Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I

The ORR are against new level crossings unless there is no viable alternative. If it is viable to create a bridge under or over they will certainly prefer that, and rightly so. So it will depend on the local topography more than anything.

 

I think objectors would rightly ask what is the point, and how does that address concern about visitors to watch the trains?

 

Not sure you are correct there - the RVR have 3 in their plans - 2 are reinstatements and one is a brand new one over a major trunk road. A lot of work has been done and the authorities have agreed to these.

 

May i suggest Thomas, that you visit the north devon council planning site, search for 70504, click documents, agree to copyright notice then scroll down the immense list of letters of representation to Grob David and have a good read, this is not the only time CP has been mentioned but also in another planning application which i cannot find the number for at the moment and in that letter its mentioned by a solicitor acting for the pub owners so i think your highlighting a 'do as we say not as we do' scenario

 

ORR’s position is more nuanced than that, with their level crossing policies revised in the last few years. The potentially lower risk of a 25mph heritage railway is recognised.
“We do not support the creation of new level crossings where there is a reasonably practicable alternative such as an alternative route for the road or path, a bridge or tunnel. These alternatives should be fully explored and delivered where it is reasonably practicable to do so.

We recognise that the cost of alternatives has to be taken into account, as well as their feasibility. A risk assessment approach should be followed. This enables the costs and benefits of alternatives to be considered alongside the costs and benefits of a level crossing.”
https://www.orr.gov.uk/guidance-compliance/rail/health-safety/level-crossings/new-or-reinstated

 

As the cost of the alternative is heavily dependent on the topography of the area where the road rail crossing is to be made, I don’t see anything in what I said that is in any meaningful way different to the statement from the ORR which I have read several times before.

 

Probably not.

IIRC it was a condition of the planning consent for KL that the station there was temporary only and would be removed once the line extended southwards. So, once you start running to CFL/PE. then - unless you get that PP altered (another Sec 73??) - all that you will have at KL is the single track passing thru' the cutting and under Bridge 65. Not sure if the topography then would provide space for a new run-round loop.

 

IMHO there were two problems with the Sec 73 application in respect of the turntable.

Firstly, even when the rumpus about it started to appear in the objections, it was never made sufficiently clear (if at all) to anyone not 'in the know' that the TT was not going to be used for turning trains (ie through 180 degrees) but merely as a sector table. So the supposed 'spectacle' of engines being turned would never happen - other than perhaps on odd occasions for maintenance purposes if you needed the engine to face the other way than normal.

Secondly, there were far too many misguided comparisons with what happens at Minehead. The 'spectacle' there is large standard-gauge tender engines - especially, of course, the 'celebrity ' ones from incoming charters - not small little NG tanks. Secondly, many of the crowds who gather to watch at MD are either people who are already on the station anyway for reason such as arriving for, or alighting from, WSR trains, visiting the shop or cafe etc, plus passers-by from the promenade, car-park etc - in effect a ready-made audience. Discussions with fellow enthusiasts and WSR volunteers etc suggest that very few people travel all the way to MD specifically to watch engines being turned - they just happen to be there for other reasons.

 

Two bridges actually - one for the main road, one for the OSHI access.

AIUI the tunnel was merely someone's initial idea/assumption when the planning application was submitted.

When we were looking in details at the likely operational and signalling requirements for BR, it became apparent that quite a lot of shunting movements (eg engines running-round etc) might end up taking place inside the tunnel, with signals and/or pointwork also inside the tunnel. Feasible, but not desirable, bearing in mind that rules and regulations often need to be modified for 'working in tunnels' as opposed to under 'long bridges'.

Eventually AIUI we were advised that the Civil Engineering design team had decided that two bridges would be easier to construct than one long tunnel - you would have to ask them for the technical details, but I can imagine that digging a long cutting and then throwing two bridges across it would be easier/cheaper (?) then boring a tunnel. There was then the advantage of a stretch of 'daylight' between the two bridges, easing the possible problems described above.

As for semanatics - for the purpose of railway rules and regulations there was/is a defined minimum length of 2 chains (44 yards) for a tunnel - anything less than that is just a long bridge. It may seem unnecessarily precise, but when the rules/regulations talk about 'except in a tunnel' or 'when passing through a tunnel' etc then railway staff need a clear definition as to what is or is not a tunnel.

 

Looking at Google streetview we have two A roads crossing on a dog-leg over flat ground. A rail-over-road bridge crossing the A399 would require substantial embankments and make the addition of sidings difficult. A level crossing across a busy road junction is unlikely to find favour. The third option of a tunnel (or wide over-bridge, whichever description suits !) would require moderately deep cuttings and, again, create difficulties with sidings.
As these options seem to have been considered by the Board, it would be useful if somebody could post possible plans for both tunnel and bridge to aid the discussion.

 

However you look at it, the bridge/tunnel debates at Blackmoor will no doubt throw up more than its fair share of issues in its construction. the priority has to be to keep the road traffic flowing so while any cut and cover operation is going on to construct the above, all four roads will still need to remain linked.

Before all this kicked off at Blackmoor I do recall it was suggested that if a new bridge/tunnel was needed at Blackmoor then a new Roundabout may provide the answer for traffic control, now I don't know if there are any new traffic problems at the junction that needs any intervention, are there of have there been a number of accidents that have happen there? again I don't know.

One thing is for sure that when the construction starts it would great to have a couple of time lapse cameras installed to watch the progress.

 

Having visited a few times, my recollection is that the A399 is somewhat higher than the level of the railway, as can just about be seen from this photo. I'm sure that the railway will have to go under the roads.

I don't really want to get into what the plan should be (I haven't yet received the latest communication from the trust), but I am sure that discussions with ENPA are ongoing and will indicate what is or isn't acceptable. I also think that ownership of required land is imperative.

Regarding the OSHI, although it will remain focused on its regular local customers in the short term, it's clear that its long-term success will be significantly improved with the addition of the railway. Therefore, it has to be part of the next stage of development.

 

Well, alright, here goes, if you've got 5 minutes :

Charles Blackmore lived at Court Place, which his family had occupied for generations. It was an 18 or 19 roomed house with a farm about 70 yards south east of where Parracombe Halt was opened in 1899. He had a life interest in the property and was distantly related to the writer of the ‘Lorna Doone’ novel. His land included about 780 yards of trackbed on the curve on which Holwill (Parracombe) embankment was built, and just over 300 yards running up to Ivy Cottage, south of the halt. A field at the south end of this land was occupied by his younger brother Henry who had bought the Fox and Goose Inn from him in 1892.

Charles ‘strongly objected’ to the toy railway, preferring a proper railway – he ‘was greatly in favour of the (rival standard gauge) Filleigh line; it passes through my land’ . . . ‘It would be about a mile and a half from me’. . . . ‘To having the toy railway, I prefer having no railway at all.’ . . . ‘It is passing through my best land, the meadows and would be objectionable in front of my eyes, and I should strongly object.’

Both he and Henry signed a petition of Owners, Lessees and Occupiers to the House of Lords Committee sponsored by the Solicitors of the Filleigh Scheme put forward by Lord Fortescue. The petition was also signed by 6 other minor land owners and tenants of land on the route. 4 of the owners along with 3 others dissented from the L & B scheme, including Charles Blackmore. Henry dissented as an occupier (all these people were asked to assent, dissent, neuter or give no answer to the schemes - overwhelmingly the L & B scheme was assented to)

Henry signed the petition - he was ‘of opinion that a road (sic) from Barnstaple would considerably hurt his trade’. Clearly the Barnstaple to Lynton coach would be given up if the L & B railway was built (leaving the Ilfracombe and local tourist coaches). He was probably also supporting his brother in signing. (people in those days were always ‘of opinion’ - ‘of the opinion’ is modern usage).

Charles gave evidence under examination and cross-examination supporting the petition before the Lords Committee, from which the above quotes have been taken.

Charles had 13 children and died in 1900 and Henry sold the Fox and Goose shortly after the trade from the navvies building the railway left (who had been accommodated in ‘The Town Hall’, owned and still existing opposite the Inn)

In answer to the question, the L & B Company did have CP powers by virtue of the deposited plans, approved as part of the Act, as amended during the Bill's progress through Parliament, both the Lords and the Commons. A level crossing over the Button Hill road at the north end of Bratton (sic) Station was changed to a bridge and the track position amended slightly in sympathy, but that was the only change affecting the plans and sections. If there was a dispute as to the value, the Company could go to arbitration, but most were settled with agreements as to 'accommodation works' - cattle creeps, aqueducts, water troughs etc; only some of the major ones going that far over the claims, as it was inevitably an expensive process in terms of the professionals who had to be employed and marshalling of evidence. It was for this reason that Newnes implied at the opening that the Company accepted most of the demands by landowners when defending the fact that land had cost over 4 times the valuers estimate.

 

Is there any practical reason why the OSHI access road couldn’t be moved to avoid the need to bridge it? I’m guessing from a road point of view the preference would be not to have the pub access open on to the A399?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

the fact that land had cost over 4 times the valuers estimate.

Interestingly my sister was a solicitor and worked in the 1980s for clients trying to buy land from the British Rail Property Board. She told me that looking through the deeds and histories that the GWR was buying land and properties in the late 1830's at prices that were not seen again until the 1950's.

 

I suspect the same has happened when the GCR London extension was built...and HS2!

 

Why are we talking about crossings. The railway ran under the main road before the junction was changed, and both levels and the nature of the junction make the thought of a crossing bizarre. The access road to the OSHI is a car park access, and surely much less contentious given situation and speeds - it would be like the High Mill crossing at Pickering.

 

Why is everyone suddenly talking about a level-crossing? The road(s) will cross the line by bridges.

As regards to the access road to the OSHI, I suspect you will find - if you read all the paperwork associated with the original applications - that the proposed road layout was the result of prior discussions with NDC. According to the detail in the aforementioned News Bulletin the main road falls within the NDC area anyway, so hopefully that part at least could be done without the need to involve the ENPA.

Realistically however, given that the short stretch of track-bed between the (as yet unbuilt) bridge and the new Depot site does fall AFAIK within the ENPA area, then it would seem prudent to involve them in the discussions process.

 

Glad it's not just me. I thought was going barmy, with all this talk about level crossings!

 

It occurs to me it would be useful to mention with regard to CP powers in operation at the time the Railway was built that the area it applied to was not just between the intended fences, but, generally, or at least on the 1895 L & B deposited plans, a 'limit of deviation' of about 18 yards. In other words the area the railway could CP. On the L & B plans they are about 9 yards either side of the intended track centre line. This must have been to allow reasonable alterations to be made during construction - to allow an S bend to give a cattle creep demanded by a landowner a decent headroom, or avoid a skew bridge (although the L & B Engineer wasn't concerned about that - witness the awful interference to road traffic at Bridge 19 at Collard and at 76 at Dean Steep). The L & B Company used it to shift the railway the other side of the River Yeo between bridges 7 and 10, probably because it was found impossible to fit underneath the hillside. It was also used to move Lynton Station about 9 yards further on. This was fine in rural areas, but in town the Company had a different consideration - where to site the rolling stock depot and administrative HQ in Barnstaple ? There was no room at North Walk - there had been enough of a row about allegations of destroying the ornamental lake and interfering with site of Barnstaple Fair and livestock market. The quay between the crossings was not big enough even if the buildings would have been approved by the Council. The only place for it was at Brewery Marsh, the boggy ground north of Pilton Crossing (which at that time was open fields north of the mill leat) So they took that, and received a dissent from the owner, Mr Dennis, as a result. But it was within the limit of deviation so the Company was entitled to insist, and had to go to arbitration to reduce the price demanded. The problem for the Company was that the land from Goulds Yard (Brunswick Wharf) to Brewery Marsh was let out on long leases to various people and the land valuation only appears to have catered for the freehold (free from the Council at Goulds), contributing to the dramatic overspend on land.