Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

No doubt (a) and (b) are your personal opinions but where's your evidence to justify them? I realise this is not immediaterly relevant to the L&B but I can't let your negative representation of the NYMR go unchallenged. Its volunteer numbers are up and increasing, levels of financial support from stakeholders such as Arts Council England are strong, revenue is up around 23% with innovations like Gift Aid on fares so the results suggest your gloomy assessment is without foundation. Of course not everyone is comfortable with the changes that are being forced on the sector as a whole so the reason for them must be explained. That's one of the reasons I will be doing a 400mile round trip later this week for a Trustee open session at which all volunteers are welcome to raise issues of concern and their suggestions for the future. That builds on the existing "Duty Trustee" scheme where, each month, a Trust board member is tasked with getting out and about to talk to staff volunteers and visitors reporting their findings back to the board. Is that indicative of an autocratic approach?

 

It has just occurred to me that the lowering of the bodysides is best shown in the post 1990s rebuilt carriage by the doorways that are still doorways - the floor height comparative to the rail is much as it always was, but the door treadplates are now a good 6 to 8 inches up the door outline, showing where the floor is now, compared to where it was on initial construction.



John

 

So how does that get past the HMRC GA regulations? As part of a consultation group drawing up the rules 30-odd years ago, I'm surprised that is possible.

 

It would seem not. Amongst Bob Jones' surviving papers (copy courtesy of Colin Pealing and Paul Gower who acquired them) the draft specification for the station at Blackmore Gate (sic), and Martinhoe crossed through, was 'The whole of the wood and ironwork prepared for painting to be painted 3 coats of good oil colour, unless where otherwise described as being varnished where it is to be once sized and twice varnished with good copal oak varnish.' The copy of the Lynton Engine Shed and Goods Shed specifications both have : 'all woodwork to be painted 3 coats of approved tint.' and for windows : '3 coats as before'. Photographs at the time of the opening suggest windows were white, and woodwork dark, but of indeterminate colour. The small signal boxes from Blackmoor and Chelfham both had maroon corner pillars and cream (in the mid sixties when I found the Blackmoor one comparatively recently with Chelfham), which would tie with black and white photographs when the railway was running as opposed what would have been standard SR livery. John Harvey has suggested paint stocks continued to be used after the Southern took over the grouped railways - maybe this happened on the L & B and they just added a nameboard above the doorway on the boxes. The porch on Bratton Fleming station had 6.24 above the door which probably suggests one repaint by 1935.

 

As far as I am aware BFS will be independent L&B, too much green elsewhere

 

Another view of a L & B cushion to show the depth - quite comfortable as I remember. Must have saved some ridged posteriors after an hour and a half.

 

I think, @Lineisclear your views on how the L&B should be run are clear.

And they were decisively rejected with the proposed M&As last month in one of the largest turnouts the railway has seen in recent years.

I also note that you've not responded to this:

I await your view with interest.

 

They couldn't do better than speak to Mr Stockwell in that case.

 

Clearly since 1970 when the picture below suggests the floor was at it's original height but lowered 1 1/4 " on the bogies and maybe the body lowered.

 

As an aside...

Some years ago the S&DRT's restored S&DJR First Class Coach 4 was at Minehead for one of the WSR's Galas. Coupled with the Peckett 'Kilmersdon', it ran short shuttles within 'station limits', so I went for a ride - an erstwhile 'perk' of being both a WSR and S&DRT volunteer at the time with the right 'connections' .

Sitting on the really thick blue cushions, the initial impression was real comfort and luxury - until we got moving! Had we been on an actual service train, I would have 'jumped ship' as soon as we'd got to Dunster - quite how Victorian passengers endured a journey of any length in a 6-wheeled carriage astounds me, let alone going all the way from Bath to Bournemouth West :-(

 

Worth remembering that that carriage (like many Victorian renovations) is on a non-original under frame, specifically in that case one from a 6-wheel LMS CCT. Many Victorian four wheelers are running on ex-parcel van under frames. Those have much shorter springs than they would originally have had, so the ride quality isn't directly analogous to how it would originally have been.

Compare https://www.flickr.com/photos/train-pix/25783003982 (modern) and https://content-eu.invisioncic.com/...ssed.jpg.7cde91f7730a4957e013c9a324f05e4a.jpg (detail from a Derby drawing of a 33'6" carriage (from: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/forums/topi...in-4mm-–-the-d508-appreciation-thread/page/5/ if the image doesn't load). Not my images.

Also - "quite how Victorian passengers endured a journey of any length in a 6-wheeled carriage astounds me" - well, if your alternative is a stagecoach on rutted roads, then even a bumpy railway carriage is probably quite attractive ...

Tom

 

In fairness, the body is on a fish van underframe which wouldn't have had the same amount of suspension as a passenger carrying vehicle - dead fish aren't as fussy about ride quality! Also the track in the yard won't be the same as a running line.

 

We opted to go for an all steel underframe due to the inspector at the time saying it wouldn't be looked on favourably to have mixed wooden and steel underframe in a rake due to crush dangers in the event of a shunt or crash.

As far as I understand the originals were of composite of steel and timber with the inner members being of timber and the outer frame of steel.

Between the L&B and Ffestiniog the approved underframe we have now was brought about.
I would definitely say the carriages now are far more comfortable than originally with shocks and springs making a less "sea sickening" ride as I'm sure I've seen written about somewhere.

 

I think the floor is still at its original height, it's just the doors got shorter above it - my point was that the body was indeed lowered on the chassis, but was shortened at the bottom, rather than cut down. The original length of the sides was cosmetically restored in the 90s rebuild, but below floor height it is just a cosmetic cladding over the chassis rail rather than an integral part of the bodyside.

John

 

My views are subjective and based on what I can see of trading performance, as publicly declared.

As an opera lover, I find quoting evidence of support from the Arts Council a very brittle base indeed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Exactly, Tom. Modern ride quality was unknown then, so any improvement on what went before was marvellous!
One reason why I'd love to see Bluebell's LCDR 6-wheel brake 3rd restored for service- with its original underframe and running gear, we could all gain an insight into Victorian travelling comfort.
Thread drift- apologies

 

It's on my Euromillions list ...

Tom

 

Fair enough. Here's my view. There are two ways in which a company general meeting can be called.......by its directors or by its members if they can reach the 5% threshold specified in section 303 of the Companies Act. Its agenda is determined by whoever calls the meeting. There is no right to have any other resolutions added to the agenda at any stage either by the directors, if the members call a meeting, or by members if the directors do. They may choose to allow such additional business on to the agenda but are not obliged to add it. In the case of the EGM the meeting was duly called by the board. A decision was made to add motions to dismiss two directors consequent on receipt of a section 168 notice from six members. The minute book of the company should record the events but I would expect that at least the two directors who were the subject of the motion to dismiss would have been automatically disqualified from the decision as to whether to add the motions as they had a clear conflict between their personal interest and their duty to the company. I'm assuming , but again the records would show, that the section 168 notice was compliant with the special notice requirements of section 312.

That's what distinquishes what happened from the current situation. Section 312 makes it clear that the special notice of 28 days is with reference to the meeting at which the section 168 notice is to be voted on. However, in the absence of any agreement by the board to add such a resolution to its AGM agenda the notice is not down to be voted on at that meeting.
The assumption behind the motion to remove the Chairman as a director seems to be that members have a right to include duly proposed and seconded motions on the AGM agenda. I don't believe that's the case . It would be good inclusive practice to allow that in the interests of member participation in the future direction of the company but given the nature of its subject matter I can't see the board wanting to allow the dismissal motion to be added.

The members' option is to call their own EGM in accordance with section 303 but of course thaat requires them to establish the the threshold of 5% and may in some circumstances involve them paying for the cost of the meeting in advance.

I'm not expressing this view as in support of any faction merely as my personal analysis of what I think the legal situation is in response to Tobbes' request. At the end of the day I would hope all concerned want to act in accordance with the law as it is and not, perhaps, as they assume it ought to be. Given the high stakes involved it wouldn't surpise me if legal advice is sought by those supportive of the resolution and/or by the company to which I would happily defer if my analysis is wrong.

 

Yes I understand but that was for the period ended February 2023. I don't think the auditors' concern that the railway would not be sustaianable if such results became the norm would come as a surprise to anyone including other players in the sector who also incurred huge operating losses. What matters is what's been done since to effect a recovery.

On the effect of Arts Council decisons I sympathise but I doubt you would expect us to turn down the £1million support they are providing.

 

Am I the only one who, on reading this, feels like they are slogging through the mud of Paschendaele towards a completely uncertain objective? At least there are no bullets.
For now...