Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

They've fulfilled that by restoring Woody Bay etc. Mission accomplished.

 

Good idea. I'll try and set something up - it'll be late October when I'm back from a work trip.

 

I'm sure a lawyer could argue that. I suspect that the reality would be that donations would dry up quite rapidly.

 

We have been over this ground before. If the recent conversation has been about how it might be that the railway is extended then I think that is fair for the forum to explore that. It doesn’t follow though that there is necessarily pressure for that to happen. I think the membership is primarily asking why given the promises made by the trustees to extend the railway, and the considerable sums given for that purpose, or at the least against a background of that being the stated aim, it has not in fact grown at all. Furthermore the membership is quite concerned about movements of money about the place with very little in the way of governance, and the fact that the extension to CFL does not appear to make very much sense. With this background it is I think very proper to consider whether an alternative strategy might be more effective. It has also been a matter of discussion that no extension at all might be either the short term answer or even a longer term one. Primarily the members are asking the trustees to be more inclusive, more communicative and more effective. Or to put it more bluntly, to be more trustworthy.

 

Thanks Martyn I am having a senior moment about L&BR rolling stock.

Colin

 

Hi Tobbes I have been told that those plans/ designs are/were unworkable due to the fact that no ground work or testing has been done and if it could carry a bridge, my understanding is that the old embankment would need to be totally replaced and compacted, If we want a bridge as has been put forward. Also don't forget that it is lower that it should have been (not sure by how much), but the middle of the embankment is at the bottom of 2 x 1 in 50 gradient from each direction, this happen due to Nuttalls running out of spoil when they were building it.

Would it be cheaper to build a brand new Viaduct at this point? Again the condition of the land in this part of the world are unknown at present.

 

That said just how many other railways projects could have just restored one station and called it a day? As far as I am concern the intent has always been to reopen as much of the L&BR as possible.

Just the name Lynton and Barnstaple Railway should give you some clue as to the intention of what the group has been set up to do.

 

I think he was being sarcastic/ironic, never sure which is which

 

Extending south of Wistlandpound is pie in the sky, frankly, for an organisation (or group of organisations) which can't even agree on whether or how to extend the existing operation over a short stretch of trackbed they already own. A quick look at the EA ownership map tells me that that section includes Twitchen Lane and a diversion around the reservoir, as well as a further 7 sections of trackbed not in L&B/EA ownership. Stating that it could be done within 4 or 5 years just lacks any credibility whatsoever.

Wouldn't the railway south of Blackmoor Gate require its own TWAO before any passenger operations could commence? It's a bit of a grey area these days as there seem to be one or two railways which haven't needed one, but I would work on the basis that it will, unless you have sound legal advice to the contrary. So the notion of 'applying later' for the controversial bit doesn't really work, because you'll just end up with a near-doubling of TWAO costs compared to applying in one go. Besides, it will be obvious to everyone that joining the two is the end game, so objections to the new section will be raised on that basis; even if they're ruled inadmissible, you're basically poking the hornets nest twice.

Far better to obtain all of the necessary permissions in one hit, even if that takes longer to achieve. How many stages you build and open it in is secondary.

And finally, getting fixated on a date is a bad idea, and a recipe for burning huge amounts of money as the deadline looms. The centenary will come and go, no doubt an event will be held on whatever bit(s) of railway are able to participate, but this shouldn't be driving the scope of 'what needs to be done' to reopen the line.

@Tobbes, I agree with much of what you write on here but this post just seems to be well wide of the mark and not rooted in realism.

 

I think that @Tobbes was creating an outline for further investigation. Another option would be to try to get the permission in pace for the whole thing, but the planning authority is different north of BG v south of BG. Coordinating that could be too difficult unless the intention is to use the TWA process to obtain deemed planning permission, which itself maybe a bit of a minefield for the line.

There’s a need to long at all options ?

 

Quite. My point is that we are asking why the trustees are not pushing forward with rebuilding the whole railway. My response is that as far as the charity commission is concerned, restoring the whole railway is not an objective. As far as the commission are concerned, Woody Bay fulfils the objectives, so job done.
So it's going to be worth revising the charitable objectives at some point, particularly before any further applications to extend the line are made.

 

Not sure I see why that's particularly necessary. Neither the existing Trustees nor their detractors are saying the current objectives are a blocker on extension plans. It's only because @Lineisclear has pointed out that the objectives don't explicitly force the Trust to pursue extension that it's even being mentioned. Extending seems to fall within those objectives, and everyone involved agrees extension is good, even if they can't agree how, so it seems an unnecessary distraction.

 

Indeed, but with the obvious condition that I suggested before that the financial impact of extension should not imperil the survival of what the Charity has already achieved. What's clearly missing is a realistic plan that would have to take account of the costs of a enabling measures like a TWAO, public enquiry and compulsory purchase etc. as well as the structural works and then put that in the context of what additional income the extended railway could reasonably expect to generate, the additional on going liabilities that would be incurred and what fundraising could reasonably expect to achieve. Maybe someone's already run the numbers but they must run into millions. Such an analysis should establish what is possible.

 

It should, which is one of the reasons why there is the current discussion. Instead of such a plan, there are bald assertions and determined chasing after dearly held projects, with (at best) inaccurate claims about the available funds.

It is a modern version of the hare and the tortoise, where the hares are in grave danger of exhausting themselves and all others by rushing off without actually pausing to develop a detailed plan.

I also suggest that the failure to effectively pursue an extension may be more imperilling to this charity. The support and funding for the charity is in large part based on a potent myth, that “perchance it is not dead, but sleepeth”. If that goes, the risk is that the support base for what exists also falls.

Finally, I find the parable of the Talents an interesting guide here. It is the cautious servant who is damned; the one who seeks a greater reward that is praised. Maybe we should be willing to be ambitious?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

If it wasn’t for ambition many heritage railways would never have started. It’s essential but has to be grounded in financial and practical reality.

 

Well, quite.

One might have reasonably expected the trustees to have undertaken exactly that analysis. Indeed, without having done so how would they justify continuing to raise funds for an extension? The largest financial risk to the Trust is now the unsecured exposure to OSHI, with a very tenuous link to the charitable objectives. OSHI is separated from the existing operation by a stretch where planning was obtained & then not followed up with a TWAO, subsequently lapsing. Presumably that exposure should be justified by a business plan too....

Perhaps it's now becoming clear why there are disaffected trustees & concerned members.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

I think most of us would agree with that. As an example, in the latest missive on the Lynton-rail website in an additional response to denigrate the minority report it is said that the CIC Company has made an average profit of £38,000 pa in the last decade. This is an attempt at deviating from the fact that a profit of £132,000 in 2021 has turned into a loss of £914 in 2022 with out any explanation, leaving members wondering was there a one-off reason ? Is it still making a loss ? etc etc. In fact all the information, and that's what we are talking about here - information - that the members are entitled to be given without it having to be extracted, probably reluctantly. Dare I say it, this is about honesty, truthfulness and openness. Something I was impressed with at the EA/YVT meeting on the Saturday morning of the gala.

 

I agree. But the “do nothing” option is not being placed on the table save as an unintended consequence of the way that plans are being advanced without assessment of financial or practical realities.

It may be that Woody Bay is as far as the recreated L&B gets towards Lynton, just as NYMR will realistically never go south of Pickering, or GWSR is very unlikely to go south of Cheltenham Racecourse.

If one or more trustees tabled that for consideration by members, with reasoning, I would take it seriously. But right now I see no such thorough planning and drawing of conclusions, however unwelcome. To me, that suggests that all trustees believe that it is reasonable and in the interests of the charity to seek to extend.

Taking your valid point that Trustees cannot be compelled by vote of members to do something that would undermine the future of the charity, I actually think it more plausible (though still vanishingly unlikely) that members might instruct trustees to stop work on extending the railway and just focus on Woody Bay than that members would mandate extension and trustees say “no, we can’t do that”.

That takes us back to the differing approaches of the majority and minority trustees to achieving a common goal. That is the point of conflict within the organisation right now, and that is where in my opinion the current majority need to step aside in favour of people who can lead the Trust onwards.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

That’s the logic I’m struggling with. I’m not saying the majority view is right, or the minority one for that matter, but it is for the time being a majority. As we’ve discussed before those in the minority could require reasonably that their views are minuted but the time honoured principle of collective board responsibility is that they then get behind the majority decision or resign. It seems there may be a reluctance to do so as it would mean the established trustees’ views prevailing but that’s inevitable so long as the present board make up continues.

 

It would be unfortunate if they resigned, since the purpose for which many voted for them was to force change. Whilst the collective responsibility of a board is important, there are occasions when it is in fact essential to challenge and change the established way of thinking for the good of the organisation. If the majority cannot cope with that challenge in an appropriate manner (and thus far this particular majority have not) then it is they that should go.