Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

By that logic and your (always generous) interpretation of the rules in favour of the incumbent regime there is virtually no way that an ordinary member can influence the AGM discussion because the Directors naturally control the agenda. The only outlet is to request that an item be included in AOB but again this is controlled by the Directors. Such behaviour is hardly a shining example of modern leadership and open debate and transparent excision making…

 

Do we actually know what the livery was for L&BR stations? Was it perhaps similar to L&SWR livery? I certainly would like to know. This must surely be part of this discussion.
Then what livery would be applied to Wistlandpound Halt as it will be a new build, as indeed would a new Lynton station (if we ever were to get that far)?

I do find these distractions interesting but I suppose what really concerns me is how we might get from KL to BR. I would imagine that a TWAO would be required but we have first to become a coherent organisation with a clear suite of policies and significant financial backing (like RVR) if we are ever to achieve this. I would imagine that we are currently viewed as a bunch of squabbling railway nerds by the Parracombe ne'er sayers and it will require a revamp of the L&BR Board of Trustees and a period of bedding-in before any progress here might be achievable. I hope the CFL plan gets ditched at the AGM too.

 

Yes, just something to try and lighten the mood here on occasion

Personally I think it would be quite simple to make seat cushions at some point, and would solve many "modern" backside problems.

 

The original livery was very similar to L&swr, but for some reason that was changed pretty quickly.
Whether that was due to L&swr making noises about being too much the same as theirs or whether the railway decided it needed a more individual look, I don't know, one for @Michael B to perhaps answer.

The livery we have now is timestamped to the time when Carriage 17 was built, with the exception of the company crests on the doors which by then were not applied due to cost. Carriage 17 had none as it never had them.

More generally to discussion on liveries.

There was also a very practical reason why the livery we have was chosen.

On choosing the livery there was a number of considerations, the oddity of Number 17, the best livery to create a corporate image, what will stand out in the countryside and create curiosity (free advertising every time the train runs), how we could use the company crest, and maintenance by volunteers who may not have coach painting and signwriting skills.

With the carriages back in daily service and with the need to look at how any carriage would need to be maintained and repainted periodically, we chose the colours as they are the easiest to repair or repaint.

If a panel or part of the woodwork get scratched, chipped or damaged there are only two colours and no lining to worry about and can be resolved fairly quickly.

 

https://www.stationcolours.info/southern-railway/
@Michael B may have more information
Talking to someone who sanded down the main doors at Woody Bay after it was purchased he said he saw no layers of green, but in a magazine article green was found on a door frame at Chelfham and was stated as southern i believe although i would question this on my own ability with painting and getting it everywhere because in the false roof space at Bratton Station there is what looks like the original wall paint colour and this is a darker green so that found on the door frame at Chelfham could have been someones sloppy wall painting

 

;

That's fair assessement of what it means to be a member of an incorporated charity. Such entities are, as the L&B charity's Articles confirm, run by their directors not their members. The rights of members to table motions are enshrined in company legislation but they usually need to have the backing of at least 5% of the members to do so and in some cases they would have to bear the cost of the meeting at which the motion is to be tabled.

It's not a case of interpreting the law in favour of the incumbent regime but of holding those who seek to bring a motion to the AGM to the same standaed of legal compliance that they rightly expect of those incumbents. Assuming the directors have resolved at a board meeting to call the AGM my interpretation of the law is that the agenda is then fixed and no notice of further motions received after that point can change it. Others disagree. We'll have to see who's right.

There is no legal right to propose anything at an AGM under AOB. The only business that can be voted on at an AGM is that for which due notice has been given to the members in advance. That ensures that last minute initiatives such as motions from the floor on the day cannot be imposed on members without their having the opportunity to consider and vote on them.

Best practice is to encourage open debate at an AGM but that would normally be after the formal business of the meeting has concluded.

 

But what about station livery Dave?

 

I think the other problem with going back over layers is that during the war years often it was whatever colour you could get, or what the ministry allowed, usually a range of dark basic colours.

 

Not sure on that one, I suspect most of the time after the closing of the L&B company and it becoming a branch line and rotation of repaint it was a bit of a mix mostly, again @Michael B will probably be able to help there.

 

I know that if you have two lawyers you will often have two interpretations of the law, but I am not a lawyer. I don’t find your argument that the meeting is called when the directors hold a minuted meeting very compelling. I think a more reasonable interpretation of the act is that it is deemed called when notice is given publicly, but even then the act allows for resolutions to be proposed after said notice.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that members run any charity or company, but they most certainly have the right and the duty to hold the directors to account. Directors have the duty to behave in the best interests of the organisation, and whether it is a charity or not, clearly acting against the wishes of the members where those wishes are not vexatious, illegal or otherwise obviously not rationally in the organisation’s best interests is not discharging their duty.

 

But what of (especially older) persons' backs, Dave? They might need back rests or rolls too? Say five pounds for hiring the seat and back support together? Or ten??

 

And I'm sorry, I actually misread your initial post on station liveries. The dangers of reading and posting on here when in a rush in the mornings hehe

 

As much as you can squeeze out of them, throw in a heated back massager too, with foot spa and nails done for the ladies. Won't be that out of place with the number of nail bars around now in town and city centres, and we can use any carriage with sliding compartment wall down for a barber shop for the gents while we are at it, head back over the seat, snip snip!

 

I'm not sure charging a fare, and then a supplement to make the seats comfortable, is a good look! I suspect you are going to have to bite the bullet and, for seats that have no covering, provide cushions routinely if the route gets significantly extended.

One of the NER carriages at the Tanfield Railway has bare wooden seats and, at 3 miles one way / 6 miles round trip, that is probably getting towards the limit without providing cushions.

Tom

 

The 5% rule (and cost provisions) are only material for calling an EGM, @Lineisclear - that's not what is happening here. This is a motion that is correctly proposed and seconded to the AGM, has been served with ample notice well in excess of the Special Notice requirement, and before the Agenda could have been finalised because it was before the Trustee nomination window closed. Mr Miles and his friend may not like it, but it has to go on the Agenda and to the Members to vote on it - just as they did last month for Chris Duffell and Anne Belsey.

And even if you were right on this, @Lineisclear (and for the reasons above I think you're mistaken), then the implication is that the two motions to remove Chris Duffell and Anne Belsey would be invalid as they were proposed only by six ordinary Members (who in this case also happened to be Trustees) - it was not an action of the Trust Board. You can't have it both ways - and the better answer is that the motions against Chris Duffell and Anne Belsey were valid, and therefore that Members have a right to propose motions to General Meetings if the notification periods have been met - as they clearly have in this case.

It is clear that a motion to remove a Director cannot be raised under AOB as it would not have met the Special Notice requirement of s168(2) of the Companies Act 2006.

Yet strangely all your posts, however ill-informed about the L&B, do do exactly that. How curious....

 

Use the clippings as filling for new upholstered seats? On which subject I remember the 2HAL units on the Maidstone East service way back when. I just could not believe the luxuriance of the upholstered seats. Luxury! Even in third class. Tell that to the kids of today and they wouldn't believe ya!!

 

There are two possible meanings of "expect": what members expect that honest and upstanding incumbents would do, and what members expect that the present incumbents will do.

 

On the matter of this proposed Motion:-

1. As I have remarked already on exmoor-ng, IMHO it is badly formatted for presentation as an actual Motion on which to vote. The first two motions on the EGM Agenda were just one-liners, with the rest of the background reasoning presented elsewhere. I have suggested that this new motion should read no more than (say) ""Motion: That Mr Peter Miles be removed as a Director and Trustee for the reasons set out in the accompanying information, and barred from acting as a Director and Trustee in the future in order to allow the railway to move forward".

2. Assuming that motion does make its way onto the Agenda, then should it not be the first item of business? After all, do you want PM to continue to chair a meeting when it is possible that he will be dismissed as Chairman by the time that the meeting ends?

3. If the motion is passed, what happens then about the vacant post thereby created? If the Motion is not voted until after the election of new Trustees, we will be left with a vacancy for which the Board will have to co-opt a replacement.
The eagle-eyed may have noted by now that I have amended the wording of my draft motion at (1) above from what I wrote originally elsewhere. That is because it occurs to me now that, if you merely bar someone from standing again for election, that does not bar them from being co-opted - you would need to bar them from actually being a Trustee by whatever means.

4. If the motion is voted before the election of new Trustees, then in effect there will be 5 vacancies not 4. Assuming there were more than 4 candidates standing, members in attendance at the meeting therefore could have the chance to vote for 5 rather than 4. But the proxy/postal votes would have been submitted already on the prior assumption/instruction that members could vote only for 4 candidates in total. So what happens then?

 

Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London charges for seats and then extra for cushions (or at least that was the case when I last went there).

 

I would have to agree that charges for cushions should not be made, that is taking the P a bit, if its already £8.50 for a round trip of under 2 miles i would wonder what a round trip of 8+ miles would be. I'm sure if a suitable fabric was chosen along with a suitable grade of foam there are plenty of members who would relish the chance to knock up some cushions for the carriages