Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

see previous post (we've cross-posted) - I'm not decrying the Bluebell's achievement in the slightest. I'm just suggesting there's an order of magnitude difference between your points 1-7 adding up to 'building the Bluebell Railway' and them adding up to 'successfully extending a successful heritage railway.'

The L&B is trying to do the former*, whereas I'd argue the Bluebell was greatly helped by it trying to the latter. Eventually (dv) an extension to the L&B would be in the same position (say south from the reservoir to X, when we're already running to the reservoir from WB , but at the moment in reality we're still trying to get out of the starting gate, and it's not the same for the L&B as for either the Bluebell or RVR/KESR.

*edited for clarity - not try and build the Bluebell Railway, you know what I mean!

 

Yes I read that with amusement - then I realised that it was a serious suggestion.

 

exactly - I thought there might be some merit in maybe a sort of credit union for supporters (though in the current climate that wouldn't amount to enough merit or scale to actually do it, but on paper it's not totally ludicrous), but when I realised they actually meant a branch network across SW England, getting people on-side with the project through offering them favourable loan and mortgage rates...

a fund-raising project planned to make friends by losing money at scale....

 

I agree; the lack of clarity of vision and the need to break out of the small railhead at Woody Bay are constraints on what can be achieved. But other railways have achieved more, with seemingly less going for them. In particular, extension projects can, within limits, "borrow" from the credibility of the sector as a whole. After all, your valid point about supporters being nearby could also be used equally validly of a number of other railways that achieve a lot in what appear unpropitious surroundings.

I think it's important to reflect on what's happened in the last few years. Firstly, there are clearly a number of factions within the L&B family. These have the roots in personal and professional disagreements, and have led to the creation of multiple groups at "north" and "south" ends. Generally, these differences have not mattered especially.

However, the success (and, Grampian Conditions notwithstanding, it was a major success) of obtaining planning approval from ENPA has not resulted in construction starting. There are various reasons for this, and opinions vary as to the precise reasons; it's clear from posts on here and events within the Trust that the ability of the Trust to deliver on the Grampian conditions or S73 application was in doubt well before the announcement in February.

What matters is that this disappointment, and some of the events that preceded it, have divided opinions amongst L&B supporters. Over-simplifying grossly, the Trust leadership have chosen to try to maintain the previous plan, chunking it up to try to mitigate some of the opposition and also start to demonstrate progress. Others lack confidence in that plan, because it either presents old ideas as new (e.g. Cricket Field Lane) or doesn't clearly address the political factors that made the 2018 Grampian Conditions insuperable.

Unfortunately, and tediously, this brings us back to the vexed question of governance. Some of current events can only be seen in the light of personalities. But even stripping that factor out, we have seen material issues of governance around both 2021 and 2023 elections. Assuming that they were not fuelled or driven by personality issues, they raise issues around the control of detail - precisely the sort of detail that will be required to deliver on extension of the L&B.

That leaves a catch-22 situation. The current tensions will only be resolved once there is focus on an extension project, preferably with shovels at work. Yet that focus will only be achieved with a clear plan, commanding confidence that the details are under full control, and with good relations achieved with local authorities and as much of the local community as can be persuaded to support the railway, actively or tacitly.

 

Agree - and obviously within my long list of contradictory things like everyone else I've got the ones I support and the ones I don't. Also agree with pretty much all of your analysis.

 

@35B and @gwralatea have I think very accurately described the challenge.

The solution is not in fact complex. Talk. The Trust needs to talk and listen to the other groups and members and the local communities. The solution will come out of that, as will the alignment that seems to be lacking.

 

I think the key word is actually listen.

 

I do think they listen, much more than is realised, but with so many options, along with some who may think their way is the only way possible, whatever "option" they decide on it will upset someone somewhere. The difficulty is picking a route through this which is agreeable to those who are looking to extend, those who are looking to make sure what we have continues to be successful, those who have grander ideas which are possibly not suitable or viable, and those who are wiling to be patient and understand that eventually we will get to where we want to be.
Yes we need a strategy, but it must be flexible enough to be able to take advantage of unexpected opportunities which may arise, it isn't that long ago we thought we would have a fight on our hands to gain Parracombe Halt.
Similarly EA gained some important trackbed recently after 12 years of negotiations by Mike Buse and without interference from others. OSHI was obtained in a similar way by Ian Cowling, and that had some very strict agreements on what could be publicised while negotiations were in progress otherwise no deal.
The key is letting those who are negotiating to quietly let them do it, not interfere, and especially by those who are not in the area and understand that it could take some time to be successful.
The local issues, must in my view be solved locally as I have outlined in an above post. Strategy? Not sure you can make one for some of the issues, it's just keep plugging away at it until a solution is eventually found.

 

Well said Dave.

 

We will need to agree to disagree on the need for strategy. My view remains that, without one, it is impossible to make effective priority decisions and deliver on our shared objectives.

That doesn't mean there can't be changes in response to changes in circumstances. But those need to be measured against how they support the wider strategy. And it's that strategic intent that wasn't clear from the consultation, and instead leaves the impression of "we'll do a bit here and a bit there and hopefully it will all add up". I've worked on enough projects to know that rarely comes true, and if it does, it is always at significant cost.

This is distinct from the sort of confidentiality that is required during a negotiation, for example that which achieved the recent EA purchase.

 

I agree completely on all counts It's ironic that I recall as long ago as 2002/3 saying to Doug Hill that, in order to answer his questions about "what do we need to operate the railway and whence do we get it?", my answer was "first you need to define your end goal, then a strategy on how to get from 'now' to 'then' "

 

That might be what the legalese says, but the reality is that the Trustees need to be delivering what the members want, if they want membership support to continue. Plans that lack support are unlikely to succeed.

 

Possibly true, but the problem is that some members want "get on and build more railway now!", whereas others want "stop and draw breath, reflect on what went wrong and why, only then plan what to do next and how to be more successful at it".

IMHO there is some scope to do both more-or-less concurrently. There is a section from BR to WD with secure planning consent and most (if not all) of the trackbed in L&BR ownership, just sat idle now waiting for people to start clearance and building work (within the constraints of available resources etc). After all, were we not told during the Sec73 saga that the Trust had contracts 'lined up' for at least some of the Phase 2A work? At the same time the serious retrospective/reflective activity can look at the other issues such as Bridge 65, KL-PE, northwards from WB, south of the reservoir etc etc and formulate revised plans accordingly. Excellent work has been done at Chelfham, surely more can be made of it other than just as 'somewhere else to look at on Sundays and Wednesdays'?

 

Leadership is what is required. Leadership listens sufficiently to be able to accommodate views and flex plans to achieve the broad goals they set. Leadership doesn’t shy from the fact that not everyone can be pleased nor shirk from the task of explaining why things should be done the way leadership believes best. The trust that leaders create means that when the time comes that a question cannot be answered directly for reasons of confidentiality, this is accepted because trust has been created.

A strategy is essential. Not because a good leadership will follow it slavishly, but because good leadership will have ensured that the strategy development process will ensure all parties are aligned. No strategy survives first contact with the enemy, but a good strategic foundation ensures that the organisation can react quickly and well and without dislocation.

Good leadership ensures the basics are taken care of, because the basics are within their total control and should never be allowed to become a distraction.

 

Please for those of us not as familiar with the line as others can we have names of locations not initials and if necessary eg Cricket Field Lane some idea as to where they are

 

There are some useful maps on the old L&BRT archive website, at https://www.lynton-rail.org.uk/page/route-mapped
also some of the ownership of land in the Southern section on the EA/YVT websites: https://www.exmoor-associates.co.uk/ownership/

 

I would agree whole heartily with 35B and have a strategy in place, In fact I would suggest the following, why not knowing that this is going to cost. Why not go down the path of writing such documents with the aim of convincing say a very wealthy philanthropist.

It may not provide all the answers, but it will give an idea of just what sort of questions such people would ask in the first place.

 

Philanthropists tend to be quite discerning about the teams of people they will entrust with their money. I do not think that a group that cannot run an election is likely to impress. But I agree with the thrust of your point. It is notable that both the WHR and RVR needed such backing.

 

Blue line is the stretch of track that ends at Cricket Field Lane, Killington Lane is just under 'Restaurants', think i got it right this time, hope it helps.
Actually i didn't get this one right either, the line should go down to the next hedgerow on the right,that is CFL