Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

The membership needs to remember that the board the management and the volunteers deserve a great deal of support and trust. The board, and management need to remember that support cannot be taken for granted and communication is key. The volunteers red to be able to respect the managers and board and be clear who is in charge of what.

So, how does any of that get done effectively as £millions are raised and spent by multiple organisations whose only real link is that they want to build a railway between Barnstable and Lynton? The structure is not credible and credibility is utterly essential. I am in awe of what has been achieved despite the structure and wonder if more could have been achieved with a better and more cohesive system of management.

 

please re read post No 6396 that hopefully will give you the answer you are looking for

Also some of you might find this useful:-

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/charities-and-trading

 

A brief glance at that guidance tells me that HMRC's rules are complex and case dependent, they also tell me that I would need to consider the Charities Commission's view of the L&B before forming a judgment on what would constitute "primary purpose trading" and what proportion(s) of that would be treated in what way. You would have done well to have linked to https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ities-may-lawfully-trade#trading-by-charities, which highlights some of the considerations also involved. Those are considerations that I suspect far more expert minds than yours or mine have researched in detail to establish how to make different structures operate effectively, especially where trading (e.g. shop, catering) goes beyond the primary purpose of the charity.

As a layman, I can infer some of the decisions that may have been taken, and how I might have acted if faced with similar challenges, but lack the knowledge necessary to make that more than a guess.

As, by your own admission, are no more than a member of the Trust, albeit with good connections, I am struggling to see what benefit you are providing to the line you so obviously love by presenting partly understood conjecture as assertions of fact.

 

Here. You just posted it yourself - there’s a bit which makes it very clear that primary purpose trading is permitted; and another bit about subsidiary companies for non-primary trading purposes.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/charities-and-trading

 

So you've had a chat with a few other members who may share your opinion on one issue. Unless that number makes up a substantial % of the membership then your opinion is worth the same as anyone else's and you should stop portraying it as "the view of the members"

Also, you say that the dream is to restore the line to as close to 1935 condition as possible- so why from time to time do you pop up on forums proposing garratts, locos from Java, railcars, longer platforms, pullmans etc etc.

I would suggest that many of your postings merely confuse the situation and do nothing to advance the project

 

Yes agreed but the Primary purpose of a charity does not include the running of a railway, a Charity must comply with one or more of the following:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charitable-purposes/charitable-purposes

As far as the Charity Commission are concerned the operation a heritage railway is a commercial enterprise. Besides, running a Railway, will also attract taxes that need to be paid and it also brings to the table that element of risk management which a Charity is set up to avold.

 

@lynbarn ...as a paid up member , I'd like to make it very clear , you do NOT talk on behalf of me and your views are someone who is hoping for failure .

You say your a life member but you act like someone who wants to see it fail .

 

Lets take each one in turn the garratt's

This needs some history added to this, to get the context right. The late Colin Pealling made the suggestion in the first place that the L&BR should try to buy at the time at least two NGG16s with failed boilers. The plan was to then build new L&BR Manning Wardle style 2-6-2T on each of the frames of the running gear. Sadly it was found after we had done some calculations that an NGG16 power bogie would not fit the L&BR loading gauge, I can't remember if it was down to the finished width or to the overall finished height but it was one of those dimensions which put pay to the promising project. Because I supported the project at the time it appears to have stuck with me ever since.

As for now, what would be the point of a second railway using NGG16's as its main steam locomotive type? None what so ever and the L&BR has its own unique selling points to boot, but at the time no one was looking to build a Manning Wardle 2-6-2T.

That is basically the whole story about my support for the purchase of NGG16's for North Devon at the time.

As for railcars I don't remember saying much about them. But in light of the current environmental crisis then why not? I do know that over the years various members have come up with the suggestion and again I see that the both the FR and the Launceston Steam Railway are now working toward developing the concept, yet no one appears to have a problem with them over this?

Longer platforms yes why not? Most of the L&BR platforms (they are all around 220ft max) can only take a four coach train set, yet we shall need to be using seven coach train sets, so yes they need to be longer to make the railway remain commercially viable. No one complains about the length of the platforms on the new WHR?

Pullmans the old SR used them on all its expresses such as the ACE which served Barnstaple, so why not have a Pullman on the SR bit of its NG railway. Yet again it is another suggestion which has been taken up by the WHR in recent times and most of the people I know like the concept.

I am sure there will be other proposals good or bad that I can come up with, but may be taken up by other railways before it happen in North Devon.

At the end of all this the railway needs to make money to survive and at some stage there will have to be a hard choice made as to the direction of travel for the project. Most railways base their attraction around the family unit ie mum, dad and two kids. It is more than likely that this market may well dry up in the next few years due to the credit squeeze so an attraction like the L&BR has to be able to look at what market it is dealing with and that could well be the wealthy retired, so they are not going to want to sit on a wooden seat but a bit of soft cushioning 1 st Class/ Pullman if you like.

I would like to remind you that in the past other railway managers have said all the above and yet when they have spoken out and said that the average railway enthusiast does not contribute a single penny to the operation costs of a railway then everyone gets up set and complains that a heritage railway is too expensive for a ride.

You can't have it both ways, the L&BR has to strike a balance between its own heritage and the commercial reality of the operation. After all the L&BR is in the entertainment business for the wider population.

The L&BR is no different to someone like Apple that needs to bring out a new product every year to survive. It might not be popular with the Railway enthusiast market, but if it fills the trains on the L&BR then so be it. I can live with that, can you?

 

As a life member I take the long view and no I don't want to see it fail. I just want to see it managed correctly and the membership kept in the loop with what is going on. I feel that neither are happening right now in my opinion.

You say you are a working member at Woody Bay that is fine, so you can tell the rest of us then as to what the feeling is on the ground at Woody Bay about all of the planning at Parracombe and the purchase of the OSHI.

 

Thats an interesting comment but has it ever occurred to you and many others ,on here and elsewhere that such comments are not about wanting failure but are in fact looking at the situations with a realistic view and trying to wake people up to the serious position that we find ourselves in, at the members forum even one of the trustee's said the position was 'very serious' there are only two ENPA meetings left before the planning runs out, 07.02.23 and 07.03.23, the planning runs out on 08.03.23 so what has happened in these last 5 years to be taking these issues right down to the wire, people really do need to wake themselves up to the reality of the situation , its only going to take one small action and we could see the planning slip away and heaven forbid if that does happen what are you going to say then

 

The purchase of OSHI would be a good one, both the OSHI shareholders and the Trust members must be told exactly how this deal is being put together, the shareholders should really be asking what they are going to get for their money as it seems its going to be a lot less than the expected, the members of the L&BR Trust should be informed about the financial assistance the Trust is giving to the Blackmoor PLC before it happens and where that money is coming from,but guess what,we are all going to be kept in the dark until the deal is done and then it will too late

 

I'm not sure about the latest situation, but at one time the 'design criteria' for Phase 2A et seq was that loops (and hence platforms) had to accommodate engine + five coaches, ideally with a bit of extra to allow for a double-headed train on odd occasions. I'm not sure where the 'need' for 7-coach sets arises, especially as that would (almost certainly) require double-heading, whereas the 'standard' for normal services was set at one engine only.

 

This is just one of many issues I have struggled with in trying to square the circle between the Heritage side of the project and the Commercial model which needs to be successful for the project to survive.

 

Just pulling this comment out, as I think it lies at the heart of the issues being discussed here and with reference to other lines. It contains a couple of important assertions, which are then being conflated into frankly a panicked attack of "we must do something - but I don't know what."

Firstly, I'm not sure where the idea that the family day out as a core market will die comes from. Cost of living issues will hurt that market, but the idea that it will dry up strikes me as for the birds. Parents taking their kids on holiday will need to occupy the sprogs, and a trip on the train will remain an important option - especially somewhere that draws people staying away rather than on day trips.

Second is the idea that facilities will need to be upgraded for 21st century expectations. I think there's truth in that, but wooden bench seats aren't necessarily that uncomfortable - I remember them being quite comfortable when I visited the Schynigge Platte Bahn 20-odd years ago - a 50 minute single journey, at a price that made the WHR look cheap. However, it's possible to make incremental changes without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. When I travelled in the coupe, I was surprised by just how luxurious it was. Options exist, building on what's there rather than seemingly importing random ideas from elsewhere in the hope that they might work.

 

There is - or at least, has been in the past - an argument that one should not plan for regular services where the number of coaches exceeds the existing platform length, as that would mean 'altering' the surviving L&BR heritage and therefore being outwith the spirit of the 'preservation' of the railway. I know from recent design-related discussions that the Up platform at WB is just about 5 coaches + engine long and I would presume - but I stand to be corrected by those who may have the relevant details to hand - that the same would apply at Chelfham, Bratton Fleming and the (old) Blackmoor. Now clearly both Pilton and Lynton will be completely new stations (at least, on current assumptions), and Blackmoor too will effectively be a 'new build', so it could be argued that the platforms at those 3 could be built from the outset to take longer trains. But in that case, what about the surviving 3 - no point in building to an inconsistent format unless you have decide to upgrade those 3 as well.

Once again, I come back to that age-old question - what and where please is the Trust' long-term strategy for the development of the L&BR, which should provide the framework within which all other such discussions and decisions can be made. Answers on the back of a Parracombe platform ticket please......

 

Nope. The structure is hopelessly and almost comically complicated and completely and utterly unnecessary. It is a waste of time and resources. It will impede massively progress towards the end goal. If and when the line is longer, the complexity will make running it impossible. I do hope that there are people of vision within the various organisations that understand this and who will take action at an appropriate moment. Alignment between these groups is near impossible to ensure, and one day not long from now, differences will appear that become irreconcilable. Volunteers and members deserve better. I hope that they get it!

 

Firstly, I'm not sure where the idea that the family day out as a core market will die comes from. well it comes from both the HRA and that trusted source Steam Railway magazine.

In essence the HRA are suggesting that railways need to wake up to other core passenger types and their requirements and not just look at the family unit as the sole income stream to the railway.

It was the magazine that suggested that the days of the family unit where doomed.

I can't for the life of me think were I read it, but I am sure it was the WHR that looks to filling the 1st class Pullmans first of all, as that basically pays for the running costs of that train and anyone else that turns up is a bonus.

As for wooden seating 20 years ago no one knew any different, but even now on the last time I travelled on the L&BR, members complained about the wooden seats and suggested that not many people would travel the 40 miles round trip on standard wood seating.

 

As far as I know it does not exist as I have asked, but the answer I got was we will get around to it one day (but when?)

 

What exactly is it you don't understand? We only have two main bodies (the Trust and the CIC) that deal with the Railway.

Everything else has been set up as a separate group by various members in the past to carry out a vital task such as trackbed purchase ie Exmoor Associates.

Or the 762 club which built a Baldwin 2-4-2T steam loco.

 

I understand perfectly. I just think it is too complex.