Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

We members are still waiting to get a report on the November meeting. Although the CLC is doing a good job of promoting itself, the Trust is almost silent. Progress appears to be glacial.

 

Perhaps said Trustee might decide that 2025 is a good time to stand down anyway?

 

Given that most heritage railways in the country are on borrowed time with their finances does anyone seriously think this project is going anywhere? More miles of railway from nowhere in particular to nowhere at all.

 

The L&B's predicament seems rather like that of the Welsh Highland Heritage Railway. The latter (in one of its incarnations) intended in principle to restore much if not all of the old line, but never got beyond a small local operation. But then Big Brother arrived and got the whole lot done, and friendly relations were eventually established. The L&B has the disadvantage of being in the middle of nowhere rather than on the edge of a town in a touristy area, as well as no Big Brother seeming likely to appear. Even if the associated organisations eventually acquire all the trackbed from the outskirts of Barnstaple to somewhere near Lynton, where could the money come from the lay track and acquire enough rolling stock?

 

I have complex views as to whether and how the CFL extension should be pursued. I'm not going to rehearse them, as they've been mentioned ad nauseam in this thread before.

What I will observe is that the clear desire of L&B supporters, in all of the organisations, is to extend the railway as far as practical. The ructions within the L&BRT, in which I played a small part, were about creating circumstances in which the members at large could engage with the Trustees. I have seen some good signs since then, but communications are sometimes patchy and appear to have gone quiet. It would have been naive to have expected radical changes when the board composition changes were only incremental.

As the next AGM approaches, I shall be looking at how the Trust board are engaging with the membership at large, and hope to see a combination of clarity and pragmatism in what's reported.

 

The parallels are most striking in the ownership of the trackbed. The Welsh Highland was decades ahead in that all the original route to Dinas was in the hands of one owner - the official receiver. There is therefore no reason why after the efforts of Exmoor Associates and Yeo Valley Trust we wont be in the Welsh Highland's position in twenty years (or so's) time, if they continue as they have been, allowing for the possibility that some of the (current) landowners will baulk at selling. The railway has experienced this before - Station Road Lynton was not built when the railway opened as intended partly because of intransigence of at least one landowner (but also because of the cost of a wall and railings), but by 1914 the land had passed down the family to someone who was keen that this and the Lyn Down road (to Hillsford Bridge avoiding Beggars Roost) being achieved. So time can solve these issues. That is why the activities of the 2 organisations just mentioned are so important for this long-term project. It is striking the apparent lack of news of efforts to acquire the missing land north of Blackmoor. Is this because there is little being made - I hope I am wrong about that. Lack of communication again. Maybe at the AGM there ought to be a resolution put forward for the Trust to allow these two organisations to include acquisition of trackbed on the whole railway in their ambit.

 

And how often is the deviation used now? I've been involved with heritage railways for well over fifty years. I can't think of a worse time for operating one ,let alone building new. If we make the leap of faith and assume that money and political will can be found to obtain the planning permissions and build the full scheme from Barnstaple to Lynton why would this business be able to keep it's head above water when the rest are failing?

 

Readers of the older generation will respond that attitudes change over generations, now totally different from the early 50s when the Tal-y-Llyn and Festiniog were revived. That generation have been passing by for a long time now and the present younger generation look at things differently, and it will happen again with the next generation. Lack of volunteers in future looks like it's going to be the problem. The heritage railways have to adapt. I doubt rebuilding the whole railway is practical or sensible. Maybe two bits, one based on Woody Bay, maybe to Blackmoor (Lynton does not seem plausible, if only because of the difficulties presented by the heights and therefore access to the village), and the other based on Chelfham-Bratton Fleming. They will struggle for custom, but will they eventually join up ? Not in my lifetime.

 

The Ffestiniog shows how success can breed success, and draw people in - out of small acorns great things can grow. That suggests that incremental growth is what's needed, allowing numbers to develop over time. And that requires a level of patience - at 50, I've more chance of it happening in my lifetime, but no certainty.

 

A recent call for assistance from the L&BRT: https://www.lynton-rail.co.uk/news/view/members-help-us-develop-our-strategy

 

Sadly Michael, as we have seen many times before there are many members who only get the Trusts side of the story from the spin in the newsletters and they don't see the whole picture so vote for the status quo or simply hand their vote to the chairman to act as proxy, so the clique remains in place, as we all know those who 'challenge' simply get 'spin' against them ( some trustees can use the members list without question, others are accused of data breech )and are forced out. It has shown though that since the holding of the EGM that if ANOTHER member offers to stand as proxy many members are willing to use that option and it does show to make a difference, maybe not in the overall results but definitely in the way votes are cast.

 

And, even without changing overall results, that change is important in a board feeling accountable to members.

 

I belong to two societies who now 'broadcast' their AGMs by Zoom, admittedly with varying degrees of technical success or not. Even if this was done purely on a 'watching basis' only - ie no facility for remote viewers to ask questions and/or vote online - IMHO it would be an improvement as at least those unable to attend in person could see and hear what actually happens and is discussed and perhaps get a better feeling that their participation is valued - none of this "well, if you can't be bothered to travel to WB, then you can't be that interested" attitude.

 

Indeed, societies (not just the L&B) often boast of having members across the globe in many countries, but when it comes to AGMs/EGMs they are immediately excluded because they're not prepared to travel to location X. Seems rather hypocritical to me.

 

Or you can go the whole hog and use a mix of postal and electronic votes independently audited so that all general meeting resolutions offer the genuine opportunity of one member one vote wherever the members are. That produces the complaint that armchair members "don't understand" or "don't care" as much as those who make the effort to turn up at a meeting!

 

Well, of my three railways, the SVR is mostly offline but broadly (now) going in the right direction. The Talyllyn I weirdly feel the most connection to these days, despite it being the furthest from me. I’ve always read the Talyllyn News but since the move to electronic voting, streaming AGMs and accepting questions from online during them…

then there’s the L&B.

 

That would be the ideal scenario, with perhaps an open session beforehand to allow anyone to say their piece.

 

That would have to be put on the agenda as the Chairman made it perfectly clear at the last AGM that if anything wasn't on the agenda then it wouldn't be allowed to be discussed....unless of course you were another trustee rambling on in a condescending manner to fill in the time whilst votes were being counted