Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

So less or no local competition on Mondays and Fridays...

 

I note a sniff of "Who is the railway for?" appearing in some of the comments. It is a difficult balancing matter when you have very passionate members or volunteers for whom accuracy is very important and they want to do the absolute best they can while many of the passengers would be holidaymakers and possibly not even railway enthusiasts who just 'Wanna ride on a train...'. Compromises have to be reached. If the majority of your passengers are the just want a ride type then you have to consider giving them what they currently accept as 'normal' like tea rooms, toilets and something for the kids to do while they are waiting for the return journey. It might not fit in date wise or be 'heritage' but if you want those positive reviews then you've got to do what you've got to do. It's not something the passionate people want to see and can upset some but if that what brings in the revenue to pay for the detail the passionate people want to achieve then somewhere along the line it has to be accepted. It may not be liked but knowing that the grockles (is that what they are there?) are helping pay for detailed restorations rather than using modern people shifting carriages should help.
Most people don't understand preservation or heritage and the children even less. May a time I have heard children entering a nicely restored Mk. 1 compartmented coach for the first time calling out "Ooh look, it's a Harry Potter train" Pardon me while I scream...

 

Not really. More like less or no passengers anywhere...

 

We are talking here about a railway which spent approximately 25 years as an independent railway and 13 years as part of the Southern Railway, so in my mind it will always be case of a "railway of two parts" as it were. To that extent therefore I have always avoided getting too deep into any discussion about period and liveries etc, other than to say that I favour a representation of both rather than making a choice of one or the other.

Then, course, you add into the mix those who wish also to include the 'what if/might have been' results of a continued existence way beyond 1935 and even into BR days, but in that case I fear that we would be erring into the realms of guesswork/fantasy and beginning to lose sight of both the 'heritage' aspect of what we do currently and also the USP that is the L&BR as we (or our forebears) used to know it.

I mentioned previously about the 'choice' between the original EoD signalling and the later SR period replacements. For various reasons it was decided - and there appears to have been no objection - that the L&BR Signalling Principles would predicate the later style as the default, but with the option to use the older style where it was felt more appropriate for the location (eg Chelfham).

One 'issue' which arose concerned what to do, if anything, about the use of later SR style (eg UQ arms etc) equipment, but the view at the time was that - given the sole instance of an UQ arm on the L&BR (and only for a very short period) - it would be somewhat unrepresentative of the original L&BR and best avoided if at all possible. A possible concession was envisaged for signalling at locations which never previously had any, but might - one could pretend - have gained some under imaginary SR post-1935 'improvements' (such as a loop at Parracombe or Caffyns etc). My personal view is that a mix of pre- and post- 1923 styles would be reasonable - and accurate - whereas adding one or more extra imaginary post-1935 styles would make it all too much of a hotch-potch. But others may have a different view?

 

Is Minehead local? When my wife came down with me for the EGM, she was looking for "local" things to do on a squally day in Lynton. Dunster Castle didn't score very well as "nearby" despite being otherwise free for an NT member.

 

More likely…not enough trade to make it worth opening?

 

Touche!

 

Maybe this points to the reason Birmingham went bust!

 

>>>Hear from our Museum Detox panellists how seeking out diverse voices, perspectives, and experiences in leadership positions will help foster innovation, creativity and the building of trust and legitimacy across your organisation and the broader community you serve....

Sorry to sound cynical - well, I am - but what I see is a nice sounding string of 'buzz words' and nothing on the basics of how to have a nice museum with things in it that people will want to see.

 

There's a lot of sense in that.

On period, I'd make two points:

• As far as infrastructure goes (i.e. anything glued to the baseboard ) you could set everything in one period, or you could have different locations in different periods, perhaps presented as a timeline in one direction or the other. There is merit in either approach. But what you should settle is, for any individual location (i.e. station) what period you wish to represent, and then document that decision in a heritage policy. That then means that there is no need for much subsequent discussion about reconstruction at any particular location: get that discussion done up front and then get everyone working from the same script.
• Having decided, you should interpret a policy such as "Much Meddling station will be presented as it was in the early SR era" to mean "as it appeared in that era according to documentary evidence such as surviving photographs". That is very different from "using equipment and paint schemes from that period". In the main, infrastructure changed slowly, so - subject to documentary evidence - often things were using older equipment and painting, particularly at a backwater. I have a personal bugbear on the Bluebell where that idea hasn't been followed, such that a clear policy statement about the period of stations ends up presenting stations in a way that clearly conflicts with photographic evidence of how they actually looked at the time in question. Sometimes there are good reasons (such as reinstatement, in sympathetic style, of canopies at Horsted Keynes that had been removed in the period the station portrays) but sometimes there is no good reason (such as painting Kingscote in 1950s colours when the photographic evidence showed it was still clearly carrying wartime paint scheme up to the point of closure).

I think whimsy such as "what might have been" - i.e. "how would the railway have looked had it survived into the BR era?" should be avoided at all cost - leave that to the modellers. You're either in the preservation business or you are not.

On rolling stock - firstly, you have to accept that, if your infrastructure policy presents a range or periods along the line, then inevitably at some points you will get conflicts, though I suspect probably not too severe - I'd leave others more knowledgeable about L&BR infrastructure to comment just how much it changes in 40-odd years of the line's original existence. I do detect that there is a strong preference - at least expressed on this thread - for original (L&BR) liveries, which I find quite interesting. I suspect for many people - certainly myself - the greater prevalence of SR-era photos means that, when asked to picture the L&B in my mind's eye, I tend to think of it in SR form. On the standard gauge, I tend to prefer the pre-grouping to grouping era where possible, but in the L&B case, my mental picture is of an SR line - green locos and carriages and all.

Tom

 

As I've said before, I am not against a nod to the Southern Era, and as such, I think Woody Bay looks great. But for our corporate image and that commercial aspect to our visitors, the original livery stands out more and shouts L&B.

Fair enough, but we are one of the very few that was designed and built for the tourist industry and is linked closely to the town of Lynton, of which much was built once the railway got there, along with the Cliff Railway.

You know my thoughts in OSHI, and you know I know there will have to be some differences. It the degree of differences which could spoil this railway if taken too far.

And yet you are suggesting extending platforms to take 8 car rakes, at quite a cost, and also if even possible quite major groundworks to adjust gradients on entry and exit of stations, to accommodate carriages which actually only carry half the number of passengers. We have 1st class, you want comfort and a soft seat for your backside, upgrade. Hot water bottle is £2.50, travel blanket £2, £1 each refunded on return to any station. Copy of The Times at cost.

FR has always been there, its never really closed, it doesn't have a defining period. They can actually do whatever they want as it's the progression of a company that's been active since the Victorian period.

I don't think it's right in referring to the people who may not want this railway and have objections in such a way. It doesn't get them on our side, it's demeaning and won't win us favours. The comment was by a local, and it was in reference to non heritage stock. If you want to get anywhere with the locals and even the ENPA, it might be that we have to agree that we keep as closely as we can to the original railway as part of whatever bargain is struck.

I agree discussion is good, but we have to be careful of drifting so far as to become a joke. If we learn from other railways, none of which truly work or profit from some fancy local commuter or transport service despite their aspirations to do so, then that should be one of the very first lessons we learn. We are a heritage railway, and we should stick to the heritage, that's the main selling point, and if done right, it has huge potential.

 

Well, I thank you, kind sir

As regards liveries, I would agree that - based on photos etc - the over-riding image of the L&BR may well be SR green. BUT....having now seen and experienced the coaches in L&BR livery, IMHO the latter 'shout' the uniqueness of the L&BR far more than any amount of plain SR green.

I was born and brought up with BR(S) green steam and coaches. If you like SR green, then fine but...there are other places that you can go to see that if you want a 'green fix'.

 

I'd agree with that, though the contract manager in me would put the rule for interpretation into that policy so that there's no room for subsequent discussion.

Where I'd differ - and on the L&B I think this will need to be applied to traction and rolling stock, and what that means - is in thinking through the relationship between traffic needs (let's say the 8 car trains posited by @Tobbes) and the restored railway.

My own view is that this is something that many railways have done a lot less well than they might have done, for a variety of good reasons (the buildings at Sheffield Park come vividly to mind in the context of a wayside station). At the L&B, given the known limits of the Manning Wardles and finite supply of "original" vehicles, there are then real choices to be made about whether to:
1. Restore "as was";
2. Apply "what if"; or
3. Follow the "little Switzerland" pattern and acknowledge the way that the Swiss minor railways have generally gone modern.

My own view is that if (1) isn't practical, then a blend of (2) and (3) would be necessary. I personally quite like the "what if" approach, considering how incremental development of the L&B designs might have proceeded given the constraints of Pilton Works and a shoestring operation, but also think that some outright modernity might well create the space for contrast with the genuine "as it was".

All of these come back, though, to what we expect to have to operate so that plans can be future proofed.

 

Did anyone else see that poster who posted his letter to Tony Nicholson with a motion to Peter Miles?

 

Something about TN flashed up on my screen just now, but then promptly disappeared.

Rumour did reach my ears that something of that nature had been sent, but rejected - don't know any more (yet).

 

Here’s the post in question:

“
Hi all,

Is Tony Nicholson Ok? As I have sent a Motion to Remove Peter Miles as a Director / Trustee for the next AGM on 3/4/23 and as of now no reply, I also emailed Tony and the Trust on Saturday with no reply.

It is important to share this as you are aware I have sent it in and it will be heard at the AGM.

Dear Tony,

I am writing to you to confirm receipt of the letter that was signed for by Stuart Nelhams at Woody Bay on Wednesday 3rd April. Well before the date entries for the new trustees.I hope that this has happened and entered into the agenda of the AGM. I am aware of the rebuttal by Brom Bromidge to accept this from the floor last time by Steven Ball, seconded by myself. Of which was unacceptable according to the M&A's.With the recent EGM and the fallout from it. Time has most definitely come for a change at Peter's Railway.I am also aware of the members and volunteers, lack of trust with the Trust. I am seeing from the social media of the dis-trust with the Trust and the unwilling to remit to membership renewaling. I also heard of legacies being rerouted to other railways.As all this stands, this has a detrimental effect on my beloved railway. I hope to kerb the spread of dissatisfaction and also walk outs with volunteers, before it's too late.

Yours kindly,

Chris Lane

Supporter, volunteer, adviser and member of the Lynton & Barnstaple Railway

Peter Miles,

Ian Cowling,

Martin Swainson,

John Barton,

Paul Curson,

Charles Summers,

Mike Whiteaker,

Stuart Nelhams.



Motion to Remove Peter Miles as a Director / Trustee

Peter Miles has chaired the Board of Trustees since 2008. The first duty of the Trust Chairman is to the future best interests of the Trust. Mr Miles has promised a great deal and delivered little. His one clear success was achieving planning permission for an extension from Killington Lane to Wistlandpound, for which he and the Board received deserved praise.

Unfortunately, it immediately became obvious that Mr Miles had no strategy to satisfy the planning conditions (so-called “Grampian Conditions”) required to take the construction forward.

Worse still, four years were lost due to incorrect maps being included in the planning documents – an entirely avoidable mistake which cost the Trust in both time and money to correct, and for which the planning consultants were never held responsible.

With time running out and no plan, the Miles-led board then launched an attempt to reach Parracombe Halt via a Section 73 (s73) application in early 2022. The Exmoor National Park Authority (ENPA) planners informed the board in August 2022 that it would be invalid, and that ENPA would act unlawfully if it granted it.

Instead of being honest with Members, local people and the planners whose support we need to extend the railway, the Miles-led Board accused the ENPA planners of inaction, publicly and wrongly blaming them for the failure of the s73 application. Since then – and on the website even now – Mr Miles and his friends misrepresent the amount of money available for the extension in the ‘Return to Parracombe’ Fund: lying to the Members is certainly not in our railway’s best interests.

As Chairman, Peter Miles conspired with Tony Nicholson as Company Secretary to keep Anne Belsey’s valid nomination off of the 2023 Trustees Election ballot, libelling her in Newsletter 81 and on email. At the 2023 AGM, after pressure from the floor, he changed his mind and allowed her name onto the ballot – at a cost of several thousand pounds for a second posting and ballot to be arranged. Given that this was exclusively caused by Mr Miles and Mr Nicholson, it would have been reasonable for them to reimburse the Trust for the costs of their actions. They have not.

The Chairman’s core job is to create consensus on order to take the railway forward. After this unnecessary second vote, at least two of the board members then outright refused to work with Anne, Chris Duffell and Mike Whiteaker, and no constructive Board meetings have been held since August 2023. Calling a completely unnecessary EGM in March 2024, at a further cost of several thousand pounds, was a transparent attempt to control who could stand for election at the AGM.

At the EGM itself, Mr Miles claimed that the main purpose of the meeting was in fact to remove Anne Belsey and Chris Duffell, and that the motion to approve the proposed Articles of Association (AoAs) had been added afterwards. It soon became clear (from the minutes of the February Board meeting) that the opposite was true, and that the EGM had originally been called to approve the proposed AoAs. The motions to dismiss Anne and Chris were in fact added to the agenda after the Board meeting had closed; again, lying to the Members is unacceptable.

The denigration of ENPA officials, the rigging of votes, opaque transactions around the purchase of the OSI, making statements which are demonstrably untrue, and wasting thousands of pounds on an unnecessary EGM in a clear attempt to shut out those who would disagree, demonstrates that Mr Miles is not capable of building the collaborative and effective management structure and culture the railway needs to succeed. In his actions and choices, Mr Miles has failed in his duties to the charity, the railway, and to you, our fellow Members.

Mr Miles should therefore be removed as a Director and Trustee, and barred from standing again, to allow the railway to move forward.

Proposer: Chris Lane

Seconder: Steve Ball”

 

Well, the Motion makes sense, but I'm afraid the covering message baffles me

>>I am writing to you to confirm receipt of the letter that was signed for by Stuart Nelhams at Woody Bay on Wednesday 3rd April.
Why? Surely he should be asking TN to confirm that he (TN) has received it? And then asking if it has been included in the Agenda and if not, why not.

>>>>I am aware of the rebuttal by Brom Bromidge to accept this from the floor last time by Steven Ball, seconded by myself. Of which was unacceptable according to the M&A's.
But under which Clause(s) of the M&AoA? I can't find any that appear to be relevant.