Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I agree with what you said, however I would add that in rebuilding the railway this could also be an opportunity for fibre cable providers to build a new route between Lynton and Barnstaple and all points East and West of the railway itself.

I am told that fibre cables and high speed broadband still need to reach many of the outlying villages of North Devon. if with the rebuilding of the L&B this could help out with this, then it has to be a good thing for the area as a whole?

 

It's precisely the problem with the area - there aren't many "good" jobs in the area, so the area suffers from the classic double whammy of low incomes and people moving away. Some of the deprivation indices are as bad as it gets in the country, and that's in the towns. Through a charity I'm involved with, I've met young in the town, and it's interesting/depressing how much their career plans involve moving away - just because that's what happens.

 

Agreed on trust - but the loss of trust in a relationship usually comes from both sides, not just one. And the repeated demands you've made on a public forum for detailed operational information on many points would be red flags to me about trust.

Picking up on two other points. First, no one around preservation will deny that fundraising is essential - indeed, I can recall @Jamessquared writing on that point many times. But the use of those funds needs to be prioritised - as you say, sitting with large sums of money in the bank against a rainy day is not good practice. I don't know why offers of assistance haven't been taken up, and won't speculate; I will observe though that there are limits on how effective remotely based volunteers can be, especially if they have to fit their volunteering in with other commitments.

Second, you talk about not learning lessons, and imply that there's no governance system in place. The newsletter I received last week, and the existence of a board of trustees who have taken the project this far, tell me that there is a governance system in place. It could probably be better (show me one that couldn't!), and I'm sure that the board will have been privy to confidential information which they've rightly not shared, but that is not a justification for effectively accusing them of not doing their job. Ask yourself, are such comments a sound basis for restoring trust?

I come back, again, to the fact that there are many factors that need to be looked at to work out how this disappointment has happened, and to regroup to do better in future. That calls for calm heads, not wild speculation.

 

The L&BR Group have had its fair share of rouges in the past and I am sure there will be many more to come.

That said I see a certain amount of paranoia at work here as the Trustee don't appear to trust the membership any more with either current or up to date news, thinking that there are spy's at work with-in the membership working against them.

Is it wrong to want to keep the management on the straight and narrow? Enough of you have said I don't represent your views, well that's fine but tell me what should I do if the Trustee don't represent my views about taking this project forward.

What is that line from the carry on Caesar film? oh yes, informy, informy, they have all got it in for me.

I realise that to a point this is all just a side show and nothing can be proven one way or another, but what is needed is the ability to keep people to account and also for them to be be truthful, I am not so sure that all the truth has come out about the fiasco yet. However how my mind works I would not be too surprise if we never do find it all out.

Which ever way you like to look at it there is some serious trust rebuilding needed with-in the L&BR Group, sadly it is that which has lost out the most.

 

The subject of the railway become a potential route for non-railway fibre-optic circuits was discussed briefly when the L&BR Signalling & Telecommunications Principles were issued in 2020. Being more on the 'S' than the 'T' side, I'm not sure to what extent - if at all - this was ever pursued by the Board. Without a viable length of trackbed (ie somewhat more than the odd mile or two), I doubt that it would prove attractive to most telecomms providers.

 

I would suggest that anyone who has been a member of the Trust and/or this forum for any length of time will be well aware of most, if not all, of the following:-

• there are a number of sections of trackbed of which the owners have made it clear that they have no intention whatsoever of selling it voluntarily to the Trust
• the only (remotely) feasible way of acquiring ownership therefore will be by the use of a Compulsory Purchase order
• the power to apply for a CP would be granted by a TWAO
• the Trust would need a TWAO anyway in order to operate public services (certainly at least on any stretch of line which crosses a public right-of-way)
• application for a CP does not mean that it would granted automatically.

So, ultimately, it will come down to the simple choice - either apply for a TWAO, maybe get it granted, then apply for a CP, maybe get it granted, then buy the land or don't apply for the TWAO and then the CP so get no trackbed and no expansion of the railway.

I've no doubt that any clued-up objector with a half-decent advisor will have become aware of this even without any comments that may have been made here or on other media.

So why is the subject of CP being treated like some massive 'elephant in the room' which dare not be mentioned without howls of protests? Can we not discuss this subject like sensible adults?

 

It is wrong to want to "keep the management on the straight and narrow", because that desire speaks volumes about the prevailing levels of trust. So do comments about "fiasco" and allegations about whether the truth has come out.

There are forums with which the trustees can be held accountable for their overall performance as trustees of the charity, in line with the charity's purposes and the law. The most important of those is the AGM in mid-May. They are, however, not exercises in management by the membership. Those who are not happy with the existing trustees would do well to consider the difference between the two, and how they can constructively support change without creating further division with the railway's supporter base.

 

In such cases, where the Trust is not in a position to proceed with trackbed purchases, it would seem a logical step for the Trust to work in collaboration with Exmoor Associates (despite the arrangement between the two organisations for EA to concentrate solely on the land South of Wistlandpound) to secure any former trackbed - that is what EA have been doing successfully for over 20 years...

 

Because the discussion of CP tends to veer away from what you've outlined towards an apparent desire to pursue those rights as the first port of call. With relations with the local community already fraught, adding that dimension to the discussion does not lower tensions.

 

Having received my newsletter this morning - it seems to me that the withdrawal of the S73 application was the right and only decision that could have been made given the situation.

 

We would I think do well remember recent chronology. The halt was only purchased in May 2021. Having the Grampian conditions removed prior to then would have been a pointless exercise. I look forward to hearing the Trustees at the AGM in May and understanding what the options are going forward.

 

What I can take away from this thread, over and over again, is that I can't imagine a worse job than being an L&B Trustee. There's not a hope in hell I'd put up with the constant battles from every side. Humans have an amazing capacity to take something joyous and **** all over it.

 

Completely agree. Mind you, it can be less than fun being a member sometimes. In my own case I'm a member of the L&B and the SVR. Absolute bed of roses across those two threads at the moment....

 

Is that the thorns or the manure you're thinking of?

 

more the blight - all gone a bit fuzzy

 

What has been overlooked in the recent furore, is the good news that the L&B have had a good year with over 42,000 passengers and now has over 3,000 members. Clearly a lot of people are doing a good job ....Well Done to All.

 

I have now (this lunchtime) received and read the newsletter. I'm sure I'm calling down the wrath of someone or other when I write that yes, there's lots to be pleased about, and I also can see how we've got to where we've got to re all the planning. Certainly not anything for me to go off the deep end about.

 

I would disagree. Firstly, there were four separate planning applications, only one of which needed the halt land at PE, so with the Grampian conditions lifted then work on the other three could have commenced as/when ready. Secondly, even without the halt land, work on the rest of the track-bed southwards from KL could have started with the construction of the new bridge under the lane at KL, opening up rail access to the advancing work site. And if the Trust got to the stage that everything was built and ready except for one or two pieces of track-bed, when once the necessary TWAO application hopefully was successful there was always the fall-back of using the you-know-what option.

Still waiting for my newsletter...:-(

 

Those were my thoughts as well as posted above. The trouble is that many contributers to this forum love to be negative about everything - wanting to hold the trustees to account because they are not acting in the way they think they should. Hopefully we all want to see progress and will have differing views about the way forward but we need to be supportive not negative. Somebody asked what they should they do if the Trustees don't represent their views. Well it could be that they are in a minority, maybe even a minority of one. If this is the case, they may have a difficult decision to make.

 

I've had a general policy of voting in the last couple of contested AGM elections for the new blood candidates. Not particularly because I thought they could do a better job than the ones in post, but just because I think some turnover is healthy. Once candidate was successful, at the next election another one wasn't. That's life. I actually had a harder job trying to rank those in post to decide which one not to vote for, because I didn't particularly want to remove any individual specifically*.

But I wouldn't vote for anyone running on a negative ticket of 'there's been failure, we need a new approach' - whereas I might for 'it's broadly going well, but I think we should build on that by doing x' - just fair warning!

*when my favoured candidate got elected at the expense of TN (from memory) the other year, I was both happy and sad.