever. I would not have bought such a thing. I do not believe in American Engines.

It seems very unlikely Frank Chanter would have had a 2-4-2T after the order had gone for 2-6-2Ts from Manning Wardle, even if more powerful. The directors (Newnes and Hewitt, more especially) seem to have been very hands-on. The evidence suggests that Engineer even though an AMICE he was in the directors eyes in an advisory role, and negotiations were conducted by the directors. Notes passed between the Engineer in a book called 'directors notes and instructions'. Final negotiations for the carriages were conducted by the directors summoning the MD of the Bristol Company to London and extracting a 10% discount.

 

Looking at the news item about the new 'Rail Trail', a nice idea but IMHO it would be even better if the boards were displayed on the website as well for those of us unable to get there to see them.

I would query though the comment on the Chelfham entry in the Gala page about the 'aiuthentic 1930s' {sic} SR appearance , given that all the signals are clearly the pre-1926/27 versions ?

 

You've written to the railway i assume to help correct any mistakes , they've done nothing but ignore you so you have tried to humiliate them online for a simple mistake yes?

Have you offered as well in future to help check any new boards that may go up in the future before printing?

Just another day on Nat Pres publicising the negative views of the few

 

Is it wrong to expect a reasonable degree of accuracy in public media when dealing with 'heritage'? I would not consider that to be a 'negative view'.

Is suggesting that the boards be shown on the website for all to see also a 'negative view'? I would consider that to be a positive suggestion to aid dissemination about both the Rail Trail and the wider L&BR.

As there is no image on the website of the actual board at Chelfham, there is no way to tell if what is quoted on the web-page is merely an observation rather than an actual extract from the notice. Yes, the installation could be described as "SR period", just not the 1930s period. Is there anything wrong in asking what other people think about that?

If every web posting and display board etc had to be checked by an army of proof-readers and L&BR historians before publication, we'd probably be here until Xmas! Are you willing to join them then ?

 

Thank you, Michael, that confirms what I suspected all along about how the L&BR ended up with a Baldwin. My understanding was that around the time Baldwins were trying to get into the European Steam locomotive market, they would follow up on any lead that they were presented with.

I believe that Baldwins had an office in London, so it makes sense that Newnes and Hewitt, with their respective business interests in London, might have come onto Baldwins' Radar.

From my own research into Baldwins, they never built locomotives like we do here in the UK, but to what was wanted there and then, it was an early form of the American system of production, and I guess that the Baldwin salesman was looking to get his foot in the door with the L&BR, with the hope that in the long run the L&BR would have wanted to have replace LYN after ten years of service.

We also need to consider the different cultures between America and the UK at this time. I haven't got to the bottom of all of this yet, but I would guess the salesman would have shown his catalogue to both Newnes and Hewitt and by asking a few very simple questions that would have appealed to non engineers and those wishing to keep a tight rein on company finance.

Baldwin built locomotives with standard-size parts that could be used over several designs, a bit like some cars today with different-sized engines in them. My feeling is that the L&BR got exactly what was specified, since LYN was built with slightly bigger cylinders than the Manning Wardles due to Baldwin's using standard power bands, of which may be the Baldwin 10 x 16 cylinders may not have given out the same amount of power as the Manning Wardles 10 x 16 cylinders.

What I do find interesting is that Lyn was built to a standard that would have allowed her to run over roughly laid railroad track. Yet by comparison, the good quality track of the L&BR should not have given LYN any problems, but we know LYN came off the rails in the Chelfham area at least once. I would suggest that this may have been down to the wrong springs having been fitted at some point.

 

The 'error' reported by Railwest is a little unexpected, as there are many within the Trust/CIC who will know the historic situation, and should have been able to correct this before it was finalised. As an educational charity, it is important that any information presented by the L&BRT is as accurate and informative as possible. In my experience, a quick call or email to any of the Trustees can make a difference in situations such as this, although once published, it is difficult to reverse any errors that are highlighted.

A true sign of progress in regard to this specific item would perhaps be the inclusion on the information boards (it may be there - I just haven't seen it reported so far) of similar information related to parts of the L&B under different ownership - such as Snapper and Bratton Fleming. I understand there are joint meetings now taking place between the groups involved, so perhaps this is something "in the pipeline"?

 

I'm very pleased to see the comment "As an educational charity, it is important that any information presented by the L&BRT is as accurate and informative as possible." In general terms, this is a point of view that I've held for many years in the work that I have done with other railway historical charities - if you are going to 'educate the public' then I believe there is a moral - if not legal - duty to do so as accurately as reasonably possible.

Sad to say, not everyone subscribes to that view (and I don't mean L&BR specifically) - I encountered someone once giving a so-called 'signalling demonstration' at another location (despite, by his own admission, knowing almost nothing about the subject) that was so full of mis-information and errors (which would have been downright dangerous in a 'working railway' scenario) that I just watched and listened in ever-increasing sheer disbelief. Even more so when he expressed the view that, as about 75% of their visitors had probably never been near a steam railway before, they would not know the difference, so what did it matter if they went away with incorrect information?? !! I suggested that those amongst his audiences at such events who actually knew more quite a lot about the subject might well go away thinking "what a load of old ****" and 'write them off' as a totally non-credible group not worth helping.

 

The 'education' aspect of railway preservation seems to have become something of an albatross about the neck of the whole movement.
We managed to save a certain amount of stuff- most of it doesn't match.
In other countries about the world, far less equipment, rolling stock, infrastructure was saved. In comparison, British enthusiasts managed to save so much that we are spoiled.
I think that between them, the Talyllyn and Ffestiniog have more working steam locomotives than the entire USA-(who are quite keen on steam railroads)
But in other countries, the enthusiasts get together, run a steam train and are happy about it.
Here, we have to be educational and historically accurate- and we are doomed to fail (due to the historic failure to save era-appropriate matching locomotives, rolling stock and infrastructure).
Then some people will justify almost any action, or inaction, by a board simply because it can be claimed as sufficiently educational(or not sufficiently.....you get the picture).
Why is there a need to educate?
That said- If you claim to be educational, get the blooming facts right

 

AIUI railway preservation societies wanted to become Charities in order to quality for Gift Aid etc (quite understandable) and the simplest way to do that was to become an educational charity "for the public good" - after all, why would the Gov give you tax relief just for 'private interest' ? One could argue that it was basic self-interest..

 

"Why the need to educate" - one reason is that some (not all, but some) railway organisations set themselves up as Educational charities, which puts an onus on them to "educate". There are more allowable charitable purposes now than there were years ago, but for a charity that constituted itself as an educational charity, changing its aims to be (say) a preservation charity is not straightforward - even though that might be a better match to what the unstated (rather than written) intention and activity of the members is.

There are many ways to demonstrate an educational purpose though. If your intention is to create a perfect facsimile of the railway as it existed in (say) 1930, then you are probably bound to fail - though conceivably the L&BR has a better chance than many to meet that aim. Moreover, even if you could deliver such an aim, doing so would exclude more than it included, which might itself be an interesting ask in educational terms. An SR period-piece Lynton and Barnstaple shuts off, for example, the original L&BR era of the line. By contrast a train with a variety of liveries spanning 40 years is incoherent as a whole but covers more educational bases if each vehicle is seen in isolation.

In other words, the question of what is "historically accurate" is a fraught one, even for a line as well-documented as the L&B. FWIW, my preferred formulation of "historical accuracy" is that stations are temporally coherent in themselves (even if two different stations may display different periods); and accepting that if the trains also display a range of eras, then a mismatch of train and station is inevitable. But I do strongly draw the line at Beyer Garretts ...

Tom

 

If the WHR had remained open all along, it might have moved with the times and by now have taken over the trackbed to Caernarfon and be running Garretts. If the L&B had never closed who's to say what might be running there now?

 

Who knows? But given the loading gauge on the L&B, I think Garretts an unlikely answer to that question...

As much to the point, the railways closed because they didn't have the money to move with the times. Had they done so, I suspect either IoM style retention of the historic fleet, or County Donegal shift to railbuses, would have been more likely.

 

GarrAtts!

 

Maybe it is time for some heritage railways to consider changing their charitable status, since there are now 13 classes of what are termed Charity

The 13 descriptions of purposes
The 13 descriptions of purposes listed in the Charities Act are:

• (a) the prevention or relief of poverty
• (b)the advancement of education
• (c) the advancement of religion
• (d) the advancement of health or the saving of lives
• (e) the advancement of citizenship or community development
• (f) the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science
• (g) The advancement of amateur sport
• (h) the advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity
• (i) the advancement of environmental protection or improvement
• (j) the relief of those in need, by reason of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage
• (k) The advancement of animal welfare
• (l) the promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown, or of the efficiency of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services
• (m) any other purposes currently recognised as charitable or which can be recognised as charitable by analogy to, or within the spirit of, purposes falling within (a) to (l) or any other purpose recognised as charitable under the law of England and Wales

The Charities Act does not define the meaning of each of these descriptions of purposes. However, it does provide some definitions, or partial definitions, for certain descriptions. These are set out in Annexe D: Definitions in the Charities Act.

Legal requirement: where any of the terms used in the descriptions of purposes has a particular meaning in charity law in England and Wales, the term must be taken as having the same meaning where it appears in the descriptions of purposes.

For more on what each of these descriptions means, and the sorts of purposes that fall within them, see:

• Guidance on charitable purposes

So people consider that railway heritage should be a religion, but I will leave that one for you guys to debate.