Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

To be fair, the 4W van body had largely gone when Charles Summers spotted the shape of the roof over a wall in the back garden of a house alongside Pilton Yard in 2003. A couple of his pictures in situ illustrated his discovery in Magazine 72. Winter 2003/04. It had probably been complete, but all that was left by this time were two adjacent sliding doors (complete with the door runners and right-angled brackets) from one side and a bit of the roof. And they were in such poor condition as to only be practical as patterns for a replica. But it did enable me to make a fairly accurate drawing of the side, inside and out, which formed the basis of the drawings that appeared in 'Measured and Drawn' without a lot of assumptions/scaling from photographs. Last time I saw these remains of the doors was in the workshop rented by the Association in Bratton Fleming when John Hedderley showed them to me. By this time the drying-out process had deteriorated the woodwork even more. It also helped with drawings of the 4W open wagons as originally built, apparently on an identical chassis. The Howard Van body looked like two halves of the same van either side of the doorway, and again only suitable for replicas, but I understand the provenance suggests they are from two different bodies. They also are only suitable for replicas - photographs below in December 1994 when owned by David Moore, but like the 4W van, enabled a drawing to be made. But the 22 of the 27 drawings as built in 1927 and 14 of the 15 drawings when completely rebuilt at Eastleigh in 1934 still exist which will be required to recreate one, and again all of these were used to compile the drawings in both original and reconstructed forms that appeared in 'Measured and Drawn.'

 

Having received a multi page missive to members of the L&BR Trust through my letterbox this morning I'm wondering why I am a member of this apparently disfunctional organisation with its two at war factions of Trustees. A stiff drink will be required before reading all this, time which could be better spent on other projects. This really is'nt the way to attract support or make any forward progress.

 

It is marked as Confidential so posting anything from it is inappropriate.

 

I purposely did not post content.

 

Feels like that's a triumph of optimism over reality...

 

Yet again the L&B seem to think they are MI5

 

I quite agree. However, I shall take care to read and consider it stone cold sober, even if a stiff drink is required afterwards. A stiff drink will be necessary, however - if only because of the amount of money that trustees have chosen to spend on a mailshot rather than using existing electronic facilities.

That presumes that the claims made are accurate, and that there is nothing in that might be due repudiation in a public forum. However, I am glad that "the six" appear to have learned from their previous attempts at self-sabotage and are actively seeking to keep conversation within the Trust membership.

 

I too have received mine today, having only quickly browsed through it it would seem that the first 3rd is new content but the rest is what the trust and lbbc have posted on the railway website so at a guess only part is confidential, it will be interesting to know how this postal document has been funded and was obviously posted so as to get to all members whereas the 3 at least kept costs to a minimum using electronic communications , something that this document could have been sent by to reach those people who had the initial correspondence

 

"Leesten carefully- Ai weel say zees only vonce..."

 

Why does a vision of the Dad's Army platoon assembling in the village hall put me in mind of a Board meeting....??

 

"Don't tell 'em, Pike!"

 

" Right... (Ahem)- Now gather round, very closely" shuffle, shuffle, shuffle..

 

MI5? More like MFI! (good at assembling flat-packs )

 

yes the only trouble is you can end up with a few loose screws

 

From his performance at the members forum I'd say I know which one is Godfrey even if he is a little taller and he skinnier, he didn't have a clue

 

I think the post on the L&B website is open to interpretation:

The "required location" in this context isn't necessarily at Blackmoor, is it? That's just where it is going for now.

I accept that your interpretation is the more likely one... but it doesn't have to be.

Out of interest, how many levers did it once hold?

 

Blackmoor could always have a prototypical box for the station and a Pilton (North) for the new works access to main line and station ;-)

 

Some observations:-

1. The original B/Town box had 9 levers. Without careful assessment, it is hard to say exactly how many more could be squeezed in and still be practical for operational use.
2. There is no plan nor need to have two boxes at Blackmoor. It may be hard enough at times to find just one signalman for there, let alone two!
3. There has been a suggestion that it could be located at Wistlandpound. Why? At best WD will little different from KL with a small GF, maybe even no GF at all. There is already concern about the safety of such equipment in a 'remote' unmanned location, so why risk a valuable historic structure in such a place?

As of yesterday, I am not aware that there has been any discussion with the S&T group as to the desirability and/or practicality of re-using the BT box for operational purposes - until that happens, speculation is purely just that. And if it is going to be "restored and fitted out with signalling equipment" to become a demonstration exhibit, no problem with that but....who will decide what form this will take and how it will be used? IMHO the Trust needs to be in the serious business of preserving the L&BR's history and educating the public, not just providing some sort of 'prop' for pub attractions (sorry if that sounds a bit harsh).

 

I have no involvement in this issue (fight?)
But when you become a member of which ever organisation issued this do you have to sign a confidentiality agreement then? It is not as if you are employees so I am unclear what "law" would be broken.

 

I have not checked the membership rules for the Trust to see whether there is a confidentiality obligation that I can be considered to have signed up to. However, if an organisation of which I am a member shares information in confidence, then there is an implied duty of confidentiality. That includes the document that hit my doormat yesterday. However, I don't think I'm breaching any confidentiality in saying that this document is an elaboration of the two "rebuttal" responses that were posted on the L&B website in the summer, and are a robust assertion of the position of the "six" trustees that everything is fine and dandy. Readers' views may vary.

However, that confidentiality obligation is not absolute, and may be overridden by other obligations - notably, to regulators or under whistleblowing legislation. Imposing confidentiality excessively stringently may also be counter-productive, drawing attention to matters that might better be allowed to remain in obscurity.

Specifically with reference to the L&BRT, I will also observe that the current discussion, in public and in private, is a classic example of how problems that should have been dealt with in a transparent manner are now festering because of the wholly unnecessary secrecy being applied.