Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

That was NG109, now at Rowsley.

 

Thanks do you know if it will end up on the WHR?

 

No, at least probably not in the current owner's hands. It's for saleish though if you're feeling spendy.

 

Thanks, but I have another new build project which I am following first of all. I am in the process of setting up a charity body to own it or should I say in time them.

 

[QUOTE="gwralatea, post: 2799727, member: 26077".....The only thing standing between the execution of an alternative way forward, and a bright future for the railway, is that those with the right ideas aren't prepared to work with the current trustees, even temporarily.

If people feel strongly enough ...... then they would be prepared to organise and attempt to replace through election 2 trustees a year, every year, for as long as it takes. In the meantime, having to work with people they don't like while achieving that is the very definition of 'taking one for the team.'

......[/QUOTE]
I can recall when, not long ago and not too far away, some 'new blood' was elected to a heritage railway board specifically to try and steer things onto a new course. Right from the start they were hampered in their attempts to 'improve the situation' by that fact that the 'old guard' kept them isolated, made decisions without involving them, frustrated their access to any records predating their election etc etc, not forgetting of course the fact that - in any Board vote - they were always in a minority. Within a few months they had all given up the struggle and resigned.

It must be remembered that, once anyone has been elected as a Trustee at an AGM and that meeting has ended, then they are deemed legally to be a Trustee in office - even if in reality they are 'shut out' by various nefarious practices. As such they are personally responsible (both legally and financially) for the actions and decisions of the Board, even if (a) they did not vote in favour of such action/decision and/or (b) were not even present at the meeting which made the decision - 'corporate responsibility' applied to them nonetheless.

I can quite understand therefore why even the best-intentioned member might not wish to stand for election to the Trust Board unless he/she can be certain of being in a majority of like-minded folk. For that reason alone I suspect that any 'problem' with the current make-up of the Board is unlikely to be resolved by the normal annual election process alone.

 

/QUOTE]

———————————————————————————————-

If the earlier estimate of a “ten year process” * is at all accurate, might this be incompatible with the age profile of the Board of Trustees as currently configured?

* it might help to share how this was arrived at

 

I can recall when, not long ago and not too far away, some 'new blood' was elected to a heritage railway board specifically to try and steer things onto a new course. Right from the start they were hampered in their attempts to 'improve the situation' by that fact that the 'old guard' kept them isolated, made decisions without involving them, frustrated their access to any records predating their election etc etc, not forgetting of course the fact that - in any Board vote - they were always in a minority. Within a few months they had all given up the struggle and resigned.

It must be remembered that, once anyone has been elected as a Trustee at an AGM and that meeting has ended, then they are deemed legally to be a Trustee in office - even if in reality they are 'shut out' by various nefarious practices. As such they are personally responsible (both legally and financially) for the actions and decisions of the Board, even if (a) they did not vote in favour of such action/decision and/or (b) were not even present at the meeting which made the decision - 'corporate responsibility' applied to them nonetheless.

I can quite understand therefore why even the best-intentioned member might not wish to stand for election to the Trust Board unless he/she can be certain of being in a majority of like-minded folk. For that reason alone I suspect that any 'problem' with the current make-up of the Board is unlikely to be resolved by the normal annual election process alone.[/QUOTE]
Even in that position, a trustee would have significant protection if they could demonstrate their particular position.

 

I strongly suspect it will be for sale for a long time at the price - by the time you're done with it it'll cost a similar amount to 130 and that would get you a very nice house in most parts of the UK

 

Possibly, but IIRC they took legal advice and decided to err on the side of caution - quite understandable IMHO.

 

How long are we likely to have to wait before this particular new breaks cover? There's been so much speculation on these pages recently I'm not sure I have the energy or inclination to try and guess.

 

Absolutely - the effect of legal action goes beyond the bare matter of being right or wrong. The question is as to whether the effect of so doing is to hand the field to those you believe completely wrong, but moral victories often come at too high a cost.

 

Don't believe what he says. As far as I'm aware the negotiations are still ongoing so the less people discuss it the better.

 

One might question whether 'saving face' is more important than saving money that potentially might have a better use in future?

 

obviously i shouldn't believe my own eyes

 

some things 'at any cost'

 

17 April - or a few days thereafter if the news is not announced immediately

 

I wonder if the services of Messrs Fuller, Horsey, Sons & Cassell. Will be need anytime soon

 

Not a shareholder, then