Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

In my view, speculation or not, it is better for the planning and legal teams to thrash out the finer details instead of being muddied up on social media and public forums. Some may have more of an insight, but mixed with that speculation that does occur it doesn't help those who are negotiating on any side.

 

Steve, a termini at CFL will effectively be a 'nowhere' destination similar to the L&BR when it commenced operating trains from WB to Bridge 67 back in 2004. Passengers could not alight from the train and therefore it was not a destination providing a transport service, so VAT was added to ticket sales.

The Bluebell Railway was likewise paying VAT on ticket sales when they operated a few weekend shuttle trains using their 4-VEP EMU from East Grinstead to view the Imberhorne Cutting back in 2010/2011.

 

Tom isn't that up to the individual to decide on what they want to do and how they get there? As I said before if everyone is sensible about this why not have a deal that would include a park and ride from say Blackmoor to the Zoo, Some members have been talking for some time about building a railcar for such an operation.

We need to keep an open mind as to what might be possible, if having done the short journey to the Zoo on one day, then they could always come back to do the whole railway on another day, plus if they retain the ticket from visiting the zoo then why not have a special discount for them as well.

As I see it all these attractions in North Devon need to work together, after all Tourism in North Devon is the number one employer which is much higher than farming.

Working with all the different tourist attractions in North Devon and anywhere near the Railway, has to be a good thing. It is no different than say all the welsh narrow gauge railways marketing themselves as the Great Little Trains of Wales.

If let say it was possible to have a runaround ticket to visit four or five different venues in Devon but it had a discount for families I think some thing like that would need to be tried.

I do realise that things are more expensive than ever and families can only do so much on a weeks holiday, but it has to also come down to the attractions to work harder so people can still enjoy themselves.

 

Was that a ruling of a vat inspector or a decision made by the railway concerned@ I have just re-read the HMRC guidance and it states:
"The zero-rated domestic passenger transport will also include:

• pleasure cruises
• cliff lifts
• excursions by coach or train (including steam railways)
• horse drawn buses
• mystery coach or boat trips
• sightseeing tours
• ...."

Obviously that list is not exhaustive and is only examples. The provision of single tickets does go a long way to showing that you are a transport facility in the case of any argument, I admit, but there are plenty of examples where single tickets aren't available. It might be that the question whether you can get off the train might be a factor; it is something for those with better knowledge than me but I'm fairly certain that simply issuing return tickets is not the prime consideration in whether it is performing a transport function.

 

Of course individuals can choose what they wish to do, and select (within those available) their travel options. But that doesn't mean that somehow all possible travel options have to be provided just in case. I would quite like to fly to visit Exmoor Zoo - much better than hacking down the A303 for me - but do I realistically think someone should create an Old Sarum to Exmoor scheduled air service just to cater for me? Of course not. So in the case of the L&B: you can do the market research on the possibilities of a scheduled service to the zoo, but I think there is a vanishingly small likelihood that there is an y realistic market there. By and large, families don't do two paid attractions in a day, particularly where there are time constraints.

That doesn't mean that attractions in an area can't work together. Maybe there are possibilities for some kind of joint visitor pass across several nearby attractions - which would be great if so. But that would typically mean visiting several places over the course of a week's holiday, not using one as a means to travel to another.

Tom

 

Brian, that is for the L&BR management to decide.

 

You have answered your own question.

 

Chris, I agree. I was asking about the feasibility, not saying it was something that should be done.

 

@Jamessquared says almost all that I would on this. I will add, however, that there is a world of difference between exploring joint promotion opportunities, and building your railway on the assumption that people will use them in that way. The Exmoor Steam railway is/was nearby - would that have made a good detour? And if so, what would the effect have been if the route had been set on the basis of it when it stopped running public services?

Reinstating the L&B is an engineering project. It will require very significant work and expense, which cannot be compared to marketing analysis or even considering options on a model railway.

There will undoubtedly be important choices to make when creating the new trackbed around the reservoir. Adding speculative options will make the already difficult task more so.

 

I had been thinking along a similar line to Snail 368 but as the Plan B.
My Plan A would be to grab the opportunity that ownership of the OHSI and its land provides, to actually build the main operating hub of the railway. Realistically it's going to takes years (10?) to build an engine shed, running shed, carriage shed, workshops, platforms, crossing loop, yards, coaling facility, water tank, signal box, (the list goes on and on). I would also review the idea of trying to build part of it in the park. Why not build it all on the south side of the A39 and avoid, or at least lessen, the angst?
Meanwhile back to plan B. Fence the route from Killington Lane to Parracombe and build a footpath off to the side of the final alignment that would remain when the railway is eventually built. Fenced off footpaths beside heritage railways are very popular (South Tynedale Railway for example, where many people (and their dogs) ride one way {uphill}, and walk the other{downhill}, or depending on your fitness, the opposite way round). They have a station café at one end and a buffet car permanently berthed on an island platform at the other end. Other contributors have mentioned that whilst the existing railway may attract visitors once, there is not much to entice them back a second time with such a short journey to effectively nowhere. With a comparatively easy walk to Parracombe with it's historic church and pub for lunch, you will have created a destination worth returning for. The Woody Bay operation is successful at the moment and you need to keep it that way.
A steady trickle of walkers from the Killington Lane Station will be build support from the tourist businesses in Parracombe village and hopefully create local jobs which would go a long way to 'mending the fences". Support from local people will always count for more than the objections from city people who just come down for the weekend or a week or two during the summer. After 5 or 10 years maybe, it will be time to propose extending the railway again. I think with such a large project, building a 19 mile railway from almost nothing you have to take the long view and that means it will take generations of believers to actually achieve the aim.
I wish you all the best from the other side of the world and will definitely visit next time I am in the UK.

Cheers,

 

Also Tom don't for get that it is only temporary end of the run of phase 1 so will only be there until phase 2 bit is built to Bratton Fleming and not everyone is going to want to get off at the zoo, I do however see this working out to be in time an extra passing loop.

Like I have expressed in the past the engineering required is huge but at least I have suggested a possibility end of run for the 1st phase. There is so more to this as you have pointed out.

Fortunately the group have a good idea of who owns the trackbed, but what about the extra land that we shall need, I am not sure that has been looked yet.

 

We already have a good idea of the proposed route around the reservoir to North Thorne Farm which is where the plan stops Heading on from there to drop around 60 meters is going to be a challenge for any civil engineer to resolve. As far as I know the jury is still out on this one, But it doesn't hurt to try to explain the difficulties that the project faces at this point, we need to take a leaf out of the old Ffestiniog deviationists book and just get it done.

 

Understood, and if the answer were "we need to extend the railway by a mile to create a wide bend that will take it across to the Zoo", I could understand what you were getting at. But that is not the same as proposing the Zoo as a destination that justifies such a deviation, when my memories of driving down Twitchen Lane are that the topography on it's east side is challenging.

 

Colin,
Yes, it is up to the individual, but at the same time, the tourist business organisations (for that is what we both are), involved have to determine the return on their investment in providing such an option before committing to the not-inconsiderable time, effort, cost, and planning issues that would ensue. Frankly, even if the Railway owned the Zoo (or vice versa!) I doubt the financial argument could be made that would encourage the necessary investment.

If, by chance, the railway just happens to end up within a suitable distance of the zoo, then maybe some joint marketing and/or tourist transport arrangements (road-train?) could be made, but until that eventuality, it is not really feasible as things currently stand.

 

I did receive a fairly quick reply to my recent email to Tony about proxy voting slips, so I would hope you too will receive a response soon.

 

AIUI there simply is not the room south of the main road for the sort of facilities that will be needed. Even the site of the old goods yard AFAIK will not be available. That is why it was proposed to build the new Depot north of the road, where the Trust now owns all the necessary land.

It is just unfortunate that the Depot site falls with the ENPA rather than NDC. This is one reason why I - and AIUI some others also - suggested that the work on the proposed Option C should concentrate initially on just the NDC stretch. Once it could be demonstrated to the ENPA that the L&BR was well on the way to getting that stretch built and useable, the ENPA might be better minded to grant a new planning consent just for the new Depot with very little, if anything, in the way of Grampian conditions. Most important of all, it could be demonstrated that the Depot could be built and brought into practical use without any need to involve the 'Parracombe issue' at all.

 

If the railway can get planning and TWAO for an extention to Cricket Field Lane, then they can get it for an extention to Parracombe. Arguably, extending to Parracombe is more likely to get permission from ENP on the grounds Parracombe Halt is where the historic station is, and has road access for the emergency services. Get rid of the turntable, put a proper four coach loop in, and figure out how to ticket in a way which makes it VAT exempt and heavily disencourages people coming to Parracombe Halt via car and most of the sensible objections have been dealt with.

The issue with doing anything at Blackmoor Gate is that the Trust's ownership only goes to Bridge 53 so without further land acquisitions the potential line would be shorter than that at Woody Bay, and even extending to the site of the proposed station at Wistpoundland would provide a run the same length of Woody Bay-Killington Lane.

I'm aware that an extention to Parracombe only chucks the can of further extentions about 5-10 years down the road, but there are several large issues elsewhere on the line which will not be easy to resolve.

• Lynton station site
  
• Dean Streep - completely new formation required over and around the road.
  
• A35 tunnel and associated cutting clearance - probably more doable than some of the others!
  
• Grob's unwilling to sell at Parracombe.
  
• Wistpoundland Reservoir deviation - I'm not sure this will be as easy to do as some seem to think.
• Road has been built on the formation between Hunnacot and Narracott for about half a mile
  
• Lancey Brook viaduct. Probably easier than the forementioned road - but expensive
  
• Reinstating two bridges over the Yeo and purchasing the Collard Bridge Scout camp, or otherwise carrying out a deviation.
  
• Reinstating another bridge over the Yeo
• Barnstaple station side
• Other land owners unwilling to sell.

Some of these issues are bigger than others, but it brings into context the scale of the challenge - any one of these would challenge most preserved railways.

 

We've done a fair number of impossibles so far, I'm sure we can do many more.

 

1. The idea of a turntable has been dropped already - have you not been keeping up with the news?
2. Getting a 'proper 4-coach loop' in /may/ be feasible, but not yet proven - which is why alternatives were chosen.
3. Road access for emergency services also means road access for Joe Public, whom the residents there want to keep well away.
4. In the real world the L&BR simply can NOT control whether members of the public choose to walk/drive up a public road.
5. The L&BR has yet to apply for a TWAO to CFL, so who knows if one will be granted for there or PE anyway?

Let's face facts - the idea of an extension to a temporary terminus at PE failed in the face of determined opposition and unachievable Grampian Conditions. With respect, I see nothing in your suggestions which offer a realistic hope of success in the near future.

 

Well, the debate continues. I have no real interest in what the eventual outcome will be and I suspect that many people will be very disappointed however, buried somewhere in all of this must be the business plan which estimates how many passengers will have to be carried each year in order for the extended railway to be successful. I understand that the Welsh Highland is now finding life harder than before, the Ffestiniog operates a reduced service and all other heritage railways are struggling to a greater or lesser extent.
Lets assume that the planning problems can be overcome and the tubs of money required for the build are filled , the line is complete, the opening ceremonies have taken place but, will it ever attract the passengers needed to pay the bills? North Devon is not Torbay ( thankfully).