Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I've left a couple of days to think about your reply, so not trying to rake up an argument. I'm actually really bad at communication, and often cause offence unintentionally- hence at work the rule of thumb is 'Ross doesn't talk to the customer'- so apologies in advance.

I am an interested observer, and former supporter of the Lynton and Barnstaple project, and my 'it seems that in 15 years the L&BRT have achieved very little' comment is is simply the very disappointed observation of an interested outsider.
You list a number of achievements, and you are right, there have been successes, but many of those are not the achievements of the Trust. Exmoor Associates is not the same as the L&BRT, so their achievements cannot be claimed as successes by the trust. Especially when it appears that some of the L&BRT apparently see EA as a rival.
Similarly it seems that the work done at Chelfham is also without the support of the Trust, so again, this cannot be claimed as a success by the Trustees, in fact all the 'greater family' stuff is irrelevant against my comment, which was specific to the efforts and results of the Trust.

Maintenance of existing assets, trackwork etc. is also not a success by the trust. It is essential, and a use of resources, but is not a step forward.
You also point out the new tea rooms at Woody Bay. Whilst this is undoubtedly an improvement to the facilities there, it also indicates a refusal to consider other options to the current situation: If it is impossible to extend north, due to not owning the trackbed, or south due to the failure to effectively deal with local objections, then the admittedly daunting prospect of mothballing the Woody Bay-Killington Lane section and moving operations to a different location must be at least considered. Further entrenchment at Woody Bay without adequate consideration of all the possible options is not my idea of good governance.

 

Yes, I see how that could work. If such a temporary structure - instead of standing on the ground - was somehow suspended a foot or two outwards from the steel underframe of the carriage, would that handle the planning angle?

 

I'm sorry Ross, but closing Woody Bay now is in my view not an option, it's invaluable income, and I'm not too sure it would sit well with most of the membership and would also confuse visitors etc.

To mothball and move all that is there to another location now would be a considerable cost, moving of assets, moving of machinery, rolling stock, track, the shop, gaining planning permission, etc etc etc, and that's without considering the time it would take to do so with the limited volunteers we have in North Devon or the cost in using contractors.

If we consider the other sections of the line, going North we immediately hit a huge and costly (probably multi-millions pound) engineering headache which is the crossing of the A39 and the lane down to Woolhanger. Further on we are closing on Lynton, without having the Park & Ride in place first at Blackmoor. We know the problems going South, at least beyond Cricket Field Lane, and we know that is a problem that needs solving, but it's not an easy one to solve.

To mothball and look elsewhere, apart from above, on any section we will have ballast to clean, more ballast to purchase, track to purchase, planning permission to be acquired where needed, possibly further trackbed to acquire to make any section even viable.

Every section you look at on the L&B has problems, but to mothball Woody Bay and move elsewhere is just not possible in my view and quite possibly commercially suicidal.

 

That's an excellent and thoughtful post, Tom. I'd like to draw on your final paragraph to bring us back to home base, which was originally the manner in which 2 potentially very generous offers of funding were treated:
Both Michael B and Isambard! have wished to see the betterment of their railway, and have put their money in the same place as their mouths.
Whilst the issues of carriage lamps and particularly carriage storage have many nuances and complications, basic human decency would suggest at least the acknowledgement of such a generous offer, something along the lines of:
"Dear ××××,
May I be the first to thank you for your most generous offer of funding for ×××××.
The problems surrounding this issue are complex, and will require a great deal of thought in order to arrive at a workable solution. Perhaps we need to discuss this in more detail. If you would like, please contact me on ×××××××××, and I can appraise you further of the situation.
Again, my sincere thanks for your generous offer,
Yours sincerely...etc"
Instead, both donors were ignored. That is not the way to go about maximising your income stream. Not if you are serious, anyway.

 

It saddens me greatly to think of how many now fit this definition. There must be hundreds other than the dozens that even I know of personally, who have fallen by the wayside - or are perhaps still just hanging on by a thread - in the past several years.

I can only hope that with changes to the way we run ourselves, at least some of those lost souls can return to where they were once happy to be a key part of the L&B.

It's not too much to hope for, is it?

 

Having been here on this forum for a while now, and also listened to so many people over time, I think for the L&B is there are just so many problems to overcome, and so many things to do over such a large area along the length of the line that none of the proposals, or pushes to make changes will overall make any difference to the issues we are seeing.

I'm not sure I can even see some of the suggestions of an overseeing entity being successful in overcoming the problems.

As we have seen on so many other projects, there are multiple ways to look at those problems and of course there will be differences of opinion.

But even with a complete change in the Trust it won't solve those problems, because the membership itself and also the wider L&B family is fractured and has so many different views.

The way I see it now no amount of changes to governance, or any amount of changes to management, etc etc is going to resolve the issues.

And I don't know the answers either, the differences are just too deep.

 

You’re right, those fractures are deep and those who’ve helped entrench them need to reflect on their roles and positions, from wherever in the L&B spectrum they sit.

However, I’m less pessimistic. There are other established railways that have nearly failed and/or been subject to deep schisms that are still with us. In their histories lie clues to what can happen on the L&B.

What I note about successful organisations is the role of leaders supporting and serving that organisation. @Jamessquared wrote thoughtfully and well about the art of management, but he actually described something much more - leadership. It’s there that I’m sensing a gap, as the organisation faces into a less immediately productive period than we’d all hoped quite recently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well that is the rub trying to find someone who can bring the different factions of the family group together as a whole, is going to be difficult at best, they will come up agaist those that want a genuine recreationof the railway as was, then you will have those who want to see the railway at least be commerical sustainable, that is without those who want only red and cream coaches or green coaches for that matter.

Do you try to make sure that all the locos reflect the different periods of the railways operation, or do you let the loco fleet retain its colours if it worked in industry before coming to North Devon. They all may sound simple areas to disregurd but they are important to some people.

The other idea is that you consider this a brand new railway and you set it up based on current tourist trends.

My personal view is you need to be a complete L&BR nut and have money to throw at this project. The one thing which needs to be addressed and that is every one needs to be honest about what they would like to see or more importantly what it is they are prepaid to help do for the project.

May be we all need to look more at the big picture and if this means setting up smaller task groups to achive this then so be it.

 

Excellently put, @Mark Thompson - tyvm

 

Following this logic we should simply pack up and give up. I doubt you really think this is the right option. I know I don’t.

It is about people. The solution is to find people who can look out from the board and enable others. The majority of the current trustees can’t. They have comprehensively demonstrated that. My only question is how to reassure them that the good they have achieved will be built upon and that it is time for them to hand the reigns over as soon as suitable alternates can be found.

 

Invaluable income ? Err . . . the CIC Company made an operating loss of £914 last year. Lets hope we're NOT heading for commercial suicide.

 

You can be:

-competent and transparent
-competent and non-transparent
-incompetent and transparent
-incompetent and non-transparent

From the viewpoint of stakeholders, one option is highly desirable, one is acceptable, one is less than acceptable and one is highly unacceptable.

How do you think the top of the L&B pyramid has been viewed over the past few years?

 

I'd go further @35B - I'm optimisitc about the future, because if people didn't care deeply about the future of the L&B, we wouldn't be on page 517 of this thread - apathy is not something that the L&B suffers from!

The fact that we are on page 517 tells me that:

(i) many, many people around the world care deeply about the L&B;
(ii) there have been many tactical successess in the last 15 years across the L&B family; but
(iii) the Trust's seminal acheivement of getting planning permission was wasted because the leadership did not have an executable plan to deliver the extension;
(iv) supporters are passionate enough to dig into what's gone wrong and run their own lessons learned exercise in the absence of such a thing by the Trust;
(v) we've seen some truly awful behaviour from a small group around the Trust Chairman who think that they can do whatever they like, irrespective of the rules;
(vi) despite this, we're continuing to discover offers of help that the current leadership have spurned, but which can (and I hope) will be tapped to make a difference under new leadership;
(vii) therefore despite - instead of because of - the leadership, we collectively have a strong will to suceed.

I'd add personally (viii) that is impossible to see how those who got us into this mess can credibly lead us out of it.

This (painful) judgement is based partially on the strategic failure of losing the planning permission, but what were then concerns have been exacerbated by the appalling behaviour of Mr Miles and his friends over the last 12 months towards members, the rules and key stakeholders (neighbours, the ENPA planners, members).

What sums up the mess we're in - and those primarily responsible for it - is that we still have no clarity about whether Mr Miles and his friends actually resigned at the Trustees' meeting nearly a fortnight ago or not.... clarity would be most welcome.

 

Not having a dog in this fight - apart from having read most of this thread (possibly all) - initially because I thought this was an exciting project - more recently for less edifying reasons - I don't want to say much, except that, from what I have read, whilst it is hugely dissapointing that the planning permission to extend wasn't used, it wasn't entriely within the board's control...and Covid gave them less of a chance than they should have had. If people are serious about reconciliation and moving forward, perhaps this should stop being a stick with which to beat them. On the other hand the underhand behaviour regarding the elections and lack of transaparency about accounts suggest they should go. People have egos. Tell them that they have failed at everything and they'll want to tell you to shove your criticism, or to stick around until they have assured the legacy they feel they deserve. Recognise that they did some good things, and tried their best but failed because of circumstances out of their control on others and they might be less defensive and recognise that they haven't done all the right things in the last 12 months and its time to pass the baton. Just my amateur cod-psychologist thoughts on the matter

 

Yet again, I am sympathetic to what you have posted and it is difficult to see a way forward with things as they stand at the moment.

However, post #10333 refers to a “strategic failure” and I feel this is surely a watershed event, where a younger generation needs to take over the direction of the Trust to take things forward for the longer term - which is surely how things are going to play out.

Although I might be critical of how we have got here, I also think that it would not be wise to dispense completely with all the experience that resides in the current team. Their input is going to remain important, whatever their official role may be - ie they are no longer Trustees. I believe that what is actually needed is a change of LEADERSHIP because without this the various factions, as you say, are going to be almost impossible to reconcile.

(I say “almost impossible” because there is the faintest chance of professional help being sought to effect some compromise/reconciliation - hard to envisage however if the recent reports of the Trustees’ meeting are true.)

Everybody wants the best for the L&BR but I suggest things cannot carry on as they are. A line needs to be drawn.

 

Attempting to shift blame onto the "intransigence" of the ENPA was not a wise move. I've seen the correspondence with ENPA & that remark is a wholly disingenuous attempt to deflect responsibility. What's more, insulting those who have your future in their hands would seem ill advised.

The word "leadership" has come up a lot in recent posts. People follow leaders because they trust them & see them as setting an example....once that's lost there's no way back I'm afraid.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

This raises an interesting question :

The operating railway is obviously a good demonstration of what we are hoping to build and therefore has value as a drawcard and PR exercise. However, if the CIC is only just splitting even at this stage, what will be the effect of adding another 50% of track by extending running to CFL ? Can the extra fuel costs be recovered by increased fares ? Will the extra running time require more locos and/or staff ? And could the funds involved in the extension perhaps be better used elsewhere in the near future ?
( I am not including the costs for building the track as that will be a Trust expense.)

 

As a Accountant (now former Accountant) I have been bleating at AGMs for many years about the lack of transparency and explanation about quirks in the accounts, including from when the present professional firm took on the role. This time I asked them in advance of the AGM what was the investment of the Trust in the Blackmoor Company as that was not disclosed. It seems to me the mindset of these professional accountants is to only disclose what is required by statute and accounting rules. This is in the hands of the Trustees and Directors who sign off the accounts to ensure that they disclose information that members would like to know without it having to be squeezed out of them at the meeting. Members of the Trust still know little about the Blackmoor Company (I get the impression some of it's shareholders feel that even they are not fully informed) in a situation that if OSHI fails it might take the Trust with it. Or am I over reacting ?

 

Agreed and they presumably did that because they didn't want to get the blame for something they clearly also see/saw as a failure/dissapointment, indeed the lack of transparency and rejection of critical appointees can also be seen in that light. My point being if you want more transparency you are going to probably have to start throwing round less blame and give some benefit of the doubt (not all). They will have made mistakes, and made sub-optimal decisions. If I were them I'd be scared to let people know the full story because there seems to be a desire to chop heads off, even over matters where the board may not have been able to achieve the desired outcome, however they played their hand. Noone wants to leave a post branded a failure

 

The problem leading to desire for regime change is the lack of transparency along with the aggressive response to questioning.