Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

The reason for the turntable seems to be explained by one of the 'Directors' Notes and Instructions' of 21 January 1897: 'To the Engineer LYNTON TURNTABLE:- We quite approve of the suggestion as to closing the end of the balcony carriages, type d, if the cost of the turntable can be thereby saved.' I read into this that the original intention was to turn engines at each end, although that would have required engines to return from the Town Station at Barnstaple to Pilton when every train returned south (presuming it was not planned to install the table at the Town Station for which there would have been room on the outside of the curve). Again, reading into this one surviving piece of evidence, I assume that Frank Chanter dropped the Lynton turntable but kept the one at the Barnstaple end for the possibility that there might have been a need to turn stock (shades of the Festiniog Rly)

The 'late' thinking forms a pattern with the railway - the most obvious example being only ordering 3 engines in late Autumn 1896 when the railway was due to open 6 months later. It seems likely it was only when in early 1897 the Directors (mainly Thomas Hewitt) wanted to get the mail contract from the Post Office from Tom Jones's horse-drawn service that the Engineer started drafting timetables and he realised that 3 engines would be required at peak times, leaving no spare. (a second-hand one was budgeted for but probably not available) It has to be remembered that none of those involved in the managerial positions had any previous railway experience. The Directors certainly didn't (except Newnes with his lifts and a cable tramway). The Engineer was a Civil Engineer and had spent all his working life on canals in India and a barrage in Egypt (when on furlough). So he knew little about railways. Although he might have got the idea of having Jones/Calthrop couplers in India where they became widely used and were standard on metre gauge. There were no such couplers in the UK at the time. It is possible Everard Calthrop had an unrecorded involvement in the L & B, especially as his Aunt lived in Lynmouth and exhibited his horses at the Lynton Horse show. (source Bob Gratton's book on the Leek & Manifold Valley LR)

I agree, as a non-engineer, it seems to me that wear would be roughly equal on a twisty railway without any Darjeeling type spirals.

 

As a rank-and file member and occasional L&B volunteer, I don't usually bother voting in elections for Trustees or Board members, and I'm certainly not remotely interested in Grampian Conditions and all that procedural stuff.
But I was surprised that when the papers were sent out for the recent abortive vote to see the Trustees seeking re-election being promoted in a manner which I can only describe as self-congratulatory.

I don't know the personalities involved and I cannot comment on how indispensable or not they are to the railway, but the clear bias in their favour rankled with me and I'm sure will have annoyed others too.
Even the latest voting paper for the L&B Trust comes with a recommendation to vote for the three incumbents. This recommendation doesn't need to be there; it's unedifying and it smacks of cronyism and a closed shop. If it is meant to influence voting, I suspect it may also be a massive own goal.

I hope we can quickly move on from this rather awkward episode, learn lessons and get on with the important matter of the extension.

 

In my experience it's not unusual or unreasonable for a Board of Trustees to favour a re-election of sitting members, particularly at a significant juncture or milestone. It's hard to quantify the value of consistency after all. However, that should be done in a way that doesn't a) rankle with people and b) doesn't make other candidates feel that wouldn't be valued or welcomed on the board (unless they're genuinely a bad candidate)

 

From time to time I get AGM voting paperwork from commercial organisations such as Building Societies where there are a number of existing Directors who have stood down by rota and are standing again for election and also one or more new candidates from amongst the general shareholders. It is not uncommon in such cases to see recommendations from the Board to vote for the former, so to that extent I am not surprised by seeing similar for the L&BRT's AGM.

However IMHO, if the Board are going to recommend one or more candidates in preference to others, then in the same way that they have explained why they think the former will be good for the railway, they should also explain why they do not think the same about those whom they are not supporting. After all, how else can the voting membership make a proper informed choice?

 

Turntables . Micheal B very comprehensive assesment .
I think that the table was mainly used to orientate the engines whilst on shed . Lighting amongst other things inside shed was poor for maintenance purposes ( Daylight is always prefered for maintenance ) as was also the ability to move heavy objects like wheel sets pony trucks etc so getting the engine the right way around going into the shed before jacking it up was paramount to making the job easier ( still is ). Yes they could turn any stock but you want to jack up a coach and roll the bogie out you want the coach the right way around to then strip that bogie and or turn the other bogie to get it facing the right way ! So I submit that the Turntable was almost entirely a maintenance item of equipment . May have been otherwise in the original grand plan but the gradients preclude running the locos both ways and getting hot crown if the fireman is not watching carefully .. I suggest also that the Drivers liked the loco one direction only ..got used to it .
Just my thoughts as a Maintenance Engineer

 

It is quite unethical for a Board to recommend candidates as it can leave the impression that the organisation is a closed shop and that the membership votes are only a rubber stamp approval. All candidates have the right to have their views and policies circulated, without comment, to the voting members who can make their own decisions about the validity or otherwise of the proposals.
Democracy is like Justice : it must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

 

I made two share applications in 2018 (!) and other than an acknowledgement of receipt have had no news of the share issue at all. I do not have a share certificate(s), nor updates, newsletters, or any further appeals for top ups. I don't (officially anyway) have any idea what's going on. I'm not really very happy about the communications from this enterprise.

 

I don't think it is unethical for the Trustees to recommend candidates.

There are probably reasons why they have not made any further comment about their reasons for making this recommendation, maybe something will come to light once the election is completed. We will just have to wait and see.

 

On the contrary, I have no problem with a board recommending specific candidates. However, I’d expect that to be framed as a positive recommendation with reasons why those candidates are so good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Easy enough to do but how do you know if such a recommendation is genuine or an attempt to obscure differences over policy and protect a power-base ? There have been several examples of that cited on this site over the past few years !

 

A fair challenge, but I'd be concerned if a board wasn't actively considering continuity, and thinking about how people could fit into the future of the organisation.

 

On voting there is a simple answer .. if in doubt leave out !!

Only vote for the one person you feel is likely to be operating in the best interest of the project and not a "Crony" of the private entity . The Railway is suffering and has suffered from incest until the membership see this and alter the path. ( Remove those guilty by voting nothing can change ). I expect no one will listen hey ho ..
Im only voting for the odd man out all my money is on him !!! I dont vote on dead horses

 

At the AGM it did not go anything like the Stage intended .
The Stage does not allow questions from the floor ( however important or sensibaly they be put ) however due to tge circumstances the stage were unable to stop the questiins this year .
The stage were questioned on who altered the personal expressions and who cut back the expression of the new potential votee.
After being adked 3 times Mr Miles said he did . Silence fell upon the hall .
The next important questiin was put to Mr Summers as to how he justified his need to be a Director /Trustee. Mr Summers made no justification apart from to guide the board on herritage coaches . So you might draw a conclusion here that Herritage coaches are currently more important than a TWAO ..??? I suggest its time for a lot of change at the tiller of the L&B .
Yes I was there I spoke from the floor "It is Morraly Incomprehensible what has been done !!!! To which the response was Here Here !! Atempting to pervert the course of an election by deception .

 

couldnt agree more..... so much more dignified to Co-opt a extra Director/Trustee untilthe next AGM.

 

That is surprising to hear as I have had a few emails about it since buying shares in 2019. The last email (number 9) was dated 21st July 2021. Two thoughts come to mind, either they have an incorrect email address for you or your spam filter is filtering their emails out.

 

But I was surprised that when the papers were sent out for the recent abortive vote to see the Trustees seeking re-election being promoted in a manner which I can only describe as self-congratulatory.


Well spotted @Widge,

That my friend is what they call ‘a self licking lolly pop’ if you think about its a pretty rubbish concept. You don’t want a lolly pop that licks itself. You need to try the all the favours for yourself and make your own mind up, after all other flavours might be much better.

Sticking with what you know and being afraid to branch out leads to stagnation. Like only travelling as far a Killington lane for over a decade.

Just throwing it out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There are probably reasons why they have not made any further comment about their reasons for making this recommendation


Financial reasons perhaps?

Could someone just remind me of cost involved to rectify the C*** up to do with the ‘red line’ boundary also wonder if my memory called be refreshed as to the state of accounting. As with all AGMs time is set aside to discuss the financial affairs especially when we’re talking about a multi million pound undertaking.

Many thanks in advance.

One other thing could anyone explain why AGMs last only 45 mins given the hall is booked for 3 hours. There’s never enough time to ask questions, It’s seems any questions have to be asked another time which means any questions put are not minuted.

Thanks again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I dip my toe into L&B politics tentatively, but just on that point - it seems entirely reasonable to me to have a director responsible for rolling stock. If his portfolio is rolling stock, I don't see why he should necessarily be heavily involved in TWAO stuff if that is being looked after by other directors. I can't imagine that it's the case that more directors responsible for TWAO stuff = it all happening proportionally quicker, and rolling stock is important too.

 

However...as has been pointed out recently, it does not help matters when EAST expend so much good effort in (re)rebuilding heritage rolling-stock, only for it to be left at the mercy of the North Devon weather. It is true of course that proper covered accommodation costs (lots of) money, which may be in short supply at the moment, and other more pressing needs may take priority, but there may come a time - especially as the rolling-stock fleet continues to expand - when the maintenance needs outstrip the available resources and it becomes impossible to halt the decline in the stock's condition.

I would suggest therefore that adequate and suitable covered accommodation for (at least) the coaches must be an important element of the infrastructure provision for Phase 2A and no doubt that will impact on the submission for the TWAO in terms of where it will be located, how it will be accessed and operated etc. So to that extent at least it does not seem unreasonable to me that a director responsible for rolling stock should at least be a 'stakeholder' in the TAWO process, but not necessary 'heavily involved' otherwise.

 

That may be true, but it strengthens, not weakens, the need to have an accountable rolling stock director.

The members of the Board have a collective responsibility to the success of the whole railway, but that doesn't mean you want every director involved in every facet: you need specialisms.

Tom