If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Discussion in 'Narrow Gauge Railways' started by 50044 Exeter, Dec 25, 2009.

  1. Snail368

    Snail368 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    123
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Invasive weed control and eradication
    Location:
    Daventry, Northamptonshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    More track bed acquired by Exmoor Associates, but no details yet.
     
  2. H Cloutt

    H Cloutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2018
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Battle
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Thanks for the news - we were expecting something. We will just have to wait for the new "Trackbed Trails" for details
     
    Snail368 likes this.
  3. Tobbes

    Tobbes Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    869
    Likes Received:
    2,354
    I must say that as an ardent supporter of the railway, I don't have a problem with the Grampian Conditions in the ENPA planning area - the impact of a failed extension ending up somewhere random in the National Park is real and undesirable without them, and we've known for a long time that there will need to be at least one parcel of land to be acquired under CPO terms (or, preferably, by negotiation with the powers in place).

    On this basis, we're either going to get the CP powers or not, and we're either going to raise the money or we're not - and I back us to get over both hurdles. On this basis, beyond the essential element of locking in the planning permissions with construction at Bridge 65, which I hope we are allowed to do, I see the Parracombe extension as a bit of a sideshow unless there is local support for it -- which at the moment is at least doubtful.

    And bravo to EA!
     
  4. CharlesBingers

    CharlesBingers New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2020
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Wonderful news, well done all! Another piece of the jigsaw ... :)

    Sent from my SM-A426B using Tapatalk
     
  5. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,803
    Likes Received:
    7,439
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    One 'theme' which seems to crop up in a number of the latest objections concerns the perceived amount of 'pollution' in the Churchtown area from the smoke of fossil-fuel-burning engines performing some lengthy run-round activity at PE.

    Firstly, I suspect that they they have over-estimated the time it will take to actually do a run-round given that the engine will not be 'turning' thru' 180 degrees but merely being swung about 2-3 feet to one side, admittedly something which will take a little bit longer than simply switching a point. Secondly, the 'smoke' output form the engine is unlikely to be any more than currently occurs at KL, but of course there is no-one in the immediate area there to complain :) To some extent the whole process from arrival to finish will be governed by how the layout will actually be controlled/worked - yet to be decided. To that must be added any lay-over time allowed simply for passengers to disembark and then re-board.

    Having said that, quite clearly there will be a difference between the proposed 'temporary terminus' situation and that of a train that merely stops for about a minute at most in the course of a journey from WB to BR. Somehow the objectors will need to be convinced that the situation will not be as bad as they fear - but how? Equally of concern is the perception of some of the apparent hordes of people - as much as a full train-load - who seemingly will disembark at PE and pour down the lane into the village causing traffic chaos and mayhem everywhere. Given that there are/were several heritage railways who successfully operate (or used to) out-and-back services to termini with no public access, maybe the answer will be simply to fence off the station completely to prevent anyone entering/leaving ? :)
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2022
    Mark Thompson likes this.
  6. Mark Thompson

    Mark Thompson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    3,559
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    E sussex
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    One of the things I made a point of mentioning in my letter of support (as did Tobbes), is the railways ongoing trials with ecological fossil fuel substitutes. For anyone who hasn't yet written their letters of support, I'd urge them to point up this fact, as "pollution" does seem to be a recurring theme amongst objectors. It would be nice to take one point of objection off the table, or at least to blunt it.
     
    CharlesBingers and Tobbes like this.
  7. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,803
    Likes Received:
    7,439
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    Of course, to be fair it must be pointed out that 'trials' may not actually lead to a conclusion that any of the alternatives are suitable.

    Meanwhile, another aspect of this matter on which I have yet to see any comments. A few years ago the L&BR submitted its applications to ENPA to rebuild the line from KL to BR. After assessing all the arguments for and against, the ENPA approved the applications subject to certain conditions. I would suggest that it would be fair to presume therefore that the ENPA decided, on balance, that a rebuilt L&BR would be good for the Park and its inhabitants as a whole - after all, if not then why has it protected the route in its Local Plan?

    The L&BR now find itself in a position where IMHO it continues to demonstrate its ability both to operate the existing WB - KL line and to progress work on Phase 2A, as witnessed by the work on the 2 bridges in the NDC section. However progress within the ENPA section has been delayed- at least in part - by factors outside of the railway's control, such as the impact of COVID on work timescales in general with all the various contractors and authorities etc, plus of course the fact that acquisition of all the land may depend upon CPOs which in turn is dependant upon the TWAO process. All these issues, whilst frustrating in themselves, are particularly critical at the moment because of the looming deadline of March 2023, by which time the L&BR needs to have done at least some work which it could do if only it were not hampered by the Grampian conditions.

    IMHO therefore the question for the ENPA must be - given that they have seen fit to include the rebuilt railway in their Local Plan, and to approve the original set of applications, do they wish to jeopardise all the perceived benefits by keeping all the Grampian conditions in place regardless of the circumstances (and AIUI the fact that such conditions are no longer used/permitted anyway for new applications)? With all due respect for those who object to the railway - as is their right so to do - they lost that battle 2 years ago and there is no point in trying to fight it again now, as the original decision is not open for re-examination. Their argument really should be with the ENPA, not the railway. Sadly the public consultation process is being clogged-up by responses merely stating " we do not want the railway" (or words to that effect), which might suggest that they either do not, or do not want to, understood what the Sec 73 applications are actually about.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2022
  8. Tobbes

    Tobbes Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    869
    Likes Received:
    2,354
    I agree with most of this, @RailWest , and the delays to TWAO are playing into the hands of those who oppose the whole project, and for this reason I hope that ENPA at least allow the start of construction to lock in the Planning Permission.

    However, (unless the Transport Secretary is feeling particularly courageous*), the TWAO and the CP powers will be subject to a Public Enquiry and those who oppose the scheme will get a chance then to set out their objections - and if we failed to obtain CP powers, this would be an indefinite delay on this phase of the work.

    *See 'Yes, Minister'
     
    Mark Thompson likes this.
  9. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,803
    Likes Received:
    7,439
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    Surely that will be an Inquiry not an Enquiry ? :)

    I would hope that, if/when the TWAO is being considered, the ENPA will be forthcoming in their support for the railway, given that they are - apparently - viewing it as beneficial for the future of the Park. Hopefully then their comments will bear considerable weight.

    By comparison, with all due respect to those concerned, the key objector(s) are those who own section(s) of tracked and are disinclined to sell voluntarily. AFAIK none of those sections contain any structures of importance, nor do they appear to be critical to the livelihood of their current owners - eg provide the only means of access to working farmland etc - so one can but hope that an Inquiry would find in favour of the 'wider public benefit'.
     
    Biermeister and H Cloutt like this.
  10. H Cloutt

    H Cloutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2018
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Battle
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    You are quite correct it is an Inquiry.

    Interestingly the RVR had the support of the Local Authority at their recent Public Inquiry - with the Local District Councillor speaking as a supporter. There is another parallel in that they have two landowners who are disinclined to sell their sections of trackbed. The result of their Inquiry should be released soon.
     
  11. Biermeister

    Biermeister Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2019
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    625
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Brewer
    Location:
    Daylesford, Victoria, Australia
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Local pollution eh? How many dwellings in Parracombe have fireplaces? Has any estimate been essayed concerning the existing level of local fossil-fuel based pollution?
    I wonder whether any of these self-appointed NIMBY eco-warriors (!) have any idea of the small SCALE of the pollution that occasional steam locomotive movements produce? The answer should definitely be obtained before the TWAO, as this red herring looks like being well paraded, and my estimate would be that it is minuscule.
    It would certainly be most prudent to form a comparison with the township's fossil-fuel pollution.

    None of this is to detract in any way from the experiments being conducted with so-called eco-fuels however successful these may or may not prove to be. However, given that south Wales steaming coal was heralded as amongst the best, I wonder why heritage railways do not band together to consider the prospect of re-opening one coal mine in south Wales to provide future supplies for the fuel of choice.
     
    H Cloutt likes this.
  12. Biermeister

    Biermeister Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2019
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    625
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Brewer
    Location:
    Daylesford, Victoria, Australia
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I am concerned that the L&BR Trust might be unnecessarily getting itself into deep water concerning the Parracombe wheeze.
    Clearly all that is required is permissions for Bridge 65 and accesses to ensure that the ENPA Planning Permissions do not lapse.
    Any extension to Parracombe is but a diversion and can be withheld until after the TWAO.
    We all want to see the extension to Blackmoor asap but it is not clear to me that the proposed Parracombe venture is in our better interests. Easy, easy, catchee monkey as is said...
     
  13. H Cloutt

    H Cloutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2018
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Battle
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Permission for Bridge 65 and commencement of this work will not secure ALL the planning permissions in the ENPA which is why there are 5 S73 applications.

    I am sure that the L&BR Trust are taking advice from specialists to ensure the sucess of the project. Commencement of construction to Parracombe and from Blackmoor shows the powers than be that they are serious which will be important for the TWAO application. If the RVR Public Inquiry is anything to go by, a lot of time was spent on ecological and engineering issues - so it has to be beneficial that the Trust can demonstrate that it is capable of addressing these issues.
     
    RailWest likes this.
  14. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,100
    Likes Received:
    57,416
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    It's a perennial question. But a quick thought - have you considered the capital requirements of opening a new mine? Hundreds of millions of pounds, which would have to come from organisations that basically are desperately short of capital: across the whole sector, there are hundreds of millions of pounds of worthwhile projects just for maintenance that could be done, if only the money were available. Often, the suggestion of "heritage railways could re-open a mine" seems to be predicated on a small scale operation: get 30,000 tons per year of suitable lump coal and nothing else. But in practice to make it viable, you have to have a market for everything yo dig out, of which teh "heritage" coal would be only a small part. So a new mine is a large operation, not a small one.

    Then - if you think the planning application to re-open the L&B is complex, take a look at the recent planning history of companies trying to open a new coal mine. There have been a least a couple of high-profile refusals of late, while I can't think of any successes. That seems likely to continue unless the Government, or a new Government, has a change in heart about coal mining, which seems unlikely.

    For a technical discussion about the issues in re-opening closed mines by someone far more knowledgeable than me, see e.g. here: https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/the-threat-to-coal.1417743/page-19#post-2732875 But the bottom line is that re-opening an existing, closed, mine is a non-starter; while a new mine would be fraught with planning difficulties.

    Tom
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2022
  15. Tobbes

    Tobbes Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    869
    Likes Received:
    2,354
    Thanks @H Cloutt - this is very useful. So are we saying that all five s73 applications are required to preserve the Planning Permission? Or only some of them (and if so, which ones?)

    I'm not sure I agree with this. As it stands, indicatively, the Trust can point to the purchase, restoration, maintenance and safe operation of WB-KL from scratch and a solid track record of fund raising and land purchase north of Wistlandpound, including the land to Parracombe Halt and that required for the works at Rowley Farm. Moreover, it reconstructed the bridges in the NDDC area, and through EAST, (re)built the award winning carriages that are central to passengers' authentic L&B experience.

    Better, it's not just the Trust: the broader 'L&B family' has constructed Lyn (and is working on the first two MWs), won a prestigious heritage award for Chelfham, through EA acquired, restored and maintained Snapper and (in time) BF, and has provided high quality stewardship of the land it is acquiring south of Wistlandpound. Finally, and demonstrating planning for the future, Chelfham Viaduct (Bridge 22) was restored in partnership with BRB residual through the actions of the L&B family to the standard needed to carry trains rather than merely to stop it falling down.

    (And I'm sure I've missed lots of things, which is not intended as any sort of slight to those involved at all.)

    This is a pretty comprenhensive list of achievements, and strong evidence that the L&B Trust are wholly capable of building the whole extenstion to Wistlandpound when (i) the land and (ii) the funding is available.
     
  16. H Cloutt

    H Cloutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2018
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Battle
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I am not sure - will need to take a look which I intend to do in preparation of my letter(s) of support.
     
    Tobbes likes this.
  17. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,803
    Likes Received:
    7,439
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    It was/is not just one 'planning permission', but several - one for the trackbed, one for the Depot site etc. So each one needs its own Sec73 application to secure it by enabling work to start before next March. All the 'work packages' are inter-related, so although clearly the trackbed is important, in isolation it would be of marginal benefit.
     
    H Cloutt likes this.
  18. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,803
    Likes Received:
    7,439
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    I would suggest that you will need to support all of them - see my preceding post.
     
    H Cloutt likes this.
  19. H Cloutt

    H Cloutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2018
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Battle
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Thanks for clarifying in your earlier post the need for 5 separate S73 applications - I had just checked to see that this is the case. I am intending to support all applications but will probably do this with one letter which I can submit for all the applications.
     
  20. Tobbes

    Tobbes Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    869
    Likes Received:
    2,354
    Thanks @RailWest .

    This is a bit of a quandry, as I only support the extension if the local community do, as the criticisms of Parracombe as a temporary terminus seem to me to be well founded (ie, no parking, single track road, no facilities for passengers), and I can imagine that if I lived in Churchtown, I'd be concerned, too. So how do I support the protection of all of the Planning Permissions without being hard over on the extension itself?
     
    Miff likes this.

Share This Page