Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

PORTHMADOG, and has been so officially for over 40 years!

 

In fairness all the original railway documents say Portmadoc and therefore so do many histories of the line, and the Ordinance survey was recently in trouble over the spelling of some local features, but pointed out that they had used the spelling they were told to by the office of the Welsh Language Commissioner and the local authority. It’s difficult to get it right.

 

But Colin wasn’t referring to the original line

 

No, but the mistake is I think forgivable given the long history of spelling in this part of the world.

 

Thanks @Jamessquared - but I hasten to say that this is not my plan, but a distillation of ideas from across the L&B family over the last year or so - I am just the scribe! These are rough ideas, and of course what I actually want is for this an open, inclusive process like this to be owned and led by the Trust in partnership with YVT/EA. However, if that can't be, let's see if we can do it from the grassroots up.

 

Sounds like a plan which we are desperate for. But how do you get the trustees to adopt this or something very similar?
You need a majority of trustees to support it. Either by persuading them or an EGM....

 

Sadly, AIUI even holding an EGM and passing a motion directing the Trustees to adopt 'Plan X' might not work, if the Board were to say that in their opinion it conflicted with their duty to manage the Trust in the best interests of its Charitable Objectives. Mind you, IMHO that sort of response might take a great deal of explanation, especially when compared with what appears to be the current shambles, so it might be worth a try nonetheless.

 

The only way is to replace the board members.

 

It would bring into sharp relief what, sadly, has been all to apparent for some time. Member expectations ( at least it seems all those posting on here) seem to take as read that the railway must be extended. The only argument is about where and how far. That's not reflected in the L&B Trust's charitable purpose for which its Trustees are accountable to the Charity Commission. Consequently there is an inbuilt disconnect between what justifies the benefits of charitable status and what its members want.
It must also be beyond doubt that extending the railway to any significant extent will be a multi million pound project at a time when many heritage railways are struggling to remain solvent in the face of massive cost increases. Some are already cutting back services, operating days etc. Many will depend on grants, donations and legacies to survive as generation of substantial operating surpluses looks increasingly unlikely.
The other primary duty of Trustees is to ensure, as best they can, the financial viability of the Charity. A key issues would therefore be whether exposing the Charity to the costs of extension, and diversion of fundraising to that cause, would put the financial viability of Woody Bay in jeopardy. As Rail West points out if the Trustees believed reasonably that was the case they would be duty bound to ignore any instruction to extend from the members ( always assuming the requisite 5% to call an EGM at those members' cost could be found).
I agree with those who suggest there should be a plan for any extensions but it would have to be a realistically costed one that took account of the potential to raise the funds required and the additional on going liabilities that any extension would inevitably involve. It would also involve preparedness to accept unwelcome conclusions if it indicated that protecting what has already been achieved should be the priority.

 

You’ve made that argument several times before. But, given it to be true:

• Why is the current board pushing for an extension to Cricket Field Lane, particularly when that will generate additional operating costs but has no prospect of generating money?
• If the board is concerned about protecting the financial viability of the charity, why did they get involved in the OSHI scheme to the extent of putting at risk considerable funds?

In other words - the caution you advocate in the light of the Trustees legal duties would be a reasonable course of action - maybe not very exciting to members, but readily justifiable in the terms you outline. But what is seemingly not justifiable is the scattergun approach to extension being pursued, since it doesn’t meet your financial prudence test, yet also doesn’t seem to give a viable pathway to recreating a significant chunk of the original line which is, ultimately, the charity’s reason for existence.

In other words - you can’t have it both ways. Either you act cautiously to ensure minimum risk to the charity’s funds; or you deliver the membership aspiration to extend in line with an overall vision of recreating a significant portion of the old L&BR. The current board seem to be doing neither.

Tom

 

Sadly, the charity objectives are all around education of the public in narrow gauge railways and railways in general and acquiring artefacts so to do.
The final objective just says that the trust will provide education and training facilities to those involved in the restoration and operation of "the railway" or railways generally.
So it's all pretty open and the trustees could fulfil their objectives by (for example) funding a museum on the West Somerset and sponsoring an apprentice in Minehead engine shed. They don't need to restore the railway. Having Woody Bay, restoring Chelfham and maybe opening a museum at Bratton Flemming is more than enough to fulfill the charity objectives.
All you can really do at an EGM is to elect new trustees who have a more positive approach than the current old guard.
Ian

 

Is that not the key issue? It would appear the Board is indeed not acting 'in the best interests of the charitable objective' by pursuing CFL etc and hence not acting in the way that LineisClear suggests they should, which makes them wrong not him. But if they merely sit tight, do nothing for months/years and claim that they are trying to save money and build up funds sufficient to do 'the next stage' (whatever that might be), then might they risk alienating enough of the membership to eventually make the Trust unviable anyway as a volunteer-based organisation, in which case the fail on Rule 1 again ?

 

They might. Except that the intent is clear and, if the statements from the majority of the board about seeking to extend are false, they would constitute misrepresentation.

Meanwhile, it is necessary to remind @Lineisclear, again, that at the AGM it was the chair and his allies who used calls of “we want to build a railway” to lock in support for their approach of accelerating development, rather than pausing to reflect as others wanted.

This is not an NYMR style debate about the right approach to runnning a railway within its parent’s charitable objectives, but a disagreement between two schools of thought about how to achieve their joint goal of building a railway between Barnstaple and Lynton.

No one within the Trust is seriously suggesting that the L&B remain at or about its current length, and as @Jamessquared says, it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the discussion to interpret matters through that lens.

I am firmly of the view that board change is required, and that the old board should step aside following the failure to follow up their success in obtaining the 2018 planning permission, for that and other reasons. But it would be bordering on defamation to suggest that they had failed because they do not believe the Trust can afford to extend - the more so because of the amount of Trust capital that has been tied up in OSHI.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I agree with all that you've said in this post but your writing does not acknowledge that the principal concern of the 'dissident' Trustees & Members, as expressed in this thread, is that the current board are not acting with the kind of caution and diligence that you advise. It is the current board (or at least a majority of it) who wish to proceed as quickly as possible with their preferred extension plan; whilst it is the dissidents who are questioning whether to do this right now is in the charity's best interests as well as the membership's. Have you not realised this? Forgive me for asking so bluntly but it's far from obvious in your postings.

It's quite true that other potential extension options have been floated by individuals in this thread, in the normal course of the discussion, but none of these have the expressed backing of the minority/dissident trustees and I would say the the main thrust of this conversation has been the desire for a strategic review of where the L&B is now; and where & when it should or could be heading in the best interests of the Trust and the other organisations involved. And taking into account the money required; how to raise it and safeguarding all the assets and achievements to date which many fear might be at risk due to the apparent strategy of the current board.

 

But...Clause 3(2) of the Memorandum states as part of the Charitable Objects:-

"..To advance the education of the public .... by the acquisition, restoration, preservation, creation and exhibition of railway locomotives, carriages, rolling stock, equipment, artefacts, documents and records, together with any appropriate land, buildings and structures in particular but not exclusively those of the former Lynton & Barnstaple Railway in Devonshire ('the railway') and to provide educational and training facilities to those engaged in the restoration and operation of the railway or railways generally..."

So yes, although (say) sponsoring an apprentice at MD would comply with the 'railways generally' bit, which is the second part of that Clause, if the Trust did not 'restore' (at least part of) the 'former L&BR' then I would argue that it was failing in the first part of that Clause if it concentrated only on the 'non exclusive' bits and ignored the 'particularly' actual L&BR - if you see what I mean

 

I'm happy to draw together ideas over the next few weeks, and pop it up here for comment @ikcdab - if folk have thoughts over and above those on here, please do direct message me.

Thanks to all in advance,

Toby

 

I do.

As it happens, I also think the bit of 3.2 that you omitted is equally important - "To advance the education of the public in the history sociology and technology of narrow-gauge railways and railways in general by...". I read that as not limiting the scope of the Trust to the L&B, but emphasising strongly the narrow gauge requirements.

 

It could be argued that the more of the L&B you restore the greater the potential to achieve the charitable purpose of public education with specific reference to the L&B. However as the quote from the Articles confirms the primary purpose is public education i.e, restoration, preservation etc. is a means to achieve that end not the primary reason for the Trust's charitable status.
Some of the previous posts seems to take for granted that the Trustees have a duty to extend the operational railway and have failed in that duty. I'm merely pointing out that what has already been achieved at Woody Bay can fulfill that purpose as can other non operational ex L&B sites so any extension of the operating railway would have to be justified on that public benefit criterion not just because it is what the members want to happen.

 

why no create a google doc online and all0w multiple editors.... ( i know it could go all Pete Tong)

 

I agree, they could.

However, we are looking at a membership body where trustees and membership alike are united in the belief that the primary purpose of the organisation is to endeavour to restore a railway between Barnstaple and Lynton. Like a number of Articles of their era, these use language quite carefully to blend the organisation's primary purpose with the limits of the public interest test. That means that a narrow reading of the Articles is to misinterpret the primary purpose of the organisation (NB - not it's charitable benefits), and therefore the plausible interpretation of events therein.

The politics of the L&B family, however Addams like, are those of how to achieve extension; both Cavaliers (i.e. the majority Trustees) and Roundheads (the minority) are united in this objective. All of the plans discussed are likewise within that context.

If there were a serious debate about whether to extend, I would be more inclined to agree with your interpretation of events. As it is, I find the focus on the extension with regard to charitable objects a wee bit odd when so much of the Trust's money (by the most conservative view, over £500k) has been sunk into a pub that is neither essential to operation of the railway nor the education of the public on railways.