Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

But the Manning Wardle design for the L & B was a new one, it is said in books.

 

Yes it was but it came about after a longer term development from Manning Wardles which started back with the Locke class of locomotive

 

The Charity Commission will tell you precisely who is a trustee: Trustees, THE LYNTON AND BARNSTAPLE RAILWAY TRUST - 1082564, Register of Charities - The Charity Commission

 

Which Trackside appear not to have used to fact check what they published.

 

Personally, I gave up on the railway press long ago. I think the point at which I did so was shortly after something I posted on here was quoted verbatim as being the words of an official spokesperson for the railway I'm involved with.

 

As a general rule (and without reference to the L&B in particular as to whether their CC information is correct) the CC website is only correct if they have been informed of any changes and then those changes applied to the website. A charity that I was a trustee for would typically pass on the information as and when necessary, but not normally immediately (but generally within a week or two). Another charity that I'm familiar had a change of trustees, but that information wasn't reflected on the CC website for some months.

Steve B

 

There appears to be a group of people, who assume the name of reporters or similar, who cull their information from Facebook or other media.
This board has all the facilities for supposition and wide of the mark comments. It seems to give everyone entertainment or otherwise.

 

Fair comment, though as the L&B "press officer" is also the Company Secretary, one would have expected them to be congruent (and also at Companies House). And if not, one would have expected a level of fact checking.

 

I was not aware that the Trust had a Press Officer. None is listed in the back pages of the Magazine. Indeed, the L&BR website does not seem to list any Trust officers or Trustees anywhere at all !
I get the impression that Tony N has been using his capacity in one organisation to make statements about another, of which he is neither a Trustee nor an elected officer. At best, I would describe such behaviour as inappropriate.

 

Trackside clearly has their MS checked for spelling, and maybe for general railway knowledge, but not anyone with specialist knowledge. It would be nice to think that they would engage someone familiar with who the Railway's engineers were. My grouse is that many writers get out a few books on a subject to obtain their material, and think that is all they need to do to produce an article for a Magazine. That inevitably leads to old mistakes being repeated. The article on page 53 clearly used the information in Mr Payling's book on LYD but ignored the statement that William Szlumper was the L & B's consulting engineer (page 22 in that book), but then introduced a new error that he was the L & B's mechanical engineer based on a signature of 1901 on a VOR drawing. Then he extends his assumption that therefore he 'laid out the specification for the L & B's engines', suggesting 'leaving Manning Wardle to complete the detail work'. Without, as far as I am aware, a shred of evidence. It is clear from the paperwork that Frank Chanter, the Company's engineer (who was a MICE), did this. The irony of this is that this particular faux pas is in a series of paragraphs about what the author calls Myths. Does it matter ? I happen to think it does.

 

I believe that changes have to be lodged with companies house within 2 weeks of taking place. It's up to the organisation to login and make the changes.

 

And if those running an organisation* take as little heed of that requirement as of some other requirements, the information could be seriously out of date.

* I leave you all to decide for yourselves whether my statement applies to those running any particular organisation.

 

To be fair, I know of one charity where the records are significantly out of date because of issues at the Charity Commission end of the line.

 

Or Companies House:- https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04040633/officers

 

A curiosity that no trustee has ever been appointed who was born after 1969.

 

Sadly I think that too is a weakness of the current trustees, I am sure we need at least a third of those born after the year 2000, so much has changed in the world of business that if the likes of the L&BR Trust don't keep up then the current situation is only going to get worse.

That said it is down to the current trustees to make becoming a Trust for the next two generations a welcoming and beneficial area to move into, the sad outcome for now will be that the new trustees will need to be from those who can either bring the reality of the current business world or the voluntary sector to get this project back on track.

My feeling is that those who are responsible for carrying out the basic business operations of the trust, should consider their position by the next AGM. I dread to think just how much money has been wasted on the last few AGM's because they have not followed the correct path of calling the meeting.

 

I think that's being a little ambitious - I doubt the membership or even interest as a whole is even close 1/3 born after 2000! It's good to have one or two (says he, not quite squeaking in born 1999 sat on another Trust board), but anyone under 50 would be good. What's more important than diversity of age is diversity of view, and even more crucial, the energy to make change happen, not just keep steering in the same direction because it's the easy option. Sometimes that is related to age, but not necessarily.

 

And therein lies the challenge. This late 40s has a combination of family (kids now late teens, aged parent), work, and other commitments. There are few young volunteers ready, willing and able to commit to what's involved in taking a leadership position, which leaves an inherent bias towards age.

This is not just a railway issue - I have been involved in precisely these conversations elsewhere.

The challenge is for boards to make themselves welcoming and inclusive, and to seek to refresh themselves. I've recently been in a meeting where a trustee retired because his 2 terms of office were up; I found myself taken aback because elsewhere I've seen term limits either set aside (need for continuity...) or simply sidestepped (co-option following expiry of elected term). And these are in organisations where I'm talking about trustees in non-executive roles - my sense (and it's far from limited to Woody Bay) is that railway preservation confuses the role of trustee/director with hands on manager, meaning that if someone is not a trustee, they are somehow undermined in their ability to lead whichever function it is they lead.

 

Precisely, although despite that you do still manage to find time for a Trustee position. I wonder if collectively at some point people in the movement who don't want to take on that sort of responsibility might have to face up to the fact that if they don't, then everything dies.
A pattern that I've observed is that previously, people of working age would be volunteers, then at retirement, they would consider taking on additional responsibility. Now, more folk are likely to wait until retirement to volunteer at all, and so never consider moving on and take the next step to a more managerial position.

Definitely - too many directors and trustees are bogged down with day to day stuff. The problem is not necessarily the overlap, as long as people are aware of what hat they're wearing, but just by the time the 'more important' day to day stuff is dealt with, there is little time or headspace left to think about more strategic/long-term issues that perhaps directors ought to concern themselves with. Veer too far the other way though and a feeling of directors being out of touch with the volunteer base, which is never a good position to be in regardless of the legal niceties of who directors are technically accountable to.

 

Very fair, and something that I also see in a church context. It's also worth looking at relative numbers. On my church PCC, the number of working age members is disproportionately low compared to the congregation. Where I'm a trustee elsewhere, I am unusual in being of working age. That has consequences in terms of how we think and plan.