Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

The decision to remove the turntable was because an opponents lawyer pointed out that to install and use it would need a new planning application as it wasn't what had been passed in the first place hence the decision to remove that idea and revert back to the original plans.

 

Actually, owning and having control of the school site would be very beneficial to the railway, I would even put it on a par with owning OSHI (definitely better value for money), simply because the school site has the Viaduct running right across the middle of it, in fact Colin isn't alone with his thoughts on this, it has been raised by quite a few people simply because they have bothered to think about it and the bigger picture

 

No it doesn’t. The extension hasn’t even started to be buil yet.

 

AIUI that was the legal view of the objector's lawyer, whereas the ENPA and L&BRT have obtained different legal views. After all, surely the whole purpose of a Sec 73 is to obtain an alteration/modification to an existing permission? - happens in my area all the time for housing/office developments where things get left out or added in.

Are local planners really interested in the minutiae of railway track layouts? Would they care if you replaced a LH point by a RH point or a diamond crossing by a slip etc? As it happens, there may well be other parts of Phase 2A that are not built exactly as shown in the original application plans in terms of the track layout etc, but no-one seems to be making a fuss about them.

 

You are missing the point, the paperwork needs to be done at the same time as the construction is being carried out, I think the good old CDM regs or a variation of them comes in to play here.

 

Just a question how long have you been a member of the L&BR group?

If you have joined for the long term welcome, but you don't appear to understand the fact that we just can't march in and buy the trackbed from one end to the other. The strategy that Exmoor Associates have in buying up the track as and when it can is the only way we can do this.

Chelfham Mill School site could be made into a valuable resource centre for the railway, not only for storage but also as a volunteer accommodation centre which even you must realise we need. It could also become a reason to stop off at Chelfham to view the various proposed exhibits at the Mill which as I understand some one wants to rebuild.

Handled correctly the whole site at Chelfham could become an asset for the Railway to promote.

 

Without meaning any disrespect to those concerned, but I can not agree with the view in some quarters to "build the line to PE first and then work out how to operate it" (or variations thereof).

By way of an analogy, the web is full of threads from modellers who have posted (roughly) "here is the track plan of my layout that I have built, where do I put the signals now please?", only to be told that they have omitted trap-points, put traps in the wrong place, got cross-overs facing the wrong way, failed to work out how goods trains can be shunted etc etc . In other words, the signalling is not something to be added later (as if just a part of the scenery), but must planned at part of the initial design. And signalling is not just traditional 'fixed signals', but the whole gambit of how it is to be operated, block controls, safety requirements etc etc.

Of course, in preparation for the commissioning process then the necessary details will be added to the Rule Book - or more appropriately, included in the Local Instructions for PE - but I am not expecting to see that level of detail for quite some while yet. But.....IMHO as part of the initial design process, as a precursor for any TWAO and/or planning applications, someone has to make the necessary decision on the basic operation method (eg whether top&tail, shunt release etc). That can be advised quite simply in one sentence and could have been included in the report in Newsletter 78.

 

Define "valuable", in terms of cost and income.

I can see how the idea could be of value, but given the price of property (see OSHI discussions ad nauseam) and the scale of funding required for the L&B, I'm seeing a drain on resources for something that is not a core part of operating the L&B.

 

I'm struggling a bit here. I don't think, for example, signalling is especially germane to planning permissions. Planning may wish to put certain conditions in place which translate through to constraining operating practice - those would most likely be measures to control noise, and / or hours of operation; and / or parking restrictions; and / or prohibited on-site activities such as catering, maintenance etc.

It might be ideal to have thought out all matters of operation and signalling in advance (so as to avoid unnecessary future expense of doing something in an expensive way that could have been done more cheaply during construction, such as laying in necessary cables alongside the trackbed) but it isn't an absolute requirement. There are plenty of heritage line extensions that have started with a fairly basic signalling / operational set up, and then developed in ways that, typically, give greater operational flexibility in exchange for greater complexity. The important thing isn't that you have the design nailed down before you even put a spade in the ground; it is that you have a safe method of operation at the point you start operating. (As an example: somewhat late in the construction process, site constraints and costs meant that the Bluebell extension to East Grinstead changed from having a ruling grade of 1 in 75 to a grade of 1 in 55. Good job we didn't write the load limits in the sectional appendix twenty years earlier when construction was initially contemplated).

The implication from those suggesting that everything has to be hammered out definitively in advance is that you could thereafter never change a scheme. You can, subject to it possibly being more expensive than if you had done it first up. But the flip side of that is that you could end up over-engineering a solution now for which the requirement of the complexity never arises. (Again, an East Grinstead example: when built, the north-end run round points were a simple hand point. Now they are still a hand point, but with detection of the blades and an indicator, something that has emerged from operational experience. Originally there was just one token machine at Kingscote, so an incoming move required the token to be delivered by road, but now there is a remote token machine to make such moves more flexible. In due course the whole layout will be signalled and controlled from Kingscote. Those are all developments from the initial scheme; some of them were allowed for with passive provision from the start (e.g. signalling from Kingscote) but the key thing is that the signalling, and the associated operating procedures, are not in some kind of frozen state, fixed and unchangeable from before construction started.

Tom

 

Define "valuable" in terms of volunteer labour. An extended railway will need more boots on the ground. We all know the cost of overnight accommodation in and around the national park. How many potential volunteers can afford those rates, let alone on a recurring basis?
Accommodation for the railway's workforce is essential to its long term success, so when the very rare opportunity to aquire somewhere suitable presents itself, surely a long, careful think about that opportunity is essential. This project, it is clear, will not necessarily happen in the logical progression which some should wish. Rather, it will be a process of opportunity, much in the manner of trackbed acquisitions both North and South of Wistlandpound.
Certainly, the Mill School, if it were aquired, would need significant investment to convert it into a warm and welcoming accommodation base and social centre aimed at enticing, and then retaining, a reliable and steady number of volunteers Surely such foresight is to be applauded? Such things rarely come along at convenient moments, however much we would want them to, and this is why professional fundraising expertise is needed right now, in fact several years ago, to be honest.

 

Hi Colin

I think I joined the L&B in 2006 so compared with you I am indeed a newcomer. I recall you and I had a conversation just outside the marquee on Moorlands lawn at a pre covid gala. We did exchange names at the time but I know full well how difficult it is to remember the name of everyone we meet at Woody Bay.

I fully agree that Chelfham Mill site could one day become a useful asset to the railway. If someone were to offer it as a gift to the Trust then I am sure they would weigh up the pros and the cons before making a final decision. However, for now the focus is on reinstating track and getting trains running once again between the reservoir and Killington Lane. EA are doing a great job in buying odd lengths of trackbed to the south of the reservoir ready for use in the future - I take my hat off to them for what they have achieved to date.

Even I do appreciate that volunteer accommodation is required - I look forward to the day when OSHI will provide such a benefit to those actively helping the L&B. As you know Colin, we are not permitted to encourage or to advise anyone to invest in OSHI shares, but we are both allowed to tell people of the existence of the share offer. For the benefit of those reading this post, if they have a look at https://www.lynton-rail.org.uk/page/become-lb-funder they will discover more about what people can do to help in that task.

Mike

 

>>>>I don't think, for example, signalling is especially germane to planning permissions.....

I would agree.

However...currently we are in the situation with the planning consent for the track-bed for Phase 2A in the ENPA area that the Grampian conditions, coupled with the well-known land ownership situation at PE, meant that the railway submitted a Sec 73 application for a revised track layout at PE. AIUI that revision formed a key part of the legal objection. It would seem to me therefore to be only prudent to ensure that the railway is on 'firm ground' when pursuing the Sec73 in its current form and to do as much forward thinking and decision-making as possible to try to eliminate the possibility of any more hiccups once actual construction and operation commences.

We have the situation already also with Phase 2A that some proposals in the original planning permission may not come to fruition in exactly the form outlined. I would submit that it would be remiss not to work out at this stage roughly what are the operational requirements, how the existing proposals could support them, what signalling might be required and roughly how much that might cost. The Board then could decide with which elements it wished to proceed and which parts it wanted to defer or omit altogether in an effort to reduce costs - which is probably exactly why the Board sought such information from the signalling design team for Phase 2A about 2 years ago (I've lost track of time during the pandemic!).

One of the benefits of having done a lot of the initial design work already for the signalling at Blackmoor and Whistlandpound is that - to (mis)quote one former PM - we have a number of almost 'oven ready' solutions for WD which could be adapted for PE.

 

It might - but begs the question about the ability of the organisation to absorb the change.

 

Sure.
And, of course, their "willingness".

 

I think it is unlikely that CDM requires you to specify how you will operate the completed railway. It may require a method statement if a partially complete railway forms part of the construction methodology (moving materials etc). That usage though would be quite different to the way you would operate a line open to the public. How you would do that is nothing to do with CDM or planning.

 

A section 73 is to vary or remove conditions put on planning permission

 

So in this post you claim that you are in some way involved with the railway (that you are helping to design signal work). So therefore, surely a concern as big as the one you have outlined above should be between you and whoever you work under?

Having someone who's supposedly involved with the railway repeatedly spreading dissent in an online forum isn't a great look for either party, is it?

 

I fail to what the relevance that I may disagree with some other posters has got to do with the underlying issues.

 

Oh you can guarantee that there is someone somewhere waiting in the wings, that will have yet another hoop for us to go through before the extension can be open and that will be someone on our side of the fence. The big problem for us as a group is we have always played the good guy, yet we have been held over a barrel by one or two people who refuse to see the long term benefits to the larger community as a whole.

I don't know if it is true, but I am sure I read somewhere that you would need to run all the UK heritage railways for one year to produce the same amount of greenhouse gas as one round trip to American and back by a single 747.

Again, just think about this for a moment, if everyone stopped using planes to move about the planet and this may sound naïve, but would we plunge ourselves back into the good old days of deep snow drifts and colder temperature's when we used to freeze to death in winter as we would only had steam locos back then? I don't know the maths behind such a point of view, but I sometimes wonder if it could be that simple? I know we had a different weather pattern back then. But if that is the main objection to the re-building of the railway you also need to disprove their logic behind it all.

As far as I can find out the main objection to the railway is one of greenhouse gases and pollution all of which have been been explain time and time again. Also I know it can't be about the money either since I know they have been offered an open cheque to sell the property to a third party, I do wonder if it is more about trying to claim your 15mins of fame again.

 

It is probably me, but I have lost any sense of your thread of thought here. I think we are jumping about a bit which makes it hard to follow.

Reading your posts and others I start to wonder if at times the desire to, as you put it, play it straight, hasn’t led to a situation where too much planning has been done and too much unnecessary information shared. For example this s73 application to vary the planning at Parracombe. Why bother? It simply arms opponents. Once the railway is built it will have a number of powers to vary track layouts etc, or it will have if the room for manoeuvre hasn’t been traded away in an attempt to please everyone.

Opposition to the scheme doesn’t really are what the track layout will be. It doesn’t want any track. Talking with precision about how the railway will operate, simply confuses the matter. Strategically the minimum information necessary for planning permission is best. Subsequently and once ground is broken is the time to provide more detail for engagement. It is possible, this is the direction the board is travelling in as well.