Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

....

 

I've not had a chance to read it, but in case people haven't see it, PSA.

 

....

 

....and, for the doubters, this is why good governance actually matters.....

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

Probably the last thing I'll say about the L&B, as a line very dear to my heart but which is slowly sapping any love I have for it away, but all the trustees need to take a long, hard look in the mirror and decide whether their very very public animosity and near open warfare is good for the railway. Deception, underhandedness, misrepresentation and factionalism will not deliver an extended railway but simply drive members away and embolden those objecting or blocking progress. I'm done with the L&B for now, I can't be the only person who feels that way too, and all the Trustees are accountable for that

 

That may be true, but it is an argument that I deeply distrust. It gives further power to those who already have it, equating the faults of those who are failing with the rough edges of those who are seeking to correct things - and helping to provide a veto against change.

 

Harsh of you to lump then all together. After all, Anne Belsey and Mike Whiteaker have only been there for a very short while. Nevertheless your loss of trust is completely understandable.

 

I might suggest that L&B Trust members who wish to see change might email the relevant Trustees with a simple request to resign for the good of the railway.
I have these addresses (they may not all be current): mr.petermiles@ntlworld.com; ianpcowling@gmail.com; ianpcowling@tiscali.co.uk; martin.swainson@btinternet.com; jbarton853@outlook.com; chas.summers@btinternet.com; pjcurson@hotmail.co.uk;

 

Do you really think the railway will get back to Barnstaple, or even within the town limits in your lifetime, if ever? I'd sadly bet not another mile of track will be laid before 2030, let alone Lyton or Barnstaple.

Do you really think anyone with sense, and money or just money would give this project the serious injection of funds after reading this thread or having a general sense of how the various arms go about their business?

The bodies who can offer funds will do some deep research (I'd hope) before giving out public funds, this thread at 500+ pages is one sorry tale after another, after another.

 

The mainline, for example GWR have hubs which feed the local and regional stock requirements. Plymouth for maintenance and different degrees of work on the DMU fleet like Bristol both feed the Devon & Cornwall area off Plymouth with Bristol doing likewise. Exeter also does the same, feeding work North towards Bristol and South towards Cornwall. Penzance is quite specialised as it looks after the sleeper stock and very local DMU work. Westbury is fuel and cleaning only, likewise Fratton, Worcester is cleaning and stabling, Swansea, Stoke Gifford & North Pole are contract depots for the IET fleet with Swansea being not much more than fuel, clean, stable.

Where traffic is generated doesn't really come into modern depot locations, with Stoke Gifford and North Pole both seeing very large numbers of ECS moves daily. The latter sending out trains to Cheltenham, Worcester and Hereford!

 

I an ideal world you'd sit down with a A4 sheet of paper and plan your railway out with a ideal balance of maintenance / storage locations in relation to your main traffic flow, and ideal crewing resources. But, as we all know the world we, well most of live in isn't ideal! railways grow over many many years, which require the management of each railway to manage how they grow in ensure volunteers aren't pressed into excessive turn lengths.

Concerns about where the main works, and how the AM and PM ecs moves will be resourced are really matters for the generation of volunteers who come along in the 2040s if the railway is still here.

 

Good governance is essential. I said that several hundred pages ago when this first blew up. An element of good governance is knowing what your strategy is and that was what we were discussing. It isn’t an either or thing. You don’t get donorship at the level needed without a good and clear strategy AND good governance which includes delivering on the strategy which is kept under permanent review.

Do I think the railway can be re-created? Yes

Will the current board achieve another mile of advancement? No

The immediate imperative is new trustees. The repair of reputation and finances will need a good strategy and adherence to good governance. Both will take a little time, but I think the right team could turn the situation round in a few years.

 

No. I think you’re wrong for two reasons:

1. If you leave all that thinking to the future you will make sun-optimal choices now that future generations will curse. Equally you must try to allow for future changes so far as possible.

2. the donors that will support the railway are with us now and need to be enthusiastic about what their money will achieve, often after they are no longer around to see it. The more the picture can be painted, the more likely it is to be achieved.

 

I was born in 1974; I fully expect to see the centenary of closure and have no reason not to believe that I will see significant reopening.

The Trust has achieved a lot, and done a lot of good work. That includes the present trustees. The challenge is in finding the right way to rerail the trust from it's current position.

Sort that, and trust will quite quickly come back. Let things be and you might be right.

 

I was born at the start of the 1980s and yes I believe I'll see significant reopening.

 

To some extent - and supporting the views of @21B - I agree. But planning with the 2040s in mind is important, if the railway is to deliver sustainably.

I'm interested in the strategy not because I want to micro-manage the L&B, but because I want to understand what the options might mean. I've seen the impact that having the depot in "the wrong place" can cause elsewhere, and want to see the strategy focus on how to get it in the right place - bearing in mind that "right" is probably actually "least bad".

A railway oriented around two half journeys from Blackmoor Gate is a different beast from one oriented around whole line journeys from Barnstaple. That's different again from one that's oriented around servicing tourism to/from Lynton. If demand is naturally centred on Blackmoor Gate, that firmly supports what some have been suggesting. If not, but the facilities are centred there, then that raises significant questions about operational practicalities. Future accountants can worry about fuel bills and wear and tear from the extra mileage - I'm just thinking of how you actually get the trains where they need to be, and what staff you need for that. That then influences questions of design, which in turn affects historical accuracy, and then you get to the questions of what facilities you need for volunteers.

Much of the detail will develop over time - I'm acutely aware that the key problem at the moment is getting west of Killington Lane! But the longer term strategy is also needed to give future generations a chance to minimise the compromises that will be required.

 

I've quickly read the email this morning and one thing that strikes me is there are quite a few "it appears" within the email. Additionally much is made of the trackbed being bought separately to OSHI. If we were to take that approach of buying trackbed only to fulfill our requirement of reinstating the L&B then why are we buying land off that trackbed, considering Chelfham Mill, and any other places that maybe strategically important although not strictly trackbed.

One thing we don't know, and it may well be due to NDAs or conditions of sale, is what the negotiations were. It may well be that a condition of sale was that the trackbed was bought separately or maybe it was advantageous financially to do so. If we have an NDA attached to the sale it may be tying the hands of those negotiators in revealing the details. Mr Shepherd I am sure drove a hard bargain, as many others probably will in the future too.

We also see funds being moved, what they were for isn't know yet, but I should imagine the pub business itself will need working capital plus funds for immediate repairs.

One thing I do see though and a fair few comments to me too from others in real life is they are getting weary of the constant tit for tat now and many are as we have also seen in this thread, ready to walk away.

There is one thing to question, but perhaps the way it's being done, in calling for resignations etc isn't the right way to go.

I don't know the answer, we have a Trust now with battle lines drawn. This needs to be resolved pronto, and not necessarily by mass resignations.
Its going to be far better to sort this out internally than allow it to go on as it is because we could start to see a bleed of members who are just plain fed up with the arguments.

 

Just those three bits in black @DaveE - don't you think that there is a massive problem if all of the trustees don't know these facts?
There should be no reason why every member of the board should not know where the money has gone, what the negotiations were, what the purchase price was, why an NDA was required (and who asked for it), why the unsecured loan etc etc.
The fact that there are several 'it appears' in the email means that certain board members are being kept in the dark.

 

I don't know the details of the board meetings, and tbh don't expect to, that's board level and not for me to know. The wrangling within the board should stay within the board in my view, and all we should hear about is the resolutions being made. Usually if one or two trustees disagrees with the rest they either minute their objections and a vote is taken after which that becomes policy or not as the case may be, or they resign so they can campaign outside of the Trust.

At least that's how I've been led to believe by the CC guidance etc.

This campaigning from within a Trust, who are supposed to be making collective decisions and afterwards supporting those collective decisions is all strange to me.

Whatever is supposed to happen, those disagreements around the board room table are spilling out into the wider membership and it's unsettling some, to the point we will lose their memberships.

It could be said that reputation is at stake, but in my view in making public the disagreements at board level can equally damage reputation and support.

 

One 'fact' gleaned from this report is that Ian Cowling was given a draft, dismissed it as full of inaccuracies etc, but failed to respond to an invitation to identity and correct such inaccuracies.

I am reminded of the situation at another heritage railway site where the Trustees often decry statements issued by what they term as 'detractors' as 'inaccurate' or 'false', yet consistently fail to explain the nature of such inaccuracies or provide an alternative viewpoint supported by verifiable factual evidence. In other words, a lot of bluster but no real facts.