Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I do understand why some people have suggested in the past that the L&BR could be run with Garratts. There was a serious proposal many years ago to buy three SAR NGG16 Garratts, take them apart and rebuild them into 2-6-2 Tank locos, but I think it came down to the finished width, which killed off the idea at the time.

Moving forward to today, 'LYN' is wider than a Garratt. So I don't think that argument now stands up. Thinking about it, however, this could still be a useful way for the L&BR to build two more powerful 2-6-2 Colonial-style locos, should they need them.

I also get the discussion about wanting to save just above everything and make it into an instrument of education, but one discussion that, whether it is taken as read or not, is commercial viability. Could a fully 20-mile rebuilt L&BR become a sustainable enterprise or not?

Now I am not against such an Idea, in fact, that would be my dream to see that happen, but what would be the point if, say, after ten years, the railway collapses with a mountain of debt that it can not pay off?

 

Quite. There are enough challenges without expanding the scope of the project to turn the L&B into something that it never was, when so much opinion is behind restoring it to what it was.

This L&B supporter would just like to see the project develop, and see how the challenges of restoration and extension can best be met in line with demands. There's plenty of discussion here already about possible options; I see no need to rehash it further.

 

If preservation means anything though, surely it is about preserving things that once existed (whether that is actual artefacts, or more ephemeral things like working practices). It can’t possibly be about “what if” scenarios.

There are a number of steam railways in the country that operate completely alien locomotives and stock along old railway corridors, sometimes even at different gauges. You could list Brecon Mountain Railway, Bure Valley, Welsh Highland, Launceston Steam Railway, Gartell Light Railway and others in that list. Individually they have their charms, but you can hardly say that, for example, the Gartell Light Railway has anything to do with preserving the Somerset and Dorset, except the trackbed. I’d suggest the L&BR shouldn’t be angling to join that group.

Tom

 

I'm not sure I'd include WHR in that list, because a) so little survived anyway and b) what we now have owes something to a realisation of the tourist aspect of the original vision. I would then add, at Standard Gauge, the likes of Tanfield and South Tynedale.

The general point, though, is very well made.

 

Insofar as what the movement is about is strictly "preservation" that is true. But a lot of what goes on is only "preservation" in a loose sense. Examples are the NG railways on closed SG formations that you cite and restored locos or new build one that reproduce lost classes with some changes to suit modern conditions, such as ETCS on Tornado and air braking on that and other steam locos. However I do acknowledge that a lot of the enthusiasm for restoring the L&B is for restoring it as close as possible to what it was. The more any proposal departs from that, the less support it is likely to get.

Edited to remove an inconsistency.

 

This year's Exmoor Associates and Yeo Valley Trust Autumn Shareholders Meeting has a new venue!
Taking place at 10:00am on Sunday 28th September, the meeting will now be hosted by the Growforward Project at Chelfham, by kind permission of the Project leader, Danny Argent.
Shareholders, supporters and guests are welcome to attend.
The address is: The Meadow View Hall, Growforward Project, Chelfham, Barnstaple, EX32 7LA
For further details, or to book a finger buffet lunch, please contact Mike Buse: https://www.exmoor-associates.co.uk/contact/

 

Part of the confusion about how this project could develop is down to the fact that we don't have a business plan in place, or a clear understanding of just what each bit of the group can or cannot do legally. To a certain degree, I feel we may have to go back to ground zero and rebuild a fresh from there.

 

I suggest that a strategy comes first - then the plan and how it can be executed can follow.

 

Yes, I agree, but as I see it, the recent opinion poll indicates that there may be no leadership or anyone willing to drive the project forward, and does this not indicate that there may be bigger issues that at present are unknown to the membership?

As for a strategy, surely this needs to be based around the objects of the Trust, which are:-

3. The Charity's objects ('the Objects') are:-

(1) To acquire, preserve and restore for the public benefit items of historical,
architectural, engineering or scientific value in connection with railways;

and

(2) To advance the education of the public in the history, sociology, and
technology of narrow-gauge railways and railways in general by the
acquisition, restoration, preservation, creation and exhibition of railway
locomotives, carriages, rolling stock, equipment, artefacts, documents, and
records, together with any appropriate land, buildings and structures in
particular but not exclusively those of the former Lynton & Barnstaple
Railway in Devonshire ('the railway') and to provide educational and
training facilities to those engaged in the restoration and operation of the
railway or railways generally. (Amended by Special Resolution dated 24th
March 2007)

 

Re your first para: I don’t quite follow - could you explain further please?

 

I draw no conclusions at present about the recent poll, let alone as to whether there is or is not leadership to drive things forward. One could read what's been said as implying that; it would also be plausible to read what's been said as an acknowledgement of the need to pause, gather and reflect.

I agree with you about the objects lying at the core of any strategy, but they are quite wide-ranging and any strategy would require choices around which elements to follow - and which to deprioritise. Any of the options polled would be within the scope of the Objects - and so would a more Collection X/Statfold type approach such as you've expressed a desire for.

That reinforces my view that, following time for reflection, there needs to be a revised strategy formulated, against which plans can be built - and thence a business plan.

Despite my personal frustration at how progress has become glacial, I have difficulty balancing (IMHO legitimate) criticism of leadership for doing their own thing and not listening with criticism that if something major isn't being done, everything's falling flat.

The actions of the trustees have pushed L&BRT into a hole, and it will be challenging to escape that hole. But at the moment I sense a certain amount of "when in a hole, stop digging" in their behaviour - which is very welcome improvement.

More waiting is required.

 

My thoughts exactly.

In the meantime, however, there is plenty to be done with what we already have; fences to fix (both literally and figuratively), bridges to build (likewise) and roofs (and carriage shelters) to be restored.
The past is behind us, but we can do all this, and more. We have already achieved what many said was impossible, but miracles, I understand, can take a little longer...

 

At the present time I think it is unlikely that a 20mile L and B would be viable. That is not to say that circumstances won’t change, but as a rule of thumb I would suggest that it would need 12,000 visitors per year per mile or so, and that implies 240,000 ridership. That’s FR, NYMR numbers. Quite a challenge. Also, the numbers don’t necessarily scale with the length. People don’t come along just because the railway is longer. Ask pretty much any railway of their extension added to the ridership, and once you’re long enough to provide a perceived value for money, the answer is no.
A mile is too short. 20 miles at present too long. The right answer is somewhere between for now.

 

Yes, you are right on this one. A suggestion from way back was for Blackmoor to be developed as the focal point/hub, including a museum and other such attractions, with trains leaving either to go to Lynton or Barnstaple, in effect having two railways of around 10 miles in each direction (giving a ride of a 20 mile round trip/ or if you wanted to do it do both lines with a 40 mile round trip). I think we can see that the WHR, since it was opened, has now introduced a shorter working from Porthmadog to Beddgelert and back.

If I recall, the plan was to have a three-train service. Each service does the following loop: Blackmoor-Lynton-Blackmoor-Barnstaple-Blackmoor or Blackmoor-Barnstaple-Blackmoor-Lynton-Blackmoor. I hope that makes sense. The third train would then either cross one of the first trains at Woody Bay (if going north) or Bratton Fleming (if going south). I am sure someone has already worked this out for two, three or four train operations.

As far as I can recall, this was not one of the long-term options presented to the membership; the closest that came to this was option F:- Blackmoor- Wistlandpound, (a lynbarn style operation). I know I have mentioned Collection X and Statfold in the past, but there is one other site which I think is also worthy of adding to the list, and that is Hollycombe at Liphook, Sussex, which, to me, is the sort of models we could look at for Blackmoor. Any such collection does not have to operate on the L&BR, but they could become static exhibits, with the odd loco working over the L&BR on high days and holidays. I don't see the need to have them all working if you have 21st-century-built and designed steam locomotives running the show outside.

The point of having a museum would be to partly fulfil the objects of the L&BR Trust in its educational role, and of course, to make it part of a major visitor attraction of North Devon, of which I think we can all agree, North Devon does not have such a tourist attraction at the moment. I do realise that with any expansion, problems come with the territory, and I don't have all the answers at the moment.

It should not come as a surprise to realise that, after all this time, the rebuilding of the L&BR has been subject to all sorts of concepts and an early one was from (I think) the West County Tourist Board, who proposed a joint development strategy of making the L&BR into a linear theme park, with each station developing a local heritage topic. I do know that the idea has not gone away, and maybe we could look at it again to see if we can make this type of development work for the long-term benefit for the railway.

 

When you say ‘joint’, how much of their money were they suggesting putting in? Or was this an outbreak of the good ideas with other people’s money club?

 

They are evidently putting some good stuff into the water your way ...

Firstly, having two 10 mile railways back to back sounds remarkably like a 20 mile railway to me in operating expense. In other words, if a 20 mile line is not viable on cost and volunteer grounds, splitting the service into two halves doesn't alleviate the problem (and probably in some ways makes it worse for two reasons: it likely needs more stock to operate, while incentivising most visitors to take the shorter, cheaper, "half line" option).

"Odd locos working on high days and holidays" is a way to inflate your loco operating costs. Generally speaking, those scale with how many locos you have in traffic, because they are driven by overhaul costs. So a loco that is overhauled but not then run, or which runs a very low mileage, becomes very expensive per day. Spend £200k on an overhaul for a loco you run five days per year - that becomes a £4000 per day for the loco before you even light it up. The key to loco economy (within reason) is to only have sufficient locos operational for what you need.

As for Hollycombe - worth noting that the railway collection there is very limited, and the only operational bit is a 2 ft gauge line with a running distance of about a mile and I believe one operational steam loco (last time I went). The main attraction is a traditional fairground. I'm not quite sure how that maps to Blackmoor - nor where you would hope to source the necessary historic artefacts?

Tom

 

If I recall, it was just a suggestion from them, and I don't think the then L&BR Association took it very seriously, yet the concept is hard to get rid of once it has been suggested

 

Just on that point: the key point for me about railways is that they were there to facilitate travel. So I think in theatre terms (*) to be fulfilling, there has to be a sense that you are making a journey. To me that means you start somewhere and arrive somewhere else that is recognisably different, and that it takes a reasonable length of time (probably at least 15 minutes, ideally somewhat longer) to go one way.

The Tal-y-llyn, at about 7 miles, gets it right in my view, helped by a journey that really changes in character along its length. 1 mile is really too short to give that sense of journey. I suspect for a narrow gauge line, when you get beyond 10 miles at heritage line speeds, it is probably too long for many people, unless the scenery is genuinely spectacular and also ever-changing.

(*) and allowing for the fact that next to no-one is using a heritage railway to make a necessary journey.

Tom

 

Hi Tom

Most of what I have said has been suggested in the past by the L&BR Trustees, so I can not take ownership of it. At the time, it appeared to be a good Idea, but I agree with you that the thinking is flawed. which sounds good on paper, but at what cost would you need to make it happen?

In the past 36 years or so, we have had a different flavoured milkshake almost every month from Devon, so it is no wonder that the project has difficulty in going forward. As 35B has already stated, we need some time to reflect on where and who we are, which will upset members like me who have been around since day 1 (and waited and waited, etc) and who are dreaming of an extension, but I think this must happen.

To be honest about it, I feel the project has lost its way, and while the options document has been useful, there will be no guarantee that if a fresh Trust board were elected tomorrow, they would want to comply with those results. I have been saying since year dot that this is going to be a very expensive project to do, so I am under no illusions as to what the running costs of this railway may be.

One thing I have noticed more so in my working life is the number of people who either can't or don't get their heads around finance. I don't profess to be an expert in any way, shape, or form in this field, but I do try to understand it, which makes me wonder if there is a genuine reluctance to get their heads around the finance of this project. There are a large number of charities with this problem at present, and if you read any of the main Charity trade magazines, there is always a story about charities and financial problems in them.

I look at the charity world like this, I see a load of swans gently swimming along the river, but underneath their feet are paddling away twice as fast as they need to, and that is how I think the L&BR may be at present, there has been calls to replace the L&BR Trustees, but there is a genuine shortage of people willing to become trustees for all sorts of reasons. I was once told by a past member who is no longer with us that the biggest trouble with the Lynton and Barnstaple Railway is that it has set itself up as the last great railway adventure, and as he said, it attracts the sort of people who want to go down in history as the person who saved the L&BR, since this appeals to their ego, The sad thing is I get that sentiment, but my personal feeling is we are in such a mess, that no one is willing to stand up and sort it out without being accused of having a massive ego to boot.