Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

It’s likely that the proposal to rebuild the line outwards from Woody Bay has timed out. Other approaches are available.

The core issue is therefore about people.

 

Yes, my apologies, from guard end to first third class door post. I was posting in haste which doesn't always give best results lol

 

Maybe I'm just being a pessimistic cynic, but - borne of several years of L&BR 'experience' - my suspicions for the AGM are that (a) the Chairman will try to clamp down on too much discussion about the CFL failure (too embarassing!), which no doubt will get blamed on the ENPA somehow and (b) there will be a hastily-regurgitated set of 'same old same thing' Options put forward with little or no intention of having a nice long 'reset' period to think afresh. After that everyone will go home and it will be 'business as usual' at Woody Bay. Repeat in 2026, 2027 etc ad infinitum...

Meanwhile the clock ticks relentlessly onwards towards losing at least some of the trackbed south of Blackmoor, on which the weeds no doubt grow ever higher, and members continue to defect and send their donations elsewhere, whilst the EA/YVT goes from strength to strength acquiring yet more trackbed etc....

 

These two comments struck me. If the Trust at Woody Bay continue to plough on on their current course, what's the likelihood of one of the other organisations grasping the nettle and having a crack at actually reinstating some railway?

 

That got me.

As someone who knows none of the history or politics of why there are multiple organisations - how have you got to a position where there is one organisation buying land but with seemingly no intention of building a railway; and another that seems intent on building a railway but with no intention of buying the necessary land?

I mean - I could sort of understand it if there was a very clear and explicit working relationship between the two that said one organisation was buying land for the other to build a railway on - but in which case, why the geographic separation? (And if that is the case - is it publicly documented?)

Surely at some point the pressure to do something railway-related with the EA/YVT land must become strong? I can't believe that those funding EA are doing so simply because they wish to be shareholders in a major landowner on Exmoor?

Tom

 

Non trivial. The status of the L&BRT as the "core" organisation rests upon what it has achieved in the past. If it digs itself into a corner, they may find themselves in a corner they can't get out of. I'm reminded that the WHR(1964) used to be "the" WHR organisation...

 

IIRC the aborted Sec 73 application for an extension to PE was withdrawn by the Trust before any formal decision on it was made by ENPA.

But - did it get as far as the stage where the ENPA Planning Officer actually produced a Report in readiness for the planning meeting? If so, can someone point me to a copy please?

 

It seems clear that the three Trustees whose tenure comes up for re-election at the AGM will have it renewed. I assume that the Chairman holds that role at the behest of his fellow Trustees, in which case they need to appreciate the feeling expressed here and maybe elsewhere that a new direction is needed. And this time they should refrain from having a consultation indicating in advance which option was going to be taken up.

 

The 5 restored/replica coaches already have FR bogies. I guess the difference is having steel bodies as the WHR (and therefore heavier) or stick to wood.

 

It'll be interesting to see on Saturday evening just how "member led" the Trust really is prepared to be. Personally, I'm expecting a degree of spin which could put Hotpoint to shame, coupled with an attempt at iron control of the floor. I'd love to be proved wrong, but really not expecting to be.

 

Yes that had crossed my mind too!

 

Tom, where do I start? The history of this part of the railway is complex, but in essence, when Woody Bay was first opened and was up and running by the same people who went on to set up Exmoor Associates, the plan was to extend the railway from Woody Bay. Sadly for us, it turned into one group that was more than happy to run the railway and recreate the L&BR, while EA/YVT wanted to extend and make the project longer.

Now, anyone with a bit of savvy will realise that you need a trackbed if you want a longer railway and over time, EA were buying up the trackbed. I think the total amount of trackbed we have in total in the project is just under 40% now. The trouble started when one group wanted control over everything, even though they had not put anything into the pot at the time.

To bring you up to date, the very first bit of trackbed this group purchased was in fact Cricket Field Lane (CFL). The bit of trackbed from Killington Lane to CFL was, in the first place, purchased by EA. Then things started to turn nasty, and people were accused of various things. As you can imagine, this left a sour taste in the back of the mouth. So, since then, there has never been any real movement to try to get over the differences or heal the wounds.

I know it has been said on here, wouldn't it be good to go South from Blackmoor? Again, that bit of track bed was brought by EA in the first place, but was then sold to the trust. We almost lost the planning permission on this bit due to the lack of action by the trust; it was only due to a Director of the CIC that we were able to save the planning permission by rebuilding the two missing Bridges on this section.

Also, many years ago now. Negotiations took place between the Trust and South West Water to rebuild the railway around Wistlandpound. But the Trust lost interest when they were told by SWW that they could not sell them the land due to it being a public utility. So you see, those of us who have been here for some time realise that this current failure by the trust is nothing new. But it is still galling that it keeps happening.

So you see, EA buy the trackbed and the Trust does F A with it even when it owns it. Unless it has changed, EA/YVT has only been set up to own the trackbed and does not have the power to build or operate a railway (yet), but I think that may well be changed in due course. I would like to see EA?YVT just carry on buying up the trackbed since it looks like the Trust are incapable of doing so, and they (EA/YVT) are doing a brilliant job in that department.

One thing that does worry me the most is that I think this project is ripe for a major donor takeover. I know you will say the M&A should prevent that from happening, but we do have shareholding, which could be brought out, and that could leave that shareholder with a big say in what happens next.

The other legal challenge, which has not been done due to the costs, is to challenge the legality of the winding up of the old L&BR company under the SR grouping bill. It would still be possible for someone to make that challenge and end up buying all the shares in the old company, which would then throw the cat among the pigeons as to who legally owns the old trackbed, the old company or the current landowner? ( I have been reminded that the above would not be that easy infact almost impossible to do).

Complex? Sure is, and in time it deserves its own book to be written about all of this.

 

As I understand it EA was set up by team A to hold a purse of money that could be used to react quickly to purchase track bed as it became available, team A together with others got the Woody Bay project up and running and oversaw the extension to Killington Lane, when this was achieved team A took a backseat and concentrated on EA whilst team B took over the reigns at WB, both initially worked together but then team B asked team A to stay south of Black moor and at the same time tried to initiate a backdoor takeover of EA from team A, luckily this failed but the rift was created and the trust between the teams was lost because of the underhandedness from team B. Team B then requested land from EA which it held north of Black moor which was duly arranged via a cash purchase and a share swap, team B then requested that team A stay south of Wistlandpound which they have done to this day, I would suggest you visit the EA website and read the trackbed trails, number 9 covers this in particular but the early ones explain many other things, number 6 although listed doesn't exist for some reason. There are a few reasons why people invest in EA but I think the main one is because of its success with track bed purchase, Mike has been involved for many years and has been instrumental in the rebirth of the L&B and land purchases and has known land owners for many years

 

Mike is one of the founding members of the L&BR Association

 

And there is also considerable overlap between groups.

 

Can you expand on that rather off the wall comment? The L&BR was dissolved under the Southern Railway Act of 1923 (Clause 60, Clauses 60-67 are the operative clauses for the various matters relating to the L&BR ("Lynton Company") including the acquisition of the small number of shares not then owned by the Southern Railway, the bulk of the shares having come into the Southern Railway Company with the other assets of the LSWR), not under a "SR grouping bill" (are you referring to the Railways Act of 1921? The L&BR was not mentioned in that Act, presumably as it was nearly entirely owned by the LSWR). It seems somewhat fanciful for someone to decide to challenge an Act of Parliament made over 100 years ago. First two pages of the Southern Railway Act 1923 attached (it runs to 132 pages but is I think available online in the parliamentary archives).

 

As one who attended last year's AGM and experienced just how control was exercised (largely by ignoring any comments from the floor) I was left wondering what a shame it was that about 95% of the membership would not be doing the same before casting their votes. We have to hope that if there is a repeat this year the members in the audience will not tolerate it by force of numbers in a situation where the agenda does not have 'any other business' listed.

 

The first L & B shares transferred to the LSWR on 20 July 1922, well after the Railways Act of 1921 ('the Grouping' Act). Clause 60 of the SR Act 1923 says that from the vesting date (1.7.1923 per clause 2 of the Preamble) the Lynton Company is hereby dissolved. Clause 62 says that from that date the L & B shares and debentures shall be cancelled. Clause 65 says that from that date all provisions of the Acts (the 1895 one and the 1901 one raising more capital) referring to incorporation and constitution and raising of money are repealed. That seems clear to me - the L & B Company is a dead duck. (John Cleese would have expressed it more succinctly)

 

I can have a go - I *think* what he's getting at, though I'm not certain, is the longstanding point - this isn't new and IIRC someone did raise it in 1935, though they didn't pursue it - that there's some suggestion in the original act that the railway was to be built and operated in perpetuity. 1935 saloon bar talk suggested the SR didn't have the authority to close the line without a change in the Act.

Now, I'm really not saying that would stand a cat in hell's chance in a court of law, but it's a long-held opinion in some quarters* - which isn't *totally* without foundation IIRC even if it would be vanishingly unlikely to be upheld.

*and has been used in the past to explain the extreme rapidity of the SR's track lifting and auction. It's not a *wild* conspiracy theory that the Southern wanted a fait accompli before anyone asked awkward questions.

 

we've just cross posted - I think that still leaves wiggle room on the perpetual service, and so did some at the time. That reading is the L&B 1895 company is indeed a dead duck, but the SR didn't have the right to close it. Not that the SR couldn't have got the right (pretty easily), but that they didn't.

Again though, I'm really not supporting this!