Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

When Mr Gove came on Radio 4 this morning I initially thought he was talking about Mr Hester, but then I wondered if he's a member of the Trust ? I think we ought to be told.

 

The bush telegraph suggests there might be some courageous people thinking of trying to arrange that. Let's hope so for all our sakes. Then we can rally round and get our wallets out.

 

It's been suggested, by a credible source. I've not yet seen anything definitive one way or the other, and hesitate to speculate.

 

Must admit the first I heard about YVT was hmm, just before the pandemic or about then I guess. But then I'm a newby on the block still relatively hehe

When I look at the various proposals put forward and the post vote report with regard to BG-WLP they are not really a million miles apart.

In the post vote report that came from the trust in April '23 there is a section which speaks about running two railways.

Concern over running 2 railways.

Some people feel that another railway may be detrimental to operations at Woody Bay and that we may not have sufficient staff and maintenance resources to cover both.

This consultation is focused on finding a way to break the planning deadlock to enable construction of the railway to proceed. Construction will take a significant period of time during which there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss and investigate the many possible arrangements for managing, operating and maintaining two sections of railway. This will also include commercial assessment and types of motive power such as battery electric tramcars.

The options in the way forward sound very similar to this, except we abandon KL-CFL at the moment and just concentrate on BG-WLP. The trust were looking to do both knowing that it would take a while to get the paperwork through for the KL-WLP section.

BG-WLP is now secured, the building of the two bridges means we no longer as far as I know have to worry about any lapse of planning, progress at any time will be good and could have even been started by now.

The problem is so much trust time, and now other parts of the railway too including the CIC, have been taken up by arguments about governance, M&As and a board that isn't functioning collectively that the time spent has been wasted, time that could have been bent towards perhaps action at BG-WLP while that background paperwork is being done for KL-WLP.

There is no reason, if the animosity between groups and individuals is sorted out, that action on any part of the line isn't done collectively, and it doesn't need for all to be joined at the hip.

This is why I think a liaison group with ambassadors from each group whose sole duty is to be a channel of communication between all, speaking at each other's AGMs, speaking at events, etc may be useful.

The thing is with KL-CFL as far as I know there is one piece of land (or access to) which has a time factor on it, if it's not used by a certain time it reverts back to the owner. I think it's the piece with the four posts from an old crossing? We also have time ticking on the bridge. So it makes sense to keep things moving forward there.

BG-WLP isn't so critical, we have the planning secured there by the two bridges built, but things can be done there too at I would say relatively low cost in the form of land husbandry and clearing and fencing that trackbed.

To me the thing that's holding this all back is the arguments and personality clashes not the basic root ideas on the way forward.

Many are now saying to me why are they arguing, this has been going on for ages, it needs to stop, it's destructive and holding us back.

Funding will come in if we stop these arguments, it doesn't matter whether we have one organisation or ten, as long as it's working together it doesn't matter. The talk of merging and soon by some is unsettling to some, and I think that its way too soon too, the relationships need sorting first so that any merger in the future is an amicable one, not as many may be feeling at the moment and feel that it's a takeover. That I am afraid is probably down to the legacy of the upsets some 20 years ago.

In my view, let the trust get on with the planning process at KL-CFL, it's going to take a while and in the mean time let's explore doing the land work at BG-WLP.

Both sections will need doing at some time, we know KL-CFL has its problems and is an expensive bit relatively but all the more reason to get that obstacle out of the way with. Once done it's done and can provide a means to mend the relationships with the village and get them used to the railway closer.

A long time ago I had a fairly long conversation with the late Geoff Bunton, and he asked me what I thought of doing the KL-WLP section in one go. I replied and said the problem is what I call "community shock".

He looked at me strange and said, "What do you mean?". So I explained....

If you do a little bit at a time, quietly extending bit by bit, the local community gets used to you, it doesn't sound like HS2 coming though, they can see that it is a little railway that has a little train go by once an hour or so on a thin strip of land, unlike the huge scars of HS2 and the associated impact. They will also see that we are actually using what was already once a railway, and not new build with cutting down forests and knocking down important structures etc. The railway is essentially already there.

In trying to do large chunks it immediately begins to feel threatening to the local community, big changes in their neighbourhood, the omg factor kicks in and you get opposition. Whether rational or irrational, it doesn't matter, it happens.

(This is why looking back to when we were looking to get to Heddon Hall is in many ways , it could be said that most appeared to be wanting the railway there, most seemed amicable etc, but the moment of real truth would have been when the planning application was put in and who subsequently objected. Talk is one thing, but once it's black and white and in for consideration, reality hits, then you find out how people feel about things. Personally I don't think it matters when or who put in for an extension to Heddon, CFL or PH, once it was realised what was going on, certain objections would have arisen.)

A little bit at a time, break the larger problem into smaller chunks, more manageable, less "community shock".

The problem we have had is that when the railway was looking to extend, and yes, originally just to Heddon Hall, the advice from the big guys in funding and business, and also a business research exercise funded by a grant, all said to to go for a larger section, funding was available, EU money was sloshing around as Brexit hadn't risen it's head, big lotteries had more money and so on.

Additionally on the lottery side of things it was advised to go for the larger due to making sure the case was dealt with by Big Lotteries in London, rather than the smaller normal Lottery office in Exeter. Since then, Bexit has happened, grants have dried up, and it left us with what was once a viable way forward, high and dry.

My conversations with Geoff at the time and indeed other trustees questioning if all at once was the right thing to do shows that it was thought about. But, when the big guns advise, and not just one, and in the financial environment we had at the time, could they have justified going back on that advice if, most importantly, Brexit hadn't have happened?

I tend to think we would now be having calls of why didn't we go for the larger section if we were now stuck at Heddon Hall.

Nobody saw us leaving the EU, nobody expected the pandemic, many business plans and aims and aspirations of organisations have been clobbered by both. We are just one of them in my view.

So we are where we are.

There are so many bits of this railway that can be worked on, we could get track down at Snapper, have open days with a mobile tea van there, and maybe look at ways to rebuild the broken river bridge, Chelfham the same in getting track down. Alternating those open days so you don't draw excessively on volunteers. Bratton Fleming I think may need to sleep a bit longer, parking is almost non existent but, it still needs it's shed rebuilt and sometimes its an advantage to have somewhere which isn't too publicly known or accessed to store things needed for the future. Blackmoor to WLP, clear trackbed, do hedges, track down. Sort out the planning for the A399 bridge etc. KL to CFL, continue the planning process for that section and Woody Bay, support and make it an even greater success flying the flag for the L&B worldwide. Beyond.. Deep pockets, probably £2-3 million from what I've heard just to cross the A39 and lane to Woolhangar.

How are we going to solve the trackbed on the road below WLP, Lansey (sp?) Brook Viaduct, repair the bridge in Mill Lane. Etc etc etc.


Arguments, need to stop. That's all.

 

That's actually not far off what I had in mind. I would alter the front end though to something more modern but still in the style of the L&B.

I don't think I would go longer than the original heritage carriages either otherwise it could cause track problems, ours are long for NG as it is.

When I get the chance I'll draw someting up and people can comment as they like.

At the moment heck busy but I like it like that hehe

 

I agree, arguments need to stop. But that means having serious discussion about the pros and cons of different options, openly and frankly, to get to a plan that works. The consultation last year was a start on that, but it didn't really address the serious questions - and I remember being surprised at discussion of CFL when it came to the AGM.

"Community shock" may or may not be a factor (I personally think there's more to the opposition at Parracombe than that), but the opportunity to pre-empt it has already been lost. Any strategy that involves extending west from Killington Lane will inevitably be challenged over how it relates to the 2018 plans. That means doing things differently - whether by deferring BG-KL till it's closing the gap, or by adopting a different approach to local opposition.

 

My understanding is that the land with a 'time factor ' on it is in the BR-WD section, which is why there is so much concern amongst many of us that something more must be done soon in that section to avoid its loss.

 

I understood this, too - just south of OSHI as I understand it.

 

Does anyone know the wording of the covenant?
Also, does this section contain either of the rebuilt bridges, because this could well have a bearing upon the covenant's validity.

 

I suspect the answers are No and No, but others on here may have more information.

 

Ahh, that's the bit EA once had? So many bits with this railway you lose track (no pun intended hehe).
It might be that as some clearing has been done and the bridges that it's classed as begun.
As Mark above has indicated, the wording will be important.

 

The concern was/is that the 'wording' - whatever it may have been - implied "bringing the line into use". Whether by 'line' it meant any part of the BR- WD section, or specifically the land acquired from that specific landowner is unclear, but the suspicion is the latter, in which case the work on the bridges etc is irrelevant. Equally unclear is the definition of "bring into use" - would recreational footpath suffice, or laying track suffice, or must it be actual trains carrying paying passengers - who knows?.

Once again, yet another example of something which has been raised many times already, but about which the Board remains remarkably silent - why? Another communication fail ?

 

Thats the impression that Peter gave at last years AGM, the land at Higher Bodley, that's between Killington Lane and CFL i believe has to be completed within 12 months once construction commences

 

If there are issues with the governance then quite rightly the trust or those responsible should be taken to task whoever they are, the correct running of the trust should be paramount before anything else i have made a call at the last AGM to have a professional secretary because of so many mistakes, the current one even had a rant 'Cowling style' and suggested @Tobbes might like to foot the bill, yes they have asked if a member would volunteer to fill the spot but with no apparent success so they should pay for an independent one, look at the shambles we face at this EGM, its nothing more than farcical, if the leadership cannot carry out its basic duties the we are all doomed

 

I believe you are right, I know there is one bit there that has a time factor, and in that case it might be access rather than trackbed ownership.

 

I guess that there does come a point where it becomes necessary for certain positions to be paid for positions, especially where any volunteer is also doing other roles as well.

The larger and more complex any organisation gets the more likely this is so and I should imagine most other heritage railways have paid for office staff.

It's interesting they have advertised for someone to take on that secretarial position as a volunteer but no one willing to do it.

One of the calls recently has been to look to the membership for people with skills etc, I think sadly we have people who may have the skills, but none perhaps want to commit to the huge amount of time some roles may take up as a volunteer, some positions I should imagine are almost equivalent to full time employment.

 

With the current regime, I imagine there could be potential secretaries who have been put off by the accusations of illegal activities and pressure being put on individuals to bend/break the rules.
I suggest a clean sweep of the board will be required before too many members offer their services.

 

If things work out at the two forthcoming meetings we could see the 'majority six' become four and the 'minority' become five, whereupon the new minority might find the culture shock too much for them. At least they could find themselves outvoted, and lose the power their leader seems to command. It's in the hands of the membership - hopefully the majority will have read both sides of the argument - it's a question of who they believe and how they vote in the interests of taking the Trust forward (before a lot of people vote with their feet).

 

This is why in my opinion there needs to be a paid neutral professional secretary who has the balls to hold trustees to account, with the present set-up you have a secretary who until 3 years ago was also a trustee, is a director of the CIC which shares a common chairman and is one of the 'boys', it also seems his 'magazine' takes priority over all other matters and the last few issues of that show a downhill slide

 

I can understand that viewpoint, however I think if at all possible, heritage railways should use volunteers for all positions to reduce the running costs.
Obviously safeguards can be built-in to prevent current or past trustees from holding certain positions, a maximum time permitted in post, no double jobbing etc with a fallback of a paid position if no one suitable is found.