Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

As attendees left the meeting they had to pass through a memory erasing induction loop ........

 

...probably with a notice over the exit "Abandon hope all those who leave here"

 

There was apparently a substantial body of opinion among the members that the Trust ought to pursue an extension somewhere, and presumably the Trustees thought CFL the least unlikely to succeed. So offering that "option" (among other obviously even worse ones) could have been partly an attempt to address members' wishes. All that said, the way they then pursued the planning application was at least badly misjudged, arguably totally incompetent.

 

As I explained earlier, the Trust Website is very clear that the intention is not only to extend but to recreate the railway. If that is indeed not the case then the basis on which funds have been & are being solicited is highly questionable.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

As a member who was actually at the AGMs, I would say I left feeling comfortable that we just might have turned a corner, or are at least gently braking as we approach the corner, to negotiate it carefully. Led by Trustees Giles and Rob, the presentation was professional, friendly and engaging. The technical issues were dealt with adequately. and a collaborative, inclusive consultation has been promised to determine how we are all going to move forward past that corner. The ongoing regular meetings between L&BRT/CIC and YVT/EA were mentioned, and will continue. The elephant in the room was briefly covered. although as is often the case, time run out at 10 pm.

 

In other news, the first open day with the viaduct at Chelfham was very successful.

 

Apart from that, it is an absolutely glorious weekend!

 

and it

... and it's is open again today - I'll be there shortly!

 

In light of the various strongly expressed opinions in various directions in previous pages of this forum, your comments give rise for some optismism. As usual though, we wonder if apparent good intentions will translate over time into a more careful journey around the corner which is immediately in front of us. I would like to think that careful steering will advance us to the point that I feel to start to make significantly meaningful financial contributions to a growing railway with a sound strategy to achieve the L&B we dream about.

 

That was my overall impression as well. I felt there was a shift in tone and the emphasis given to further consultation before proceeding was encouraging.

 

I'm glad to hear the suggestions of a shift in approach, and a more positive tone. Those green shoots are welcome, and I look forward to these being maintained as the consultation progresses - but also hope that the trustees work from a position that confidence is low, and needs to be earned afresh.

 

Having come away from the AGM yesterday with the thought process that there's clearly a more factual approach to it this year with Giles at the helm of the meeting.

It seems like with his attitude of "facts and evidence over feelings" it shut the room down before the arguments even started so much so that the L&B , EA and YVT where forced to get along and I feel for a good 95+% of the meeting that's excatly what went on , there was things challenged but it was done at a more factual level and more civilised level .

The railway is at a turning point , it's feeling positive.

 

I'm glad to hear that, and hope that this is the first swallow of summer. I've heard mixed reports from yesterday's meeting; my hope is that this is sustained when debates have to be about judgment as well as tangible fact.

 

I am sure that the Trust membership includes many people with varied experience of railway construction and operation in different disciplines. Whilst I accept that the Board may engage professional consultants ('experts') to produce their various surveys and reports and plans, these often are not exposed to a wider audience until put into the public domain as part of a planning application.

It is often said - and I know from my own experience <g> - that those who produce such material can be the least suitable people to review and proof-read it. Far too often the brain 'reads' what it wants/expects to see rather than what the eyes actually see. Equally, however carefully you draft and craft your wording, there will always be someone out there whose through processes lead to a totally different conclusion/interpretation to that which you intended. Similarly, a proposal may be meticulously planned and defined, but the fact that the author(s) have dotted every 'i' and crossed every 't' will not help if no-one spots that the actual basis of the proposal is fundamentally flawed.

I would suggest therefore that, once the material for any future planning application has been drafted and vetted and approved (temporarily) by the Board, it should then be submitted for 'peer review' to larger group of members with the relevant experiences for a 'reality check'. This process may extend the time that it takes to make a submission to ENPA or NDC, but it could help to spot potential issues and get them corrected prior to issue.

 

Or, as I said a few pages ago, the scheme is effectively dead in the water. There's no obvious way forward but doubtless the waffle will continue.

 

Look South....

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

But what do you mean by "the scheme"? CFL? PE? I was talking about planning applications in general, hence my reference to NDC as well as ENPA, not just an extension of the line from KL in some form.

Incidentally, it is reported from the AGM that one of the 'options' offered for future consideration would be to revisit the proposed extension to PE, on the basis that apparently on planning issues alone ENPA would be willing to grant it, the actual decision presumably being decided therefore by the strength and nature of any objections. Who knows?

 

Sadly, I am concluding that only a sponsor with very deep pockets will save the Trust, unless they review the whole structure of the group and the way they go about raising funds.

 

Having had a lovely time visiting all the sites today, and it’s clear the Woody Bay operation needs to be longer. But if it were significantly longer, you’d need more comfortable but inauthentic coaches and possibly locos. I draw breath when saying this, but would the Southern section (Barnstaple to Blackmoor Gate) be better used as a cycleway?

 

No, permissive footpath maybe, but a cycleway, if certain groups become involved it will never be able to be a railway again.