Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

When it was at Winchcombe Museum I don't think it had any innards.

 

Quite right @RailWest - it would need to be motion 1 which would need to be counted before moving on with the Agenda as if it were passed Mr Miles would no longer be a Director.

It would need to be Motion 1 as above, and whilst a co-option is possible, it would only be after the meeting by a formal Board Meeting.

 

Where an AGM is called by the directors it's pursuant to their decison to do so at a Board meeting and on the basis of an agenda they have agreed. Due notice of their decison then has to be given to members. I agree that "calling" is often used to describe the notice but I think the call is actually made at the board meeting.

 

They do look original. It is only nutcases like me I suspect who know the bits that aren't, so it's the ambience. What I might criticise in this respect is that the interiors of the thirds were scumbled as per the picture below of the upper reaches of No 2, now at York where the subsequent owner's green paint didn't reach, and the interior of the open centre compartment I posted recently. I guess white paint looks brighter, but it alters the feel.

 

So, @Lineisclear is it therefore your view that the motions to remove Chris Duffell and Anne Belsey were in fact ineffective because this was not the process followed by 'the six' in getting the motions removing them onto th EGM Agenda?

 

That sounds all very logical and sensible to me. I understood it was decided to recreate Chelfham in the independent era, so EOD signal even where the down starter was replaced by concrete, and not replace the Southern Railway wooden hut on the end of the station building used to house the weighing machine etc. And no SR lamp huts/coal shed. In which case it will have to be decided whether to replace the station name boards (running-in boards ?) that John Mack Smith spent so much effort recreating. And EA will have to decide which period to restore Bratton Fleming, but I imagine they already thought about that.

 

In the event of the motion being voted on, and being accepted by the room, I was always of the opinion, that the trustee censured does not actually step down until the meeting is declared closed, it's at that point they have been deemed to have been removed, most though will remove themselves from the rest of the meeting, following a vote against them, and another trustee takes on the role of chairing the meeting,
I hope the motion is successful, and there are no underhanded tactics by the chair, or his friends to ensure the motion is not heard, because if there is, it's only going to delay the inevitable will of the members to clean up the board,
One day, he, and his enablers, are going to be the minority on the board, and then, that's when they will lose any power they may have, and there will be no place for him, or his enablers on the board, and of course, those who backed him, will then, be removed also,

 

Many years ago - when the heritage carriages were first reintroduced into service, there were plans to have loose-fitting cushions made up for that very purpose, and a nominal charge was mentioned at the time, but I guess nothing ever came of it. It would be a cheap and simple win if it could be done.

 

Yes they do. If the Trustees/Directors are doing their jobs then the date for the AGM could easily be decided at a board meeting six months in advance - especially when a venue has to be booked. Your silly suggestion implies that noting can be added to the agenda once the date of the AGM is fixed. You conveniently forget that it is the date that the AGM is formally announced that is important and the time frame legally specified
Why do you always come across as "Management good - Must be obeyed. Workers bad - Should be ignored."?

 

Well, elsewhere on the internet there's this...

 

Well, that sounds like a ringing endorsement, @Lineisclear - perhaps we'll put the author down as 'undecided'.

 

AIUI they have given some thought to that matter, tho' I doubt that it is high on their list of priorities at the moment. Also AIUI informally the general idea is to recreate the original L&BR layout with little or no change. It is rumoured that they are looking at getting more replica EoD signals made.
There may be others on here with more knowledge.

 

I think it may be something to do with membership the HRA where he is (was?) management there. (Power!!)? We all saw much the same comments and attitude when the WSR shenanigans were going on.

 

His views have been consistent, implemented at NYMR and recommended officially and unofficially through his influence at HRA.

They are views based on good insights into corporate law and governance, but which neglect the wider stakeholder context of those who give time and money to railways in favour of a managerialist vision that is (a) questionably effective and (b) alienating of key supporters and stakeholders.

It reminds me uncomfortably of those who support autocrats because democratic processes are messy and have uncertain outcomes - if you just trust the leaders, their knowledge will see things right. The historian and political scientist in me recognises the force of that, but is concerned that it misses out what happens when those visions prove flawed, and change is required against the will of incumbent leaders.

 

Surely that is the traditional role of the rural signal box? Your signalmen will walk out if you try this silly stunt. ;-)

Having just waded through 10+ pages of largely circular discussion after a week away, I don't have much to add other than:
- Much of the debate about what the railway should look like in 20 years time seems to belie the fact that it isn't extending anywhere any time soon. In the absence of a clear plan, people resort to fantasy planning. It's fun, but not especially productive.
- It's pretty clear to me that unless an extension reaches the next original station, it's pointless as you are still an 'out and back to the middle of nowhere' railway. You could, perhaps, build to CFL as a branch to be worked top-and-tail on gala days, without bothering with a station there or all the earthworks that would entail, as a prequel to a longer extension in future, retaining KL (for now) for normal days. Otherwise you simply push up your operating costs without any real benefit. Of course, this still assumes that a longer extension is on the cards 'at some point' and that really requires permission locked in, even if funding and land ownership don't allow for the moment.
- If you build your stations for 5 coach trains, will the ORR allow you to run longer ones if some carriages will be out of the platform? I doubt you can apply grandfather rights to a station which closed nearly a century ago. Unsure if the same rules apply as on the standard gauge either, given that you have fairly low height platforms to start with. I wouldn't assume anything, but lets assume for a moment that the risks are different and that it will be allowed; then even with 5 coach loops you could run one set with more carriages provided that any (shorter) crossing train was in the loop before the longer one arrived and departed. A faff, but could be done for the odd 'special' - provided that the terminals can handle a longer train.
- There was a comment about the undesirability of adding/removing carriages during the operating day. On the standard gauge with buckeye couplers I agree (although I have seen it done, both for carriage failure and to add capacity). On the narrow gauge I'm not so sure it's that difficult. I am reminded of my trip to the Preßnitztalbahn in December 2009 (incidentally, this line is everything the L&B should be, you should all visit it and study it carefully). When I visited they were running a two-train three-loco service, with loco swaps at the top of the hill (Jöhstadt), however one loco was smaller and appeared to be limited in how many carriages it could take up the hill, so at the bottom station (Steinbach) it dropped one off, and departed without it, then the next arrival picked it up and took a longer train back up. It didn't seem to be an especially taxing procedure and made the operation much more interesting.
- Personally (not that my opinion matters here) I'm not generally in favour of 'what if' liveries. If the L&B had survived into BR ownership, you already know what it would have looked like - BR liveries applied to otherwise the original equipment with very little investment besides a coat of paint and basic maintenance - as that's what BR did to the narrow gauge line they did keep in Aberystwyth. It's perhaps instructive that today's V0R has moved away from that era.
- Finally I don't have much of an opinion about the motion to remove the chairman, other than that it was entirely predictable that someone would try this following the EGM removal of two other trustees. I don't know enough about the various factions or personalities to form an opinion about whether this would be a good thing (well, I have a view but it's irrelevant as I'm not a member), but I hope for its own sake that the L&B gets their governance issues sorted out and soon, otherwise refer back to my first point above, and repeat.

 

Sorry, it seems like so much water has passed under the bridge since this was posted, that its almost rude to go back to it... I don't believe 14 (ne 15) was widened for FR usage - examination of photos of the carriage ends shows the headstocks extend past the bodysides by about the same amount in both 1960s and 1990s bodystyle as they did when on the L&B. The bodysides were undoubtedly shortened at the bottom end in the 1960s, then relengthened as a cosmetic alteration in the 1990s, but such that they covered the framework, so now the bodysides look right-er, but much lower on the chassis when compared to the L&B stock. As the overall carriage height is much as it was in L&B days, but the eaves are much lower, the effect is of a much more barrel-roofed carriage compared to the shallower profile originally. Certainly the footboards were removed, but I don't think the underframe was ever widened to suit, and the bodysides are still sat on the underframe edge as they always were - pictures of the carriage being reassembled in the early 60s show that. The slim duckets are a 1990s replica fitment to fit in the FR loading gauge - from the 60s to the 90s there were no duckets at all.

As can be seen from the photo of the interior of 14 above, the corridor width is just slightly less than the width of the single seat - now I don't know the proportions of the Sheffield tramway seats as compared to the L&B benches, but I can't imagine that there is room for more than 4 a side in there now without the corridor. Were the L&B compartments designated for 8 persons or 10? Either way the restriction on seating capacity, much like the Ashbury coaches on the FR, is more likely the modern posterior than the overall width of the stock - The FR Ashbury carriages were designated as 5 a-side until a couple of years ago when they were reclassified as 4 a-side due to the wider passengers being fitted into them.

John

 

Sadly, you would not be able to do that as the current planning permission for KL requires that station to be removed once the railway extends south thereof. [Also, if you wanted to serve both KL and CFL by the same tain, then the train would have to reverse in and out of KL on the way past.] Of course, the railway could apply to the ENPA for yet another change.....

 

Obviously, you'd address that restriction at the same time as (re-)applying for extension powers. It could still be required to revert once the railway reaches station 'x' wherever that is. I wouldn't get too hung up about the present temporary nature of KL as blocking progress on an extension, given that at the present rate of progress extending, it is effectively permanent.

Also in terms of operating the 'branch', my thoughts were either a 'locked in top & tail' train run independently of the present operation, with a rudimentary exchange platform at KL perhaps built from sleepers, or else you simply don't serve KL on any trains which go down the extension. I was only envisaging a "couple of times a year" operation to give members and anyone willing to pay extra for it a chance for a ride, for normal days as I already said it adds nothing. So keep it as simple as possible, and spend as little as possible on anything which isn't part of the long-term plan.

 

Whilst checking up on something else, I have just noticed that ENPA Planners have agreed (on 18 March) to extend the working hours in the WB engine shed, from 09:00-18:00 to 07:00-19:00. This won't extend running times, but it will allow for more maintenance etc. to be done outside of running times, which has to be a benefit. I'm just surprised this apparently hasn't been mentioned anywhere. Planning permission for the water tank (Oh! do I remember de-rusting that tank with a wire brush many years ago - from the INSIDE!) and miniature railway storage, which had both expired, have also been extended for a number of years. so some GOOD NEWS for the L&B

 

I think you are right, what they did was reduce the size of the duckets and the height of the sides. I stand corrected, thank you.