35B's Recent Activity
-
35B liked Jamessquared's post in the thread Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development.
I would suggest for the most part, you should politely reject such requests. Just because a heritage site exists doesn't mean that it is duty-bound to accept anything that is offered. That is, incidentally, the context of my point about a...
Aug 10, 2026 at 1:35 PM -
35B liked Musket The Dog's post in the thread Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development.
Would it be worth repeating (again?) the potential for anyone with internet access to view the statements in this forum and use them against the railway, without any context of the surrounding discussion? Especially at a time when the railway is...
Aug 10, 2026 at 1:18 PM -
35B replied to the thread Barnstaple and Yeo Valley Railway Trust - B&YVRT.
I believe it was to the north of Bratton Fleming, and was lifted a decade or so back
Aug 10, 2026 at 1:17 PM -
35B replied to the thread Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development.
All of that is where policies are required, to determine what the railway wishes to do. But the important point is that it is the railway, and its members, who should make those decisions based on what they need. That leads to a second point -...
Aug 10, 2026 at 1:15 PM -
35B replied to the thread Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development.
And my point is that the suggested policy permits pragmatic outcomes but requires a logic for them to apply. If the policy is silent on the subject, it doesn't force the discussion about "is this a pragmatic workaround or a fundamental change";...
Aug 10, 2026 at 11:45 AM -
35B replied to the thread Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development.
I think we're aligned - the key point for me being that the policy needs to define the preferred outcome, rather than leave the question open "because pragmatism"
Aug 10, 2026 at 11:08 AM
