Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I picked up the first part of the implication, but read the second more as “it could be done better”.

It is easy to throw sticks and stones.

The Trustees have a very difficult job to do. They won’t make that easier by even the appearance of not listening. Good communication isn’t a nice to have anymore, it is an expectation. Look at all the most admired organisations and the one thing they have in common is good communication.

 

I agree nuclear options, as I’ve always said to Mr. Putin, should be handled with great care but as far as I'm aware no-one is proposing a motion or EGM to eject the whole board. However if any Trustees are due to retire and seek re-election no properly run organisation should try to prevent a dissenting member from standing against them, nor prevent them (or the incumbent trustees) from contacting the membership to canvass support.

Both the L&B and organisations associated with the WSR have in the past been accused of unfairly interfering with the campaigns of properly nominated candidates. If an organisation thinks their election rules need reforming they should follow due process, not try to move the goalposts after valid nominations are received.

 

That's all very well, but look what happened last time - the candidates' manifestos were "audited" by the trust before sending out -without the knowledge of (all) the candidates, hence the need for a debacle at the AGM and a rerun.

 

AGMs in the last few years have become largely procedural about official business. Unless I am mistaken the only items on the agenda have related to the reports of the Trustees/Directors, adoption of the accounts, and elections. There has been no item for 'Any other Business' as was customary at many such meetings in the past. This member has received the impression that such meetings have been hurried in order to discourage discussion. Let us hope that this year that, in view of the significant events that have occurred, there will be an item on the agenda (s) encouraging some audience participation apart from merely listening to reports and voting. These events are too urgent not to be aired with the membership until the forum usually held in November.

 

Tom makes a valid point.

While I am not sure how well this lesson might translate to Exmoor; for those not familiar with the Bluebell extension, here is a bit of extra background about the initial uses of that mile of track from Kingscote to Imberhorne. It did indeed carry very little revenue-earning traffic, until the whole of Imberhorne tip had been cleared. However it did serve some useful purpose for engineering trains. The south (Kingscote) end of the tip comprised inert clay capping. Bluebell was able to start excavating this without waiting for the more onerous permissions (and massive funding) required to remove the decaying municipal refuse in the main part of the tip. So the line from Imberhorne to Kingscote was used by engineering shuttles, carrying clay away by rail for use elsewhere on the Bluebell (and delightfully, the early clay-wagon shuttles were steam hauled - those were the days!). All of that helped to keep the project in the public eye, and demonstrate that the Bluebell was serious about its extension and was approaching the task sensibly and professionally.

 

There may be a slight similarity with the suggestion in Option C that, when permission is sought (eventually) from ENPA for work on the site of the new Depot at BR, it should include some track-bed stretching north towards Lower Rowley so that spoil from the Dept site can be taken northwards for future use in shoring up embankments etc. Probably more practical - and less contentious! - than trying to go south from KL to CFL.

 

Many years ago I am sure it was suggested that any clay etc that was dug out was to be tipped on the other side of the trackbed away from where the new workshop is to go, in order to provide space for future sidings and storage, but that may have changed since then.

It might also have something to do with the land survey.

 

So the old guard are ganging together and flexing their muscle to remove those that highlight their failings, words nearly fail me or at least words i can post on here..arrogant self centred and rotten to the core

 

Perhaps you could explain your cryptic message? It means nothing to the rest of us

 

Im sure you will find out soon enough but its not cryptic is it, it is what it says

 

Right...so you complain about communications from the Trust and then post a nonsense message yourself. Pot...kettle...black

 

Dear Butcher, I'm sorry but if it's not cryptic it is, how shall I put it, talking about something in a way that is unclear. We can all guess what you might be alluding to, but for 20 people there might be at least 25 guesses... For myself, I have no idea.

 

I do know what meatman is getting at, but with so many different social media platforms (Email group, various Facebook groups, National Preservation and any others I may have forgotten) it can appear to be so disjointed.

I realise that many of you are not on the E mail group so the discussions on there are more passionate that on here. That said, it has been suggested that we have an Option E, for the trust to consider this would include some of the following:-

A stop and review of the current situation

A discussion with the membership on what happened and what went wrong and how do we prevent this happening again. What lessons have been learned.

I am sure there will be other things that members will want answers to, however since I don't posses a crystal ball I don't know what they will be.

As Peter Miles said himself We are all here for the same reason - the desire to see the Lynton & Barnstaple come back to life. There should be no 'them & us'

As a suggestion from the membership an option E sound like a good plan in my book

 

Can you give me the URL for that please ? The version I found at the Companies Office did not contain that but might be out of date. The Trust website does not have the M & As either.

 

As is obvious from the reactions appearing here, the present proposals by the Trust Board demonstrate a lack of detail which raises the suspicion that they have not been fully researched and developed. I concur with many of the points raised by Chris Duffell in his letter to the Trustees and reproduced by @Meiriongwril in his post #7428 on this thread.
I was astonished to learn that there is no cohesive strategy covering the various bodies that make up the L & B, resulting in confusion, waste, and frustration.

To move things forward could somebody who will, preferably, be attending the meeting*, table a motion to the effect that the Board, in consultation with the membership and other "stakeholders" (Exmoor Associates in particular ) prepare a Development Strategy as suggested by Chris and including the seven points he has raised. That Strategy document, on completion, to be presented to the full membership for approval.

It will obviously take some time to produce such a document and the Board should be encouraged to use such resources as may be available from amongst the membership and supporters. (There are several on this website alone who could offer specialist knowledge if asked.) In the meantime there is plenty to do by way of track clearance and maintenance as well as the regular operations.

* I regret I am unable to attend due to ill-health and distance.

 

This page https://www.lynton-rail.org.uk/page/our-plans-rebuild-line-between-lynton-barnstaple on the archive L&B website shows the overall strategy
Mike

 

You should find the information you are looking for here:-

https://www.lynton-rail.org.uk/page/corporate-information

 

Yes, that is the issue to which I referred - AFAIK there is no later version.

 

I would personally regard that as a set of strategic objectives, rather than a strategy. For those objectives to be delivered, hopefully in my lifetime (and I am 15 years older now than my grandfather was at closure), I would like a lot more on how Killington Lane and Blackmoor can be linked than the uncounted, unassessed, content of the paper.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

But will the Chairman actually accept a 'motion from the floor'? I know that quite a few Trusts require such things to be submitted in advance, so that it can be included on the Agenda, on the grounds that otherwise those members who do not attend will have had no opportunity to indicate a vote to their proxy.