Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Thing is, there are a few voices on here that say that, repeatedly. I'm never completely sure why they think we should just take their word for it that that's the case - especially when the thrust of the argument is that we *shouldn't* take the trust's word for it that it isn't. Given the volume and range of the objections/complaints, which can at times shade into carping, and the number of years this has been going on, it's clear that one group doesn't like the trust. It's not clear what the trust thinks of them. Or how many are in the dissenters group. I'm also afraid that after so many years we're (certainly for me I'm afraid) getting in boy who cried wolf territory.

It's about time those 'close to the project'- and I'd love to see a definition of that - who disagree with what is being done published what they think ought to be done instead - let their claims and plans for the future be weighed against the Trust's. I'm not giving a vote or support to anyone who simply says a variant of 'I don't know what needs to be done instead but we need to stop doing this.'

Time for those 'close to the project' who disagree, instead of scribbling all over here, and on facebook, to stand up and be counted. If they fail they fail, but the sniping from the sidelines is one of the biggest disincentives to engaging with any of it. As someone said on here the other day, who'd want to be an L&B trustee?

That's not a suggestion though is it? That's another 'this isn't right, I don't know what is right, but this isn't right.'

Personally the railway IME with the most member involvement is the Talyllyn - but that's because over the last 75 years it has developed an absolutely Byzantine structure of committees. It doesn't feel like that when you're a member, and it works, but when you take a step back and look at it from the outside it can look mindbending.

My worry with the aspirations for 'more member involvement with the L&B' is that it's proxy for 'my group doesn't agree with what's being done, and this would help us to thwart it' - whereas really railways tend to work most successfully when everyone's pulling in the same direction.

Agree - although I would come at it from the direction that the comms are quite good, unless you're one of the people who wants access to all documents and a running commentary on what people with operational and strategic briefs are doing day to day - and there's not an organisation on earth that would give you that. It's more about 'how can what's being shared be shared more widely?' for me, not a detonation of the comms plan and rebuilding from the ground up.

With respect, that's opinion, not fact. The non-bolded bit is also not true - as with literally any other railway, it will be for the relevant members of the board or trustees to decide, and for the members to take action at the ballot box if they're not happy with it. It is not for the members to be getting involved in setting internal and external comms, except as part of a delegated working group set up by the people the members elect.

One of the things that seems to get blurred again and again on this thread is the extent to which there is a tension between people elected to do what the members want, and deferring back to the members at every point, and people who are elected to take decisions on behelaf of the membership then stand or fall on their record at an election. If more people stood for election then great, I've already said on here that I tend to vote for the new blood almost regardless of their policies, but they're not exactly coming forward in droves are they?

Again, there's an AGM in a couple of months, time for those with an alternative viewpoint to stand if they feel that strongly. Not just try and drive from the back seat.

Absolutely, and I've been biting my tongue on this for a week or two. I agree with your critique, but then we all know what some of the objections from individuals have been to what the trust has been doing for years now. So again, as someone up country, dependent on discussions on here, and paperwork sent out from the trust to have any idea what's going on... the people who have spent years disagreeing with the trust on social media have also failed. Failed to persuade enough people the trust are getting it wrong. Failed to persuade enough people that their vision is better (or indeed outline a vision other than 'what is being done is wrong').

At worst, we've been cursed with a ruling strategy that hasn't come off, and a vocal opposition (the size of which is still unclear) that can talk a good game at times but when it comes down to it has failed to achieve any changes. Frankly, I'm not sure that's much of a choice - and that's doing the opposition the courtesy of assuming for the sake of argument that they've actually got a point.

Again, this seems to have become clear to you and a few others - and it's absolutely their right to have that opinion. Given right of reply, what do you think the Trust would say in response?

Again, from 200 miles away, how do I choose between your version and the trust's?

Agree. On all sides frankly.

 

A bit like yourself, I am not close to all that has gone on - and is still going on. However, there seems to be an element of “Donald Trumpery” to some of the criticism ie: “It’s all wrong, I don’t have concrete alternatives but if I were doing it it would all be great.” Maybe unfair, but that’s how it comes across at times to me.

 

Agree absolutely - and that's how some of the comments come over to me. I am prepared to wait and see what the trust propose as a next move. If there is an election for trustees at the AGM I will carefully read the election statements and make a decision about casting my vote based on that.

 

I have to say that seems very sensible to me. The Newsletter says: “Alternative strategies to extend the railway will be carefully considered over the coming weeks. When this is complete a consultation exercise with the membership will be undertaken.”

 

Agreed, Mr C. No reason why one of those should not be a "minimal application". If, as it seems, the objections at PC are on traffic to the station, and in general the existence of the station as a terminus (for who knows how long) then that's (relatively) easy. Lots of ways to mitigate that (if a radically altered application proves necessary) - based on what other railways are doing and have done (no point in re-inventing the wheel!)

1. Have no station or alighting point at PC - all passengers would have to take a return journey from Woody (exactly as now, but with a longer run). The temporary run-round loop would not have to be in the village. Obviously there are VAT implications here ("not a proper journey") - but that's of less importance just now.
   
2. Have no run-round facilities at PC or anywhere on the extension - operate push-pull (as Middy have been for their entire existence and FR did for several years) - or top and tail (as Peak Rail into Matlock) - this one would work as a mitigation of perceived over-development at PC, operating as either No 1 or No 3 as described here.
   
3. Do a "Kingscote": on the Bluebell for many years (because of very similar objections) no-one was allowed onto the train at KC - when it was a temporary terminus - without showing a bus ticket from the dedicated shuttle bus from EG. It was enforced, and successful - NO passengers parking in the village.

OK - all these are a draw-back from the original plans and less like a "proper railway". But if you can't do the ideal, then do what you can..... I am inclined to think that No 1 is the place to start. And then when the National Park and local authorities complain that the railway is not fulfilling its remit to provide rail transport to get cars off the roads - well, you say "we would if we were allowed". (And by the way, No 2 could apply to any possible operating railway elsewhere, making the setting-up of such an extra small operation a great deal easier and less obtrusive. A length of plain track, one (or maybe two) small diesels, a coach, and a simple shed built over one end of the track - even a container to start with. Provide a bus link, and the entire 'L&B experience' could become an "all-day" attraction, rather than the current half-day).

 

There is bound to be an election (of sorts) at the AGM as 3 of the Trustees will have to stand down by rota - what remains to be seen is whether (a) anyone/ of them decide to stand again and (b) if any more new people stand, thus forcing a contest.

Does anyoen know please who the 3 due to stand down will be ?

 

Having been involved to a modest extent in various discussions about signalling and operational issues for Phases 2A, including the various 'temporary PE terminus scheme', I think I can comment with a reasonable degree of understanding of the issues involved when I say - with regret - that I doubt that any of your proposals will prove to be a workable solution.

Item 1. Even if there is no run-round loop at PE and no platform and no-one gets on or off, it will still be a terminus where trains will stop for x minutes rather than just be passing through. I suspect that objections on that will remain. There is no room elsewhere in the KL-PE length to have a run-round loop of any worthwhile length.

Item 2. Without any proper form of control system, I very much doubt that push-pull would be permitted - IIRC it has been ruled-out previously. Top&tail will involve two engines and two crews, so extra costs and wear&tear on motive power - will it be economic and worthwhile? Either method will still fall foul of the 'no terminus at PE' mantra of the objectors, unless the train stops at a location so far away from the actual station site as to probably then be not worth the extra length of run. Though I concede that the idea of a temporary termination at Crocket Field Lane might be worth exploring 'just in case'.

Item 3. See my comments about Item 1 Any idea of a shuttle bus running up and down the road to the station is likely merely to add to the complaints about traffic, not alleviate them. And the 'no passengers' rule will do nothing to deal with the concern (real or imagined) about railway enthusiasts driving to the station in their hordes to take photographs. After all, it is a public highway, so the L&BR has no power to regulate the traffic thereon.

 

There seems to be a lot of heat on this thread, but not so much in the way of light. Plenty of sounds of fury. But for those of us without close links with the railway or insight into its workings, it is not always clear precisely what has made people so angry, or what alternative approach might have made them less angry.

As I understand things, the present-day L&B operates about a mile of route in North Devon, but would like to expand much closer to the 20 miles of the original L&B. That seems reminiscent of Peak Rail, who in the 1980s had confident ambitions to rebuild the 20 mile line from Matlock to Buxton. If that project had been successful, it could well have become the finest heritage railway in Britain. Peak Rail were eventually successful in reopening 3 miles from Matlock to Rowsley South, which may be the practical limit of what is achievable.

I don't know what length of route will eventually be feasible for the rebuilt L&B, but I suspect that it will be well short of the major Welsh narrow-gauge lines.

 

From the outside the debate here paints the Land B as a reincarnation of WHR1964Ltd. A great aim, but lacking the strategic thinking to realise the vision. Does this project also need another group to swoop in with the ability to create an actionable strategy?

Like @bluetrain I feel there is much heat and very little light. I don’t in fact feel that there is anywhere much to explain what is really going on, and so the lack of progress is the only thing I can judge.

 

I think that is unfair to the L&B society. The strategic vision is there, and a lot of detailed thinking. The execution has been questioned, but has been predicated on a robust long term vision of what it would take to reinstate the railway to more or less it's full extent.

There has been a lot of concern about whether the strategy would be realised due to issues with the planning process, and the reasons are hotly debated. That concern has been followed by deflation as some planning consents have lapsed, and there is a combination of navel gazing and recrimination afoot.

It is conceivable that this disappointment will result in a situation like that of WHR(1964) or Peak Rail, with much greater ambitions collapsing into a small part of the whole. But it is also possible that this hurdle - which is after all a lot less high than that imposed by the CEGB on the Festiniog Rly Co - may just be a temporary pause in ambitions.

As a new member, with no detailed knowledge of events, I prefer to believe the latter.

 

Before anyone shoots the messenger, this is what I think the L&BR group need to do. I still believe that in time and with the right amount of financial backing in place this could still become one of the finest narrow gauge railways in the UK.

As boring as some people find all of this I feel we* needs to 1) look at what went wrong and learn from it 2) reset the management systems so this can't happen again 3) redraft the business plan and update all our policy and procedure documents 4) bring in our own professionals to over see all the planning issues and the construction of the railway 5) create a large fundraising pool to seek out all the various avenues of project finance. 6) I am sure there will be other areas that will need looking at during this time, but this is my take on how to proceed for good or bad.

this concept is not about blaming anyone but with just getting on with building a railway with- in a project management structure such as Prince 2.

* in this case I am referring to the railway

 

Given that you have been lecturing us for weeks over "what has to be done", can we assume that you are putting your name forward for a position of Trustee, or at least nominating somebody else to represent your views ?

 

Sorry, you’ve just confirmed my suspicion that you’re dealing with half understood concepts with that mention of PRINCE2.

It is a project management method designed for use in the IT industry, and is an acronym for “PRojects IN Controlled Environments”. It’s used once a project is underway, and not really designed for the stages before the project gets the green light.

Like other IT project management methods, it also says nothing about the content of the project - just how it’s managed.

I have seen nothing about the L&B extension that suggests decent project management methods haven’t been deployed, and one of the major criticisms of PRINCE2 is that despite being mandated on major government projects in the noughties, there were still major project failures under it.

No project management system can prevent failure, especially when failure is the result of the actions of outsiders.

Edit: No project management method can prevent errors (e.g. the “red line” issue), or against the consequences of misjudgments. At best, they can provide processes that will allow those errors to be caught in review - but often, and from strong personal experience, in a way that is highly procedural rather than actually quality focused (an aside, the first time I heard the term “oxygen thief”, it was in reference to a “quality manager”; their shtick was to check every checklist and whether it had been completed without actually looking at what the checklist was for, or whether the answers were even relevant ).

To have got this far, the trust leadership have had to be highly competent and skilled. Whatever went wrong does not require junking everything and starting over, but something more subtle. Year Zero didn’t work in Cambodia, and won’t work on the L&B.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I believe that all the things suggested in his post are already being done in some form. Colin is so vocal and opionated in his 'lectures' that he should put himself forward as a trustee - we will look forward to his 'election address' so that we can decide whether to support him or not.

 

My thoughts exactly - having worked with PRINCE 2 and it's predecessor PROMPT I fail to see how this is appropriate in the current phase of the L and B. The methology is misunderstood in the IT industry as well - Whilst working in consultancy one client said they were going to use PRINCE 2 - the person who had 'been on the course' brought out all the forms and said we had to fill these in - I asked who was going to fill the various defined roles and how the management reporting structure was to be set up. Never got the answers since to them all you had to do was use the forms.

 

In my view this is just a temporary pause. There is a clear long term strategy. The railway is in the local plan - so a planning application to build something on the trackbed will be turned down - so the trackbed is protected. Exmoor Associates are buying up parts of the former trackbed as they become available and are proactive in approaching landowners - a significant purchase being Bratton Flemming station.

The one negative part in all of this [which is hampering the current aspirations] is the failure to secure a significant part of the trackbed near Parracombe - there are parallels with the situation with the RVR in East Sussex where there are two parts of the trackbed which have not been secured. RVR have gone down the lengthy and expensive route of attempting to get CP powers to secure this land - a decision on this is expected 'shortly'. This process has taken 5 years so it is NOT the quick fix that some seem to think it is.

 

I think the major difference, is that a lot of what the L&B does in terms of progress isn't particularly glamorous. So unlike Peak Rail, which had grand ideas and several false starts, or what's now the WHHR - which had truckloads of ambition but never broke free of Pen-y-Mount - the L&B and Exmoor Associates have managed between them to build up ownership of about half of the 20 mile trackbed. Unfortunately it's not all contiguous...

So yes, about a mile of the just shy of 20 miles is operational, but that's like the bit of the iceberg you can see (and a very nice bit it is too with Lyn and the Victorian carriages, which are also a major achievement). Below the surface there's a lot more.

I'm obviously not attempting to say everything in the garden is rosy, but a lot more has been accomplished so far than a mile of track. Unlike Peak Rail, or WHHR, the L&B has actually managed to take ownership of a lot of the dots, the current challenge is joining them. K&ESR/RVR has been mentioned, and I think it is a better comparison than those other two, but really, for good or ill, what the L&B are trying to do is pretty unique in railway preservation terms. It really is the last great narrow gauge adventure.

 

Gosh, PROMPT and PRINCE2 - nightmare blasts from the past! In my experience these were honoured merely to the extent that we could 'tick boxes' to show that we were doing things 'the right way', whereas in practice they were considered a layer of bureaucracy that got in the way of the 'real work' (but we'd never tell the Directors that).

 

If not PROMPT or PRINCE then what other management tools are available to monitor how the progress of the project is doing?