Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Are they going to or coming from West Somerset?

Tom

 

The WSR are a good guide, how things are dealt with, maybe they shared advice. The WSR seems to got on well since.

 

Or, alternatively, look again at some of the recent Porky Pies in written missives from the Trust.

 

That gives me pause. The "solution" to the WSR's squabbles was to run the reformers out of town. That was wrong in many ways but it does seem to have worked. Apart from the desirable but impractical extension to Taunton, however, the WSR does have its complete route, which some on here have suggested is even too long; whereas the L&B has made a mess of trying to extend beyond its present very short route. The tentative conclusion is that the WSR autocracy does at least know how to run its business while the L&B trustees do not.

 

There are those who would argue that a 20-mile L & B on 2 ft gauge would be too long, although others would say the Welsh Highland is even longer (20 miles plus Dinas to Carnarvon). But do we want to end up with non-communicating north and south bits with an insoluble gap in the middle ? That is why it so important that the proposed changes to the Articles are thrown out until a more meaningful and considered revision is put to the membership.

 

I look on them more as a "mixed hash", to be taken with a large pinch of salt and much relish

 

I tend to use relish to help enhance the flavour of something nice.

 

The Cumbres and Toltec is even longer but people still pay top wack to go on it. Its not just the length of the railway but the experience you offer. Even on the Festiniog (which people also claim is too long) the full line trains are more popular than the shorter ones.

 

The gap isn't insoluble, although it is a long-term and expensive issue. Once that is sorted, with the railway based at Blackmoor, it would be more like two 10-mile lines joined together: most traffic would be Blackmoor-Lynton or Blackmoor-Barnstaple, rather than Barnstaple-Lynton

 

The Welsh Highland is too long IMHO. I much prefer the charm of the L&B with a typical train or two rather than 1 long train doing 1 round trip (or 2 at best) per day. Tourist travel patterns are very different to the commuter trains of the old L&B, and I genuinely don't believe that a line of more than 10 miles will have sufficient footfall at an affordable price to cover operating costs sadly. I get that passengers don't HAVE to complete the full journey, but unless you can fill the vacant seats left by those only doing a part journey, then the costs are still there without the passengers!!!

 

Alternatively, that seat can be sold twice, probably for more than half of the end to end price.

There are many questions about what would or wouldn't be commercially viable on a rebuilt L&B, but I find the assumption that it couldn't work economically when the WHR does wash its face a strange one.

 

Another reason why, in trying to plan for future operations at Blackmoor, we (the signal design group) decided that we need to have the capability to work BR as a double-ended terminus as well as just a passing-loop, in a similar manner to Bishops Lydeard for example. In the process we've tried to avoid the 'forest of signals' effect, but it's not easy with all the potential movements which could happen there. Nor is it easy without any formal plan or operational requirements from the Trust - or should that perhaps be the CIC?

 

Just home from working overseas, my voting form is filled in correctly and will go in the post tomorrow. My only concern is whether it will be counted as it’s not to the favour of the six. Do the underhand tactics include vote rigging?

 

At a reported 70,000 annual visitors the Woody Bay operation appears to be doing a good job of attracting people relative to its size. One of my concerns about an expansion to CFL is that it is unlikely to add a single additional passenger and for something that will require civil engineering to create an embankment that will later need to be removed if a further extension is achieved, suggests to me that there is some very woolly thinking happening.

A full length L and B and the stages to get to that vision requires some very careful planning. I don’t see any planning going on really.

 

People who are desperate to cling on to power will do what ever it takes to keep that power, That is why everyone needs to vote down the changes at the EGM, then if successful, you need to have your own EGM, charging the 6 with bringing the trust into disrepute, and improper use of the power their positions gave them, if the motion is carried, a new board can then be enacted at the end of the meeting, and at the next meeting, it can vote for the suspension, pending investigation of the 6, and sack the secretary, for his own illegal conduct .after that there needs to be clarity, and truthfulness from the trustee board as regards its communications.

 

A quick suggestion !!
Nominate a proxy other than the Chairman - several members have offered. Scan your form and e-mail a copy to the proxy, so that they can take it to the EGM with them.

 

@RailWest is quite right. PM if you need some names - Mike Buse from EA has mine in case I can't make it, and he's delivering them in person to Woody Bay ahead of the deadline with photocopies of each Ballot/Proxy form.

More broadly, I was just thinking how sad it is, and what a commentary on the Trust today that this is actually a perfectly reasonable question. Very, very sad.

 

..and it may result in even less :-(

An extended WB-CFL line will be longer (obviously) and so journey times will be longer (equally obvious). Some careful scheduling will be necessary to ensure that the railway can run at least the same number of services per day as currently, otherwise of course less trains = less passengers carried. Unlike KL, at CFL from what we know of the plans so far, there may not be any scope to increase the length of run-round to cater for longer trains.

 

If you have appointed a proxy other than the chair, let them know that they are your proxy, and possibly send them copies, so they can verify receipt of your forms at the meeting. If you ve appointed the chair by default, he is duty-bound to vote per the votes marked on your form.
What I hope will happen (although I have not seen any explanation of the procedure to be adopted) is that, to account for all votes, and avoid double-counting & missing votes, each proxy/vote is opened in the hall, recorded against the membership list, checked and verified by the (at least 3) independent tellers as for/against/abstained/spoilt paper etc. for each of the resolutions, and that these can then be re-verified after the meeting. Remember, this is NOT a secret ballot.

 

That has been the biggest downfall of the trust in not producing a working business plan.