Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

It is more of a Trust/CIC issue that they need to get their head around, after all, they cause the problem in the first place

 

I think that, to get where the BYVRT have got to, that thinking is well underway and, quite rightly, being done quietly and privately - as we can see from the outcomes.

I also observe a reduction in the number of groups - demonstrating the truth that the more groups there are, the less progress is made

 

Again, @35B is on the money, @lynbarn - absolutely the last thing we need is more institutions and entities especially if they're unmoored from specific projects - back into "We'd rather like £100m to build some railway with please" which is the last place we need to be because it is going to fail.

BYVRT seem to have internalised this, and the results are there for all to see.

 

Where do you get £10m / mile to rebuild a railway? Are you looking at what Network Rail would pay - with 100% paid staff, heavy mechanisation, and building to a modern standard for signalling and permanent way - oh, and standard gauge? (FWIW, the Borders Railway cost Network Rail £10m / mile at 2015 prices, but that is in no way comparable to a volunteer-led narrow gauge concern).

And where did your "£12m spent at Woody Bay" come from? What are you including in that? I can believe the over the last 20 years or so the company has cumulatively spent that sort of figure, but that is to both build the railway and operate it over the years. You can't tell me that 3/4 mile of running line cost £12m to reinstate.

I don't doubt that reinstatement will have significant costs, and you can probably split them into headings such as "land purchase", "legal costs", "clearance", "bridge and drainage repairs / reinstatement", "rails, sleepers and ballast", "signalling" and so on, not to mention the need, as the railway expands, to increase the amount of of operational stock. But I think bandying around figures just plucked from thin air does no-one any good.

Tom

 

Colin, I have to side with Paul and Toby on this; simplicity is the way to go, and B&YVT have clear form with negotiation skills. Yes, the L&BT may have caused the problem in the first place, but this matter is completely within the B&YVT's "territory", and I have every faith that they are more than capable of resolving the issues involved. I hope that ultimately, the two trusts will evolve into a form where they can finally put the past behind, and work together for the greater good. I realise that there is still some way to go, but at least a start has apparently been made at the northern end towards some kind of rapprochement. Better late than never.

 

Tom, I'd personally use the RVR as a current weather gauge on costs. £6m for 3 miles, including 3 level crossings of public roads, so £2m per mile, and that's a standard gauge line.

 

I think the mistake was taking an obviously absurd figure of £100m seriously, and then back calculating from it without actually interrogating it properly.

 

Thanks @Mark Thompson and @35B - it was a prepostrous figure, and was intended as such. My best guess is that after the land is acquired, the track and the accompanying mutli-use path will be about £500-750k/mile, excluding bridges.

 

Oh lord. What "multi use path" might that be? First I've heard of it.

 

Some early thinking in the south, to tie into existing public rights of way @Mark Thompson

 

It is, I suppose, possible that parts of the railway-owned route could be built to include a multi-use path for walking, cycling, horse-riding, etc. parallel to the running line, but nothing formal has, to my knowledge, even been proposed as yet. It would perhaps be good for community inclusion, but would also introduce a number of other complexities.

I've just had a look at the ND PROW map and, apart from Twitchen Lane, none of the former trackbed seems to have become public rights of way - surprising considering the scenic views, even gradients, and track width which would have been available. Several footpath/bridleways do terminate close to the trackbed so linked circular routes could possibly be developed.

 

I have said exactly that elsewhere, and I am convinced that we could reduce the number of groups within the L&BR (wider) family down to just three

1) To become and own everything and, in effect, become the landlord (A Charity).
2) We need to have just the one operating company (CIC or some other body).
3) I am yet to be convinced otherwise, but the final body needs to be some sort of civil engineering/construction company (A wholly owned trust subsidiary).

That may look like a simple solution, but keeping all the good bits from all the other groups and combining them into the above may be difficult. But not impossible.

Tom, if you take the cost of the station site and all the land that the trust currently owns, locos, rolling stock, planning, PW material, the loco shed and works, the new carriage shed and cafe, it all soon mounts up and don't forget Blackmoor itself has cost 2 million to date.

Bala is trying to raise just 4 million pounds for a 1/2 mile extension into the town, and that does not include the purchase of locos, rolling stock and all the other requirements for a railway.

There are many costs which may not show up in the first place, but have to be paid for, i.e., Planning, Taxes, etc. I would rather have 10 million in the bank and know that I had the money to cover any costs. I am not a great fan of starting a project only to find that I then need to find another 50% to pay for something which should have been allowed for in the quote.

Other factors that need to be taken in is the cost of getting materials to the site, and Exmoor transport costs are not exactly cheap. Something else to bear in mind is that costs can and do go up and down, and then of course, there is the issue of where all the money gone that the trust has raised over the past few years, but I will let Tobbes explain that one to you

 

I am not convinced at all about (3), to the extent that I regard it now as a distraction, while I am increasingly unsure whether both (1) and (2) are required. That then only leaves the minor matter of the other assorted bits of the L&B family, and how they are best consolidated.

However, at this stage, if we are thinking about how things can happen in the south, the question of one or two organisations then becomes one to be worked through.

Blackmoor is a red herring, while I am unclear to what extent the challenges at Bala are relevant to the L&B. It has had some specific site related challenges, and calculating the price of £4M as £8m/mile is almost certainly a significant misrepresentation of the costs of an L&B project, where the one off project costs are shared across more mileage. I would not be surprised to find a bill of over £10m, but the challenge was to a cost of £10m/mile.

 

Hi Tobbes, we can't forget the amount of civil engineering work that will need to be done along the whole of the railway. The report I have seen tells me we must be cautious and expect the worst. There has been no maintenance in over 80 years along the trackbed, and it is already well known that Parracombe bank will need to be deconstructed and rebuilt with new material. I don't have a figure for how much that is going to cost, but that is just one major civil engineering project we are facing.

Also, allowing 1 million pounds per bridge for reconstruction*, there goes 80 million. A Manning Wardle steam loco 1.5 to 2 million each, coaches 1/4 million each, PW material per mile approx £300,000 (50 lb rail, sleepers, ballast), ST equipment unknown.

So I don't think your estimate will be far from the overall total cost.

* Not all the bridges will be equal

 

I don't think you can extrapolate £4m for 1/2 mile into £8m per mile. What are they getting for that - a station in a town? Do you need to construct a station in a town every 1/2 mile? A lot of the extension costs are plain line. Similarly, there will be legal costs of gaining planning permission, but they don't scale per mile.

The Welsh Highland, built through similarly challenging and remote countryside, cost of the order of £1m per mile. You can add some for inflation, but £10m per mile is putting you into the realms of mainline reinstatement territory, not a volunteer-led narrow gauge project with a slow line speed.

Tom

 

While I agree that the Management structure needs to be called in, I am still convinced that there is a need for a two-group structure, one to own it and the second to run it. I can't think of one heritage railway that does not have a separate membership body from the operating body.

 

I can see where you are coming from, but don't forget that the WHR had one major advantage over the L&BR: its trackbed was complete from end to end, and they only had to deal with one person, whereas we are having to buy the trackbed at current commercial rates across a number of trackbed owners.

I read somewhere that the total land take for the old L&BR was 90 acres, which, if that was the case today, would be £10,000 per acre or £900,000, but as we all know, that is not the case in North Devon, and the mere mention of rebuilding the railway and the price goes up through the roof.

 

The Isle of Wight Steam Railway?

You may note at the moment that the Bluebell is consulting on proposals to merge the Society (membership body) and Plc (operating company) into a single charitable body. There are various reasons but a significant one is to reduce both the overhead and more protracted decision making of having multiple bodies involved in the running of the railway.

Tom

 

So that's £900,000 for twenty miles, of £45,000 per mile for land. So where does the other £9,955,000 per mile come from?

I don't doubt it is going to be expensive. But figures should be grounded in reality, not just plucked out of thin air.

Tom

 

Colin, let's bring this back to reality. The expensive bridges may well be £1m each, and Lancey Brook is more than that, but there aren't 80 of those, so please be sensible. Indeed, many of the smaller bridges (e.g., Bridge 23) would likely be reconstructed as a modern large piped culverts at rather less than £1m a piece.