Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

>>>>I agree we must get Bridge 65 done ASAP.

AIUI there is supposedly about £750K in the 'Back to Parracombe' appeal fund, which ought to be more than enough to do Bridge 65. Clearly Bridge 65 is needed in order to reach PE (at least, from the KL end anyway), so it would seem to be a legitimate use for those funds. The Option C proposal included "Construct bridge
65 at the earliest opportunity". So it would appear that there is an 'obvious' first step just waiting for the Board to get cracking on the necessary application.

>>>The parking in Parracombe, and any at if at CFL will be minimal, just as there is none currently at KL. Parking does not need to happen at that end of the line just as it doesn't currently.

At face value, I would agree with you. However the problem, as I see it, is that there are those in the PE area who fear that the reality may be more detrimental and there has been no sign, either during the Sec73 process or subsequently, that the Trust has been making any serious efforts to allow those fears. Instead there appears to be almost an 'obsession' about getting to PE asap regardless of where and how suitable the terminus might be. 'Learning from past mistakes' does not appear to be something which exists in the Trust at the moment.

>>>I would say what we do perhaps need is a think tank, a group who collects ideas, catalogues them and puts forward highly possible ones to the CIC or Trust for consideration.
Worth a try IMHO - after all, what have we got to lose? - and the railway might well gain from it.

 

The plan to go back to CFL was already set out way back before 2009, 2009 was when the trackbed between killington lane and parracombe road bridge was secured , the bridge plans had been drawn up but the opportunity missed yet now here we are 14 years later being told 'this is the plan'. I think some criticism is to be expected, as i said its not about the last 5 years its about the last 17

 

If we're talking about the L & B R Trust AIUI the members have that role. So to use your phrase, the two are the same. The L&B Blackmoor Company and the CIC Company have shareholders but not the Trust. So, someone more knowledgable than me can say if the Trust is governed soley by charity law rather than the sections of the Companies Act quoted. And therefore the possibility of using the Companies Act to obtain members' contact details with a view to calling an EGM.

 

My recollection from the WSRA some year ago was that - as both a Charity and a Company - it was Company law that was used to over-ride the GDPR and enable the 'reform group' to have access to the membership contact details for the specific purpose of raising support for an EGM (although in fact it took three EGMs to get a result!). So I see no reason why the same should not apply to the L&BRT, although it might take some pressure to get them to comply

 

This is known; dig on the WSRA thread(s) and you will find chapter and verse about what is/is not possible.

The TLDR version is that this is not a means of general communication but something that only arises in extreme circumstances, for example in connection with an EGM.

 

The Trust is also a company so it must work to company law

The Trust is definately governed by company law. It is registered in companies house and therfore must be a company limited by gaurentee.

 

I find your last few postings confusing. First you say that "It appears to me we have a plan, a plan that is flexible, which right now we need to enable a move forwards wherever we can." and you belittle those who suggest it is time to take a step back and review the overall project and its management. You go on to say "everyone dearly wants, action on an extension." but ignore the fact that any extension of the existing track is, for the time being, blocked at Parracombe. And I'm not convinced that an extension to CFL gives any advantage at present.

You also say "The whole situation is not something that will be solved by any amount of thought or strategy". A project of this magnitude requires a lot of thought and a strategy clearly mapped out for all to see. For instance : has a route around the Wistlandpound Reservoir been surveyed and costed ? How do we propose to navigate down Twitchen Lane ? What is the cost of replacing the bridge under the A39/A399 ? You can't just start building track without knowing what resources you are going to need and the cost thereof. The trustees may already have this information but, if so, it has not been made available to the members.

You then go on to say that maybe we need a think tank, which is basically what many of us are advocating - see Chris Duffell's letter reproduced in post 7428 of this thread - except that it would be better if the "thinking" included input from the other L&B entities such as EA and YVT so that everybody ends up singing from the same hymn sheet. This is the job that the Trust Board should be doing : planning, co-ordinating and overseeing.

Then, lastly, after advocating for racing into action, you admit that there is such a shortage of volunteers that there is already difficulty in running the railway at Woody Bay and that the husbandry of the existing trackbed is a nightmare.

Don't you think it might be a good idea to decide on our priorities first and then work out how to find the resources (money, equipment, volunteers etc. ) to meet them ?

 

The only advert I've seen for this position is on the L&B website, and is looking for a volunteer with suitable skills and experience to take it on. It is not indeed a full-time position, so your figure of £100k pa is hardly relevant.

Incidentally, EA has recently taken on the service of a suitably skilled and experienced individual in that same role, and that seems to be working well for them.

 

There is, of course, a corollary to that: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” (attrib. A. Einstein)

 

I haven't belittled anyone, we have discussed, debated, we have all disagreed in places, agreed in others, touched on so many subjects, we all have differences of opinion, or isn't mine allowed?

 

Hmm, but also in science, often a mystery or problem is solved by tweaking an experiment, not starting over. If the parameters were exactly the same, ie: we were resubmitting an application exactly as before then I would possibly except that analogy.

 

CFL is?

 

Apolgies,, sent inadvertantly. to continue ...............a shareholder holds an equity stake in the company which may be tradeable. A member of a company limited by guarantee has no such interest. He or she is not a shareholder and is just a member who pursuant to its Articles has delegated management of the company to its directors.
Whilst all companies are subject to the Companies Act not all parts of the 2006 Act apply to all companies The sections quoted apply only to public companies not to companies limited by guarantee such as the Trust. There is a right to inspect the register of members but only if it can be shown to be for a proper purpose. Use for any other purpose could be a GDPR issue.

 

My idea is for the L&B section, in my opinion there are too many deep seated issues between the entities at the moment for that to be possible.
Whistlandpound can be solved at some point in the future, it can be thought on while we have all these other things going on but the L&B, EA and YVT have a myriad of projects and schemes in hand at the moment, I would say solving the problem at Whistlandpound is low priority for now?

 

Apologies John, CFL = Cricket Field Lane.

 

Thank you, now exactly how far is that from Killington Lane? (Or Woody Bay if it goes the other way)

 

I will just say here that I mean no ill will towards anyone. I will enter a debate, I will bounce ideas around, and I will look at things from alternative angles. But anyone that knows me knows despite differences which may arise I will still partake in a pint with you at the bar, and also shake your hand on parting.
I am afraid you have in me a Gemini, analytical, a seeker of solutions, a communicator, adjudicator and counsel. I'm sorry, was born that way

 

Oh ummm, someone else may know the exact distance off hand, not sure myself.

 

What's interesting, as a detached observer, is the apparently shared assumption on this thread that the railway must be extended and that the only dispute is about by how much and how to go about it? I understand the frustration of those who dream of a reincarnated L&B and who suggest the Trustees are failing in their duty to achieve that wholly or in part. It appears that is at the core of spin off initiatives like EA and YVT.
Does it stand up to scrutiny? When I last checked the charitable purpose of the Trust is public education. An extended railway may help with that but it's a means to the charitable purpose not the overriding purpose that seems to be taken as read. Trustees primary duties are to achieve the charitable purpose and to ensure, so far as possible, the financial viability of the charity. The challenges facing heritage railways at the moment are well recognised. Some are incurring substantial operating losses. It's far from clear that expanding and extending under current market conditions is always sensible. It isn't just a case of finding the capital to do so but of being reasonably confident that the increased costs and liabilities will be more than covered by additional revenue. Whisper it quietly but it could just be that sticking with what exists at the moment is the right business judgement, at least until conditions improve? I don't know, and only an examination of the business plans would indicate if that's true, Personally before rushing to judgement on the performance of the Trustees I would want to know the answer.
No doubt someone will point out that's not what the members want and of course their continued support is critical. However the Trustees are not elected to implement members' wishes. If, for instance, a members' vote to extend would, in the judgement of the Trustees, pose an unacceptable financial risk to the charity they would be duty bound to ignore it.
Indecision and inertia are not acceptable but coming to an unpopular conclusion for the right reasons may be.