Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

But are liable to tend towards the "operators" faction by dint of being focused on administering the as-is.

 

On the whole, I would agree; however, in the past of the L&BR Trust, we have had those who have sought to be the big I am and have given the impression that running a railway was below them. With all the legal niceties that need to be in place in this day and age, getting the right people to carry out the administration duties is also, I feel, an important group that should not be lightly dismissed, as a prime example, how many railways struggle to attract new Trustees when they need to find them? I read in a recent charity report that at present, only 1 in 4 trustee posts are being filled.

That is why some railways take years to achieve anything if their administration systems are not kept up to date, or you have the wrong people in the wrong place at the wrong time. Finding someone who has the skills to be a Company Secretary, for instance, who may be attracted to the railway for all sorts of reasons, but being a steam loco driver or building a railway may not be among them.

The key to any successful project has to be down to having a great voluntary culture in the group to start with.

 

I've no argument with what you say about a volunteer culture, or that some choose to try to become the big I am. I also think it's essential to match skills to roles, acknowledging that someone good at "A" may not be good at "B".

Being picky, I regard trusteeship as leadership rather than administration. Leaders, good, bad or indifferent, emerge from within voluntary organisations and may belong to any of what @Jamessquared describes as "factions", and I think are better understood as "tribes". If I look at the L&B, it's clear that the Trustees (as a body and individuals) have traditionally belonged to the "builder" and "restorer" tribes, but a number may now be shifting towards "operator" in response to problems encountered.

 

Thats a very astute post, Tom. I'd not thought of categorising the "factions" like that, but it's true (with some degree of overlap).
So really the duty of the Board becomes one of timing- ensuring that truly salient issues are always prioritised over "nice to have".
To come back to L&B- centric issues, to me personally, the carriage shelter, and the roofs of Woody Bay and Blackmoor stations are paramount- in the current grim economic climate, everything else is a "nice to have".

 

As always, acknowledging your superererer analysis of the movement, you seem to be implying that many railways have already grown as much as is probably feasible. And I would have to agree- overall numbers of railway enthusiasts have been in steady decline since the end of steam, now many are ageing out, in one way or another, and many younger people have less time available than others did.
Costs are always on the rise, there seem to be ever more rules and restrictions. The national background of general support for the preservation movement seems to have changed to one that is critical of emissions, carbon, fossil fuel and old men enjoying themselves. Making it quite daunting to consider any further expansions.
For many railways, 1998-2018 was probably their finest hour, and the next 20 years will probably be about consolidating and conserving that which has already been achieved. And why not? most lines have achieved much, much more than their founders ever dreamed possible.

The L&B, though, does not portray the L&B of yore. The original was a proper railway- several proper stations all with goods facilities, regular train service, uniformed staff...It was something rather special, and its current form, authentic as it might be, there's just not enough of it to represent the original. It doesn't go to L, nor to B. There's just a bit of & at Woody Bay
The board maybe hope to salvage their credibility by some dazzling coup getting permission to extend or similar, but I think many supporters feel that there just not enough railway at the railway.

 

I think you are right, there is not enough of the old railway to keep the interest alive on a national basis. I think I am right in saying that most members look on at the L&BR as it was and not so much as it is now. While it has been good at showing what the railway used to be like, it has also now produced a rod for its own back with a standard that has been taken by the ENPA as what they see as a Heritage steam railway and not so much as a long-term commercial project that can help generate more wealth for the North Devon community.

Changing the railway from what it is to one that can stand on its own commercial feet, so to speak, is not going to go down well with some of the current active volunteers or the members either. But as James points out, different types of members will be attracted to certain parts of the project, so while we may have 2000 members now, it might be that in say ten years we still have 2000 members, but they may not be the same 2000 people from today.

I would suspect that if this thread is still running in 10 years and we have reached page 2000, I bet there will be comments like oh, the railway has lost its sparkle or it's not like it used to be etc etc.

For me, if this railway is to survive, then we need to keep in mind that we need to have a new star act every year, be it a loco, or carriage, a reopened station or even an extension. Once you get that ball rolling, it will be hard to stop it.

Sure, there will be mistakes made in the process, but if we can get the project on the right path now, then it will become a much bigger project than we have today.

 

Some details of the upcoming Autumn Gala are published on the L&BRT website:
https://www.lynton-rail.co.uk/events/view/railway-200-autumn-gala-27th28th-september-2025

 

I have always thought that groups like the L &B Association need a strong leader with a clear vision, but they also have to be prepared to listen to the points of view of others, and to try to incorporate them At the L & B it is always going to be a difficult ask because it seems as though just about everyone has a different vision of how to proceed! ~In the end, though the Chairman needs a group surrounding him and supporting him in that shared vision, and usually they will pull the rest with them, but their collective view has to be realistic and achievable.

 

Without comment on the personalities that are also a factor, the question is then how that leadership group responds to changing circumstances - a point that some might also say applies to a certain railway in North Yorkshire. That is where good governance kicks in, to provide a way to manage conflict.

 

This has been the case with the L&BR for the last 18 or so years and it clearly shows that if all you want to do is play trains rather than build a railway then eventually the supporters and those with the money to spare will start to walk away

 

delete

 

So we now know where to look for an example of how to do it very badly!

 

Picking up on post #15411 by @lynbarn, I wasn't there so have a limited ability to comment. However, I'm very aware of how memories can blur and fade, and the events of the last 10 years suggest that the interpretation may not be quite right. Planning for the extension to Blackmoor Gate was won in 2018, and followed a long process of preparation. The "panic" of the last few years follows the failure to convert planning permission into reality, and the need for that leadership to respond. While I have suspicions that many belong more to the "operator" than "builder" tribes, the volume of work that went into the extension suggests far more than a panic reaction to membership pressure.

Colin also mentions visual image and preservation approach. Without wishing to debate, yet again, what would be right for a restored L&B, it's worth note that what has been done is firmly anchored in how the railway was pre-closure, both on the operating section and elsewhere on the line. Any change of approach, whether along the various lines suggested or even completely differently, would open up very significant questions of identity. In particular, there would be many who would find a change towards being a living museum of the highpoint of British steam exports very challenging, and fundamentally in tension with the unique historical context of the L&B (let alone the ironies of this being at a railway that imported from Baldwin...).

As body, the L&BRT and other bodies need to form a view of where the balance between "operator", "builder" and "restorer" lies - and then use that to advantage. Only once that question is settled can we then align on the wider questions.

 

Colin,it had always been planned to extend the railway from at least 2009 when around that time the triangle of land was purchased to run to CFL and the 'Heddon Hall Halt' when the then owners of the Hall were very positive about the railway, the trust back then made sure that ship sailed for want of bigger and better things thus producing the big plan to return to Blackmore which was subsequently approved in 2018 but never positively acted upon so an extension has been in the eyes of the members for a good 15 years not just the last 4 or 5

 

As an example of where I believe a good balance has been achieved between these often competing interests, I would suggest one of my own local lines - the KESR / RVR

 

which, from what I understand, has needed continuous work to maintain the balance, and can't be regarded as a once and done activity.

 

Hi Andy, the very first bit of trackbed the old Association purchased was a field at Cricket Field Lane. Back then, we didn't have a clue what we were doing (some would say we still don't); all we knew was we wanted to stop a certain person building a 12 1/2 gauge miniature railway on some trackbed near Woody Bay. The irony is that the current railway now runs on the bit of trackbed that was at the centre of the dispute at the time.

Personally, I can't wait to see a train getting into Parracombe; some of us will not be happy until there is a railway running from Lynton to Barnstaple. Whether this will happen in my lifetime that I don't know, but I guess I have just as much hope of that happening as winning the Euro Lottery.

That said. Yes, the Image of the L&BR must be maintained. The big issue is that the more we get to know who was or was not involved with the building or planning of the old railway, the more what-ifs will appear. It can be amusing to see comments made by recently joined members about this or that, some of which have been known about for some time.

The main reason the L&BR closed in the first place was the lack of revenue it generated. Even if we could follow what the GWR did to the V of R, there is no guarantee that it would have worked for the L&BR.

When it comes to comparing the L&BR to other railways, for whatever reason, we should not forget that the Trust's M&A were heavily based on those of the Swanage Railway (we have a lot to thank a certain David Morgan from the then HRA for this) and there is simply no other railway like the L&BR in its setup, We have had no connection to Network Rail and we have not purchased any trackbed from them that would have required us to have a LRO to start with, we are if anything more akin to HS2 in that we are technically a new Railway.

We also didn't have the good fortune that the WHR had, in that most of its trackbed was still owned by the receiver, or that we could just walk into a yard full of track and start to clear the site to operate a railway.

That said, there are certain railways which we can look at, and the two which come to mind are Vale of Rheidol/ Brecon Mountain Railway operation, which is, to all intents purposes, a commercial company supported by a well-off Trust Fund. The other operation, which is also a good model, and that is the KESR/RVR.

The biggest issue the L&BR family has is to understanding what each legal body stands for and just what it brings to the party. Once we can get past this and we can get everyone to work together for the benefit of the railway. The Builders/Operators /Even the Historians will all have a part to play in this reshaping of the L&BR group, then on top of all of this, you still need the people who can make the business case and make it all work at the same time, there is a lot of work to be done and I am sure it will take a couple of year for the change to begin, but it will all be worth while

 

You miss the importance of the distinction between the three tribes @Jamessquared identified. It's not what people do, but the biases they bring to what they do for/at the railway, and where the balance lies between extending it and conserving what it has.

Whether David Morgan deserves thanks or censure is a matter of opinion; we should always remember that lawyers can only work with the available materials. That doesn't mean change shouldn't be contemplated - of course it should. But that, even if anchored in awareness of what happened ~20 years ago, needs to reflect today's world, and the challenges of today. That includes proper awareness of why some things are necessary - whatever the finer points of whether LROs and TWAOs are required, they are not anchored in who own/owned the track(bed).

I've said it before, and will repeat again, the legal structure of the L&B is not at the heart of the challenges ahead. It almost certainly needs change, but that change needs to follow agreement on what the next steps are, and support achieving those next steps. That includes the decisions that will follow the current consultation, and the future relationships between L&B bodies, and a whole load else - all things that will need supportive structures around them. Rewrite them too early, and we'll end up with something that won't last.

 

I had not heard this before. Was that certain person looking at Woody bay, between Brittany and Mid Wales?

 

Yes, he was. I have been reminded that the bit of trackbed he was after was much further south, funny thing, memory