Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I'm not sure if this takes the railway outside the land of the principal objectors, but something like the route in red might be possible?

 

And a 1963 version showing the bypass built in the 20s.

 

Funny you should say that I was only talking about it on Saturday and went to have a look yesterday of a bit of an idea I'd had,

 

I pretty much looked at that route yesterday afternoon, the verge alongside the road is upto 9 metres wide, I'd figured following the road all the way around the bypass, using the previously proposed bow string bridge to cross the river heddon right beside the bypass and linking into the end of Parracombe bank, land would need to be purchased beside the road and it would require a very deep cutting dropping down to where the new bridge would be to keep gradients sensible, but if the problem is Parracombe then why not try to avoid it

 

Precisely. If all the other suggested alternatives - heading north from Woody Bay, shifting the operation elsewhere, extending to Cricket Field Lane, or CPOs - aren't good enough, then that's the only option. Otherwise the entire operation and enthusiasm for the future stagnates

 

But...if you look at the suggestion posted in post 10061, the proposed deviation starts at CFL, so as a minimum you would need the extension to CFL (including the rebuild of the bridge at KL) anyway. Also, there is no point in having a deviation around PE without having also secured fresh planning permission for the rest of the section to Blackmoor. After all, a by-pass road is no use without the link roads to serve it

 

There are maps on the council's website which shows the rail corridor. In reality this means following the original route. An example of a deviation from the route might be at Blackmoor Gate where the line will be moved slightly to avoid the extension to the OSHI. Recent comments have reminded me of suggestions made by opposers to the Rother Valley Railway reinstatement who suggested that the line be diverted to connect to the mainline at Battle rather than Robertsbridge.

The Option C proposal to reinstate the L and B on the land owned by the trust fits in with the Local Plan and shows the 'powers that be' that the trust are serious. This is important in the consideration of any future Applications.

 

I largely agree, though with reservations about how Option C was formed and assessed. However, we keep coming back to the difficulty of parts of the trackbed being owned by individuals who are actively hostile to the L&B. If that is not to be taken as a complete blocker, then strategies are required to address that. The RVR addressed this head on, as has been discussed. If not possible, one alternative might be to deviate from the original trackbed to sidestep that particular blockage. I'm personally sceptical that it would be feasible but stand to correction.

 

I'm not familiar with the actual location, but looking at the suggested deviation around Parracombe, it looks as if two level crossings would be required - over both access roads from (and immediately adjacent to) the A39.
I would imagine this would create some concern in Parracombe as both roads into the village are affected, and if the line is close by the A39 there will be safety considerations over queueing traffic onto the main road and turning off it.

 

IMHO any 'deviation' such as the one proposed at Blackmoor is little more than a slight re-alignment, not too dissimilar from the situation when the railway was built and its Act allowed for the proposed line of route to vary between pre-defined 'limits of deviation', whereas an 'avoiding line' such as has been suggested for PE is much more akin to a 'new route'.

There is another aspect to this issue....it would not seem unlikely that there may be other landowners in later stages of the rebuilding (ie Phases 2B and 3), who may be equally determined NOT to sell back their sections of the trackbed to the Trust (or EA). If the Trust were to 'give up' on the land at PE and attempt a new route, it could be seen by those other potential objectors as a sign of weakness and an indication that, if they too held out against selling, then in turn the Trust would give up and seek to by-pass them also. That sort of situation IMHO should be avoided at all (realistic) costs.

 

AIUI one of those 'roads' is actually the end of Church Lane and is just a private road(?)/bridleway at that point. The other 'road' appears to be just a private access road to Lorna Doone House. Neither is a heavily-used public road into Parracombe, but carries - I would guess - minimal motor traffic at best. Any level-crossings might therefore just be classed as occupation crossings, but even so it would be best to avoid 'new' level-crossings like the plague

 

I initially thought that level crossings would be required but viewing the landscape yesterday and taking levels into account it might be that a new line would be deep enough for a bridge instead, these are access roads to a property and churchtown (which clearly states no unauthorised traffic), the churchtown lane is quite steep though

 

The powers that be obviously also know the issues that the railway is up against near Parracombe so looking at a deviation must also show that the railway is seriously looking at ways to deal with the issues

 

That's an ideal map Michael, my thought was to run parallel to the road which would reduce the need to cut across fields, only needing to do so from CFL to the churchtown lane entrance area, the road verge is quite wide at various points so by utilising some of this would possibly reduce the amount of 'field edge' needed to be purchased, the biggest issue with the route is below left of the 800 mark where the bypass drops significantly and goes through a bit of a cutting, the said cutting being very high on the railway side, of course the fill would be very useful elsewhere, instead of a bridge over the river ,the embankment the road sits on could be widened so the fill would only have to move a few hundred yards downhill, any left over could be utilised elsewhere maybe Dean steep, would it be financially viable because it would cost a lot of money but on the other hand how long and how much will it cost to push along the original alignment, i can see some people saying 'what a stupid idea' but a few of us have thought along the same lines and i actually got my butt out to Parracombe yesterday to have a look at how the ground lies

 

Like the enthusiasm obviously, but I have to say I'm rather persuaded by the line of argument above that once we start deviating we're waving the white flag all along the route (obviously I accept there's a reservoir that is going to demand a deviation) to anyone that wants to say no and setting a massively unhelpful precedent for ourselves. I really do get that people are frustrated, I really get that we're up against it, but I believe the single worst thing that could happen now is for a deviation to come along to put a smile on the faces of some of the older members while potentially making a rod for the backs of those following on behind them who might have four or five more decades of the story left to run!

Essentially I signed up to rebuild the Lynton & Barnstaple Railway, not to build near the Lynton and Barnstaple Railway. Selection and maintenance of the aim...

 

Although with the railway planning new terminii in both locations, along with deviations at the reservoir and Narrocott?, one could argue that a precedent has been set!

 

Well its only going to be 'NEAR' if it gets back to Barnstaple, from Town station to pretty much Pilton yard the trackbed has been built on, its going to be a squeeze to get from Raleigh weir to the yard, im just chucking ideas out there and thinking outside the box, i dont think some people realise how time is actually running out , we've had nearly 2 decades of nothing, Hole Ground was a big missed opportunity, maybe some of us should just see what we can achieve down in the South

 

Which is why we are where we are isn’t it? The elephant in the room. Absolutely no unity or culture of unity - when it comes down to it it’s just a series of groups all taking their ball home when it suits them.

Frankly for all the individual successes of the individual groups it’s difficult not to feel ashamed.

 

Please explain further seeing that you seem to have a good grasp of things

 

I suspect any deviation from the original line of railway that is not unavoidable as a result of physical changes in the landscape will be pretty unpopular with the Park, and a “difficult sell” politically as it ceases to be a reinstatement and becomes “new”.