Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

All the L & B land was either given back to Barnstaple Corporation (up to Braunton Road) as that body had given it to the L & B in 1898, so had it was re-conveyed back again in 1938 (as per the 1898 agreement), or sold to individuals often for single figure sums of money, mostly adjacent farmers, or for larger amounts to organisations (for instance Allendale & Walker, the Ford agents for the land adjacent to the railway near Pilton Crossing (later part of the fire station), Starkey Knight and Ford, the brewers, at WB who bought the Station Hotel now Moorlands, Challacombe Estates south of Blackmoor and Devon CC for road improvements EG at Rowley Cross and Dean Steep). Except from Bridge 21 (over the road to Northleigh) to Bridge 22. (Chelfham Viaduct) Possibly from the end of the land formerly (?) owned by David Moore to the middle of Southacott bank. I'm not sure about that bit. Certainly the bit from Bridge 21 to Chelfham Station has never been sold. Individuals bought the bit between Narracott and Hunnacott now a road. Maybe it is still owned by them. Has it been adopted by the local authority ?

 

Walk 2 is from Parracombe to Lynton

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Walks-in...6-ffcb-435e-87d4-dab26e5d11a8&redirect=mobile

 

I would agree - I think that is the nub of the problem. Unless something was said about the true function of the TT at the public meeting at WB (does anyone know?), then I feel that the railway has 'missed a trick' there. Having said that, there will of course always be those who - if something is there - will go to see it regardless of difficulties and any efforts to dissuade them, but not necessarily in large numbers. Even at Minehead most 'viewers' of the TT do so because they are already there, or in the immediate vicinity, not 'cos they have travelled many miles just for that reason.

>>>It’s a shame there isn’t space for a normal run-round loop as that would have probably caused less concern......
Possibly less, but of course it would still not satisfy those who want no terminus at all.

AIUI the plans in the Sec 73 applications were done by a planning consultant. AFAIK - and I stand to be corrected - no revised detailed plans for a terminus have yet been done by any professional track design consultant, so it may be the end-result will actually be slightly different. It is not a coincidence that I have on my computer at the moment a draft CAD drawing for PE done by one of my contacts with the appropriate experience which suggests that a 'traditional' layout could be accommodated and cater for a 4-coach train. However finalising any such plan would require access to detailed site survey information and design constraints, which is not currently available, so it sadly it may just remain wishful thinking....

 

You’ve obviously never visited the Bankside Miniature railway in Hampshire….

But yes sadly people seem to have heard the word ‘turntable’ and automatically used it as another reason to object, without understanding the full facts. Hopefully the planning officer will soon put them right.

 

What are currently the 'normal' and Maximum lengths for a train? I have a feeling that L and B won't want to be constrained to a 4-coach train.

 

What's the designed load for the 'breathed upon design' for today's locos? The originals (certainly the MWs) were limited to 5 ..... as will Lew* be when it turns up.


*always a noted optimist, me.

 

Well, that may well be the case, but....if you can't get the line length then you can't have the train length. Even 4 is tight within the space available.

 

Only if someone gives the planning officer the facts first, otherwise how is he/she supposed to know (unless they read NatPres!)?

 

That was an excellent TV series.

 

Equally I doubt they want to be confined to parracombe! (i.e. a more permanent terminus might allow greater train lengths; a constraint of that nature at what is a temporary terminus is ultimately less of a constraint).

Tom

 

AIUI at the moment the loop at WB will manage 5 coaches, but then it is a little curtailed at the Lynton end by the current shed complex.
AFAIK the design criteria for future installations (eg Blackmore etc) is at least 5 coaches, if not 6 perhaps.

 

You need to base load limits on what a loco nearing a p&v exam with a boiler full of soupy water awaiting a washout and a bunker of dust can achieve - not what a loco straight out of the works with hand-picked coal and a crew in record breaking mood can do. I'd take an "enhanced" loco as giving you a bit more in hand against that standard, rather than as an invitation to increase regular load limits.

(And notwithstanding all of that - load limits may also be constrained by bunker and tank capacity as much as haulage strength).

Tom

 

Sounds very sensible, @Jamessquared . And, therefore, all the more reason for double-headed MWs with 6*!

*I'm sure I've seen some photos with double headed MWs originally, but does anyone know how frequent it was?

 

The advertising appears to have been sparce by modern standards, but this changed to a great extent following John Elliot's appointment by the SR General Manager, Sir Herbert Walker as Public Relations and Advertising Assistant in the General Manager's Department in 1925. Sir John wrote a book of his experiences called 'On and Off the Rails' in 1982. 'Hints for Holidays' were produced and fold-out booklets like 'West Country Holidays', the latter by S.P.B. Mais 'the famous novellist' who also produced 'Devon and Cornish Days' and contributed to the magazine 'Over the Points' with sections on the L & B. Posters were also revamped from the somewhat stilted predecessors by famous artists as was done on all 4 of the big Companies. A book with illustrations of a range of this Southern Railway material by Tony Hillman and Beverley Cole appeared a few years ago called 'South for the Sunshine', available from Amazon.

 

Thank you. Which suggests that the L&B wasn't notably deprived of advertising spend in the SR era.

 

I know all of the big 4 to a greater or lesser extent engaged in publicity to encourage discretionary travel, but I wonder in the days before the days of reasonable levels of disposable income (let alone internet and universality of fixed line telephones) how much additional traffic such publicity actually generated.

 

Agreed, though the other side of that is that services were less intense so the relative increase may have been similar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Judging by the number of extra trains laid on in the summer (and the extra coaches added to other trains) to take people on holiday, the excursions laid on and the sidings full of older coaches kept mainly to meet the summer demand probably quite a lot! Where people went varied considerably. There was a regular summer "working class" exodus to the popular resorts with their cheap guest houses etc, as well as more distant and up market offerings for those who could afford it. How all this relates to the L&B I don't know, but I'd be surprised if it didn't pick up some holiday related traffic - the WHR and FR certainly did, and the VOR and Talyllyn eventually survived on tourist type traffic and very little else even pre-preservation.

I remember as a child being fascinated by all the leaflets you could see in racks in the ticket offices advertising destinations and excursions, but that was probably just at the point when it started to rapidly decline as car ownership took off (and many of the "destinations" lost their railway lines). A number of holidays we had in West Somerset told the tale - one year we watched lengthy steam hauled trains pass at Blue Anchor, passengers getting on and off with large amounts of luggage; 2 or 3 years later and it was a 3 car DMU pottering backwards and forwards half empty, and not a suitcase in sight. A few years later and the line was closed...

Steve B