Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

And who will pay for your NG museum and what would go into it? Once again you are confusing your own pet project with the L&B.

Do you honestly think that the membership of the (greater) L&B would stump up the millions required for a museum building, (plus presentable exhibits), rather than buy more land or build another MW.

Who says that the enthusiast market is not prepared to support the building of 4 MWs?

In November the 762 Club said that the boiler funding was approx. 33% towards the first boiler and work seemed to be proceeding on many other parts, so just going by that, the interest and money still seem to be there. While there are economies to be had from ordering parts for 2 or more locos, that doesn't mean the locos have to be built simultaneously or by one starting as the first is finishing.

The L&B is synonymous with the MW locos and it would be a brave man who said 'Let's not build any more MWs. Let's import some random unconnected loco from South Africa that will probably need as much money spending on it as a new MW would cost.'

Time to stop dreaming.

 

I agree the railway is a big project, and there is only so much cake to go around, and it is up to the individual to spend their money where they like, so we can't force people to place their money into a newbuild steam loco project if they don't want to.

 

If I were (a) someone who wanted to see the restoration of the heritage L&BR in all its glory (yes please!) and (b) had money that I was willing to donate to that end (sadly, not much of that to spare these days), why would I want to put that money into building "something that doesn't exist and will never be able to run on its old line" rather than a new MW which could run on its original line? Sorry, but it just does not make sense to me. Maybe I'm missing something......?

 

The frames for the original YEO project were scrapped because they were not suitable.

Currently the 762 Group seem to be pushing on with both engines, albeit one is taking a bit longer, and they seem perfectly able to fund raise. I'd also caution that the LB probably doesn't need two Manning Wardles until the railway makes a significant extension - and that isn't happening in the next few years.

Four or five engines should be enough to run the line from Woody Bay to Blackmoor Gate - and if push comes to shove I'm sure something could be obtained from the F/WHR, Statfold Barn, or another source. It's more likely that a Manning Wardle or LYN end up on a extended holiday in North Wales as things stand.

 

Precisely. But if you are going to encourage someone to contribute, you need to give them reason to.

Precisely - the L&B is interesting because, well, it's the L&B. If there were a project to rebuild C&M and/or L&M motive power, that might appeal to someone with an interest in those railways. The link to North Devon is a tad tenuous, and the enthusiasm of L&B members for the wider national museum of narrow gauge is not obviously apparent. That Peter Rampton considered it 50-odd years ago and it became a "nearly" of railway preservation is very thin justification - and, after 20+ years of Woody Bay etc., frankly irrelevant to most.

 

Colin - if you want to see a replica Leek & Manifold loco built, no-one is stopping you setting up a project to build one. But in which case - why are you so visibly associated with a whole slew of Lynton and Barnstaple groups?

I'd suggest you read Mark Allatt's piece in the latest Trackside. There was a lot of interesting stuff in it, but one point was about heritage schemes needing to get better at presenting a consistent historic vision. A recreated L&BR can do exactly that, but not if it gets sidetracked into running any old loco that happens to broadly fit under the bridges.

Tom

 

Lyn cost about £650,000 to put into service.
The 762 Club was claiming that two Manning-Wardle's would cost £500,000 each. I question that. I know there are huge economies to be made by batch production, and all the R&D costs are shared by the number of units produced, the fact that the price and cost of everything virtually doubled overnight in 2020, and hasn't gone inclines me to believe that the cost will end up being £1.5M for the two.
That is an aside though.
Colin's claim that :

Misses the possibility that even though supporters might really want to see a thing happen, it is not simply a matter of pound notes. We have to believe that those promising to deliver the project do actually have the will and ability to deliver it, and that the thing, once delivered, will have a reason for existing.
It has been pointed out by detractors that the GWS keeps on building missing GWR locomotives by cannibalising other 'saved' locomotives, yet apparently struggles to keep any of its main fleet in ticket after their initial 10year honeymoon.
Building a pair of locomotives that the railway doesn't need, can't use and can't afford could cause far more problems than it solves, so some might choose to slow the pace of that particular white elephant.
Others might point out that, assuming the £500k sticker price is correct, Exe, Taw, Yeo and Lew could have been bought and paid for with the amount spent on the pub

 

Surely constructing several replica MWs just intends to adresss the need when the full railway is opened, and assumes that the (then ) intended extension to Blackmoor Gate will open.

If progress at the upper end is slower than anticipated, then why not rent the finished locomotives out to the BYVT? It's still the L&B after all.

 

Indeed, but....apart from a very short length of track at Chelfham and maybe a little bit more at Bratton Fleming in due course, how long realistically will it be before there is any length of operational railway south of Wistlandpound on which it will be cost-effective to run an MWs and provide the necessary support infrastructure?

 

Just a couple of thoughts on all the recent discourse …

IMHO starting up a second operation south of the existing one would be an exceedingly rash venture. What would its USP be? There’s barely enough support/resource to advance the existing route as it is, this would just dilute that. Some sort of destination is required too. Surely Blackmoor Gate has to be the goal for the foreseeable future?

As for motive power, the LBR without the MWs simply is not the LBR to most people. It looks right and commonality of parts would save significant time and money in the future.

 

I used to think that, but I rather worry that Parracombe may be the L&B's Passchendaele - vital, yet impossible to reach.

I'm not clear what the marketing proposition for an L&B south would be. But, scenically, I prefer the section south of Wistlandpound, and if it is simply not possible to get through Parracombe, then alternatives have to be considered seriously.

 

Not so long ago, support and resource was there in abundance. However, since then the debacle of having the existing planning applications lapsing, the expensive "red line" fiasco, subsequent failed planning applications, plus the huge sums of money wasted, both as a result of these, and the "acquisition" of a horrendously overvalued pub have all but eliminated that support and resource.
So what do we do? Lament the sheer wastage, sit back and hope that some miracle will deliver us a way through Parracombe? Or realise that there is a very dynamic and proactive group active south of Wistlandpound, and put our backing behind them?
The L&B Trust will take a very long time to recover from their string of mostly self-inflicted defeats, and personally I cannot see this latest stab at Parracombe being any different. And if that sounds brutal, I do speak as a member of the L&B trust, and I would be delighted to be proved wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

If you see Blackmoor as a destination from WB, the IMHO that will only be achieved once the Trust finds solutions to 2 key problems - (1) the sections of trackbed between PE and BR not yet in Trust ownership and (2) the rebuilding of Parracombe bank. It could take a long time, so what is the Trust supposed to do in the meantime - just stagnate?

In the meantime, from the distant comfort of my armchair , I see continued signs of slow-ish, but steady progress 'in the the South'. Noting the comments in the latest Trackbed Trails, I hope that common sense will prevail and the necessary 'swop' of assets will occur in the near future so as to have a common ownership of all the L&BR assests south of WD by the B&YVRT. With Chelfham, Bratton F and Snapper under their collective belt, there is the potential for a sizeable and succesful operation in the Yeo Valley.

As for USP, why should the two Trusts not have the same USP, namely a recreation of the heritage L&BR? What about (say) the Great Central (2 groups not yet connected) or the K&ESR and the RVR ( 2 groups not yet connected) - what would be wrong with a "one railway, two sections" approach to marketing ? Does not the image of a MW on a train of heritage coaches across CN Viaduct provide a stimulating 'extra' for the B&YVRT? In turn the L&BRT could market its proposed Museum at BR, assuming that comes to fruition.

>>>....the LBR without the MWs simply is not the LBR to most people. It looks right and commonality of parts would save significant time and money in the future.

Quite right.

 

I did consider the GCR and KESR in my musings. In both cases I think I’ve always seen these as achievable goals, with a well established ‘parent’ that was generally supportive. This is probably a necessary relationship, as the appeal of these operations outside of the enthusiast community is somewhat limited, so hence too is the income.

Looking at the LBR, the chances of the proposed two operations coming together spiritually and physically seem to me to be an awful long way off?

There’s a lot of land still to be acquired, then physical obstacles to be overcome - public roads, reservoir, missing bridges etc. Then where would the base be? Infrastructure for stock, public facilities, car & coach parking etc.

Sadly it’s all a bit too WIBN for me.

 

Tend to agree, sadly. I also can't see anything exciting happening on the Moor in the forseeable. When you combine the very strong and sustained local opposition to the very concept of railway restoration, with the very considerable disagreements among those very members and enthusiasts (of both organisations) who would normally be driving this great project forward, it all looks pretty depressing. OK, there may be a sudden breakthrough - and I am sure everyone on this forum hopes that will happen - but as the years pass, the doubts increase. Maybe the L&B is just a step too far in modern conditions (a concept based perhaps on the success of the WHR, which is/was fundamentally different) which, if true, has implications for our entire movement. James

 

Achievable goals they may be, but don't assume that they've all been sweetness and light. The RVR, remember, had to use CP powers to get past two unsupportive landowners (no slight on the landowners intended - that was their right), while the now thankfully ex-MD of the GCR had a very public falling out with the GCRN during the latter's unfortunate shutdown period; so much so that the GCRN changed its name for a bit. Fortunately (for us as enthusiasts) both projects are now moving forward in the right direction, but there have certainly been bumps in the road.

The L&B seems perfectly achievable to me, as an outsider, but the Woody Bay lot haven't helped themselves in recent years with various poorly thought out planning applications and their own internal politics sometimes spilling out. For what it's worth, I personally think Parracombe is perfectly achievable - they already own the land and the station site, after all - they just need to be willing to compromise a little to make sure the impact on the locals is considered sympathetically, and minimised.

As for starting another operation in the south... especially at a time when people generally have little to no disposable income, abstracting some of the income from the existing operation doesn't seem very supportive to me, and the alternative is that nobody much will visit the new one as, inevitably, it will be seen as inferior (GCRN vs GCR for example... count the steam engines and working signal boxes... it's not just about track miles). I quite like the KESR/RVR approach, though, where they have built the second railway as part of the greater scheme but not (AFAIK) tried to open it to the public. If the stated aim was building a longer railway which would reopen as part of a future merger when the gap is closed, I could get behind that.

 

I think things are more optimistic than that, but I agree this is the hour before dawn.

The arguments are beginning to slacken off, and there are changes in leadership that suggest a different path is possible at Woody Bay.

Meanwhile, the work done “down south” is suggesting that other possibilities aren’t just a distraction, but offer genuine potential.

 

There is another possible approach, as adopted by Rother Valley Railway and also on a smaller scale by the 2 Southwold Railway groups. Where land is owned and planning-permission easier to obtain (e.g. outside the National Park) build sections of the track to the full passenger-carrying spec. ready for the day the railway is completed - but do not run any regular trains. Parts of the RVR were built in this way 15-20 years ago. Perhaps, on rare & special occasions, run special events with a loco and stock brought in just for the day.

This would avoid the risk of a second railway cannibalising the Woody Bay operation but has the advantage of showing local communities that the railway organisation(s) are serious about getting something much bigger completed even if it has to be on a 20-30 year timescale; and capable of managing construction projects in a professional and environmentally sensitive way. The occasional special events would generate excitement and, perhaps, lead local communities towards wanting more of the same in future rather than seeing the railway as a threat.

Of course, as with any other of the scenarios being discussed, to make this happen all you need is the right mix of professionalism, volunteers and money.

 

Absolutely, Miff. If you have the assets, flaunt 'em, even if its just high days and holidays!
And one thing about the line in the Yeo valley, there's plenty of assets, far too good not to show.

 

I am aware of the rocks in the road along the way, hence I used the term ‘generally supportive” advisedly.

Looking back in history, a less successful example of the split site adventure would be Peak Rail. Never had a project with so much promise failed so badly. It never really recovered from the Buxton / Darley Dale situation (yes I know the failure to get running powers through Ashwood Dale was unfortunate), but it fractured the support base and it never really recovered.