Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

With the greatest respect, everything I have said has been said by the Trust in the past 10/15 years or so, so none of it is new.

James, thanks for the heads up about the magazine some very good articles in that issue.

 

Please, please, use words.
A BR station, to me, is a main line railway station that is owned and operated by British Rail. PE is an opportunity for maladjusted former paratroopers to shout at schoolboys, and I don't know what Non-disclosure clause you are alluding to.
On point 4. I am not suggesting rebuilding a short section from Parracombe bank to, I presume, Blackmoor. I suggest reinstating the line, preferably from Pilton to Blackmoor - People might well find that the resulting ten mile line with 3 passing stations, and a sunday roast at the end was just as much railway as was wanted.
Honestly I think that Chefham viaduct to Blackmoor will be a far more convincing restoration of the L&B than Woody Bay to Cricket Field Lane.
That prospect of 'Blackmoor isn't far enough' is likely to be 20 years away at least, and who knows whether the world will still have appetite for steam railways. I'll be dead, or near to it, and many of us will be well past tracklaying. It remains to be seen if our sons and grandchildren will be inspired, willing and able to continue the work.

 

Any (far future) effort to reinstate the whole line from Blackmoor to Woody Bay or beyond will in probability only be enabled as an end on extension to a successful railway operating from Barnstaple to Blackmoor. I do not think that the scheme to extend using Woody Bay as the basis is likely to succeed whether or not it achieves planning permission.

 

Obviously my point went clean over your head Colin. You're spending money like water. You just casually mention building another bridge which can't be used for many years and for which there is no money or permissions. Where is your magic money tree? Bridges will be needed, yes, but build them when you need them, and when you have permissions and the money. Your scattergun approach is exactly the piecemeal project that the ENPA are fiercely against.

Yet you are suggesting a six mile railway using a chunk of their trackbed "If the L&BRT and the Barnstaple and Yeo Valley Trust can come together and work towards acquiring all the trackbed between Bratton Fleming and the Howell Castle site (south of Parracombe), we would have about six miles or so of railway to rebuild (including Blackmoor)."

Perhaps you would be good enough to point out where I said I was opposed to the Trust acquiring more trackbed? You'll struggle, because I've never said such a thing, but again, where is the money coming from?

Let me quote Michael Uphill (who has the knowledge to comment) from the very conversation that you started on Facebook:" If you can provide the money, materials and man power then sure, it would be nice to put it back to as close to as built condition as possible. That would however easily double the time and cost of what is a simple overhaul..."

I'm aware that there are some links between the two railways, but why that should lead to the conclusion that an L&M loco should be built, utterly confuses me. You stated that support was not forthcoming for the MW locos, and your solution is to build an L&M loco which has no historical link to the L&B, would have to be reengineered to suit the different gauge, and you have absolutely no evidence that an L&M loco build would have any support.

Once again I would suggest that you are allowing your own pet project of a ng museum filled with locos from around the world, to somehow become the saving grace of the L&B. As amply demonstrated by the planning issues up to this point, the authorities are protective of the area and what can and can't be built there. I would suggest that it is unlikely that they will want to see a large storage shed (most likely a modern design for cost reasons), beside the OSHI.
Is there any evidence that such a museum is desired by visitors? Who would man it? How would it pay for itself? If you're asking passengers to buy train tickets, and then some souvenirs/books/gifts, and then lunch at the OSHI, then they're unlikely to want to pay to enter a museum as well.
I am not against a museum per se, but it should concentrate on the L&B and be able to be accommodated in a suitable building that 'fits' with the rest of the railway vernacular. Most of all it needs to be affordable.

A number of the items you have suggested will ultimately be required if the L&B is ever fully restored between its two namesakes (I remain to be convinced that this will ever happen). However, there are a great deal of things that need to be achieved before throwing money at your shopping list. How about the roof of the OSHI? Perhaps that should be fixed before starting to build a bridge that won't be used for 20 years.

When you make a posting, it would seem that the L&B has endless volunteers and millions of pounds just waiting to be spent.
You need to be realistic about what can be achieved in the short-medium term, how it can be afforded, staffed and what will have to be temporarily paused or put on the long term list.

Maybe instead of suggesting all these things to spend money on, you could put your money/time where your mouth is, and talk to the L&B about starting a trackbed fund. Become the Mike Buse of the northern section.

 

I do hope that the L&BRT will not be supporting the OSHI company with Trust funds to spent on the roof of a building of a commercial company in which it is a shareholder (a doubtful investment) and has already diverted many thousands to prop up.

 

The Company or the building ??

 

I've done a bit of editing in the quotes (for clarity/space reasons) but hopefully the meaning is the same.

From what I can make out, and as the above seem to confirm, a proposal which meets the planning policies can get approval, and one which doesn't, can't.
Really it's that simple and I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
Behind my house (>200 miles from North Devon) is a piece of land, which I and my neighbours now own. The previous owner (prior to giving up and selling it to us) tried three times to get planning permission and failed. It's in a conservation area, the plans didn't align with conservation area policies, and quite pointedly in the inspector's report, the applicant had failed to engage with the planners in advance to discuss what may or may not be possible.
Relevance to the L&B? If they engage constructively with the ENPA planners, they will quickly understand what can or can't be done without wasting any more money on frivolous planning applications. I hope, following previous mistakes, that they'll already be doing this - but in private, of course.
But what I don't understand is why this 'all or nothing' approach, that there needs to be a terminus with a run-round loop? Other railways have managed for years without the ability to run-round; they simply top & tail, often with a diesel at one end to keep costs down. Personally, I'd apply to go to Parracombe with essentially a long siding from Killington Lane, operate it top & tail, and if need be only operate it on high days and holidays, with the Killington Lane terminus retained for everyday use. And yes I know that itself has planning implications but it is surely easier to apply to extend permission for something which is already there for a few more years, than to build something new in a sensitive location.
Then if, when, there is either a possibility of a further extension, or a possibility of a run-round loop at Parracombe, that could be tackled some years down the line.

And it might work... but if it means abandoning Woody Bay, doesn't that mean potentially more oppositiong when later proposing to go back there? I can imagine a certain type of objector, the type who sees heritage railways as just 'grown men playing trains', kicking up a stink because the railway is already (say) 6 or 8 miles long and why does it need to be any longer? In my view, whatever happens further south, the Woody Bay operation needs to continue, and preferably extend as well if it can.

And that bit I agree with; the depot could (subject to permission) be built as a completely standalone project, potentially serving both sections if there are indeed to be two sections (and if the relevant parties can work together), and it needn't actually be rail connected in the short term if it's intended for heavy overhauls and storage. It's a pity that the permission for that bit lapsed with the original longer extension proposal, but there would be some sense in reviving it on its own. (Of course, the Woody Bay carriage shelter somewhat reduces the urgency.)

 

All of this has been gone over at length over the past years. I will take issue with one statement here though and that is that there is a need to abandon Woody Bay. There is not. And even if a railway is built in the south, there will not be a need to abandon Woody Bay. For forty years there has been an effort to reinstate the railway. 1/20th of which has been achieved. It is time to try a different approach, not to undermine Woody Bay, but to reinforce it and demonstrate actual progress towards the goal. It could well be that by the time an application can be readied for a fresh attempt to extend Woody Bay some greater credibility for the overall effort can be generated by a complimentary development in the south.

 

Yes, I can't believe that closing Woody would be any kind of useful scenario - think of all the thousands of man-hours and the enormous investment there.....and its quite large visitor numbers (for its size)
Nothing intrinsically wrong with two separated parts of one railway being joined by a dedicated bus service, for example, with through-ticketing - an adroit marketeer would include the pleasure of the bus bit as an integral part of the experience. This was done by the FR/WHR while it was being rebuilt, by Paignton, and by Epping Ongar - NNR connects to Holt in a similar way. On gala days one could even use vintage buses. If the ethos and atmosphere are different on the two sections (as they were on FR/WHR) then that's all good too.
However, all these examples were run by one integrated company/charity -and there's a different situation here. It's certainly possible - but perhaps a little more complex. However, I am sure that if such a plan was to be sold properly to the Nat. Park, i.e. making a decent-sized tourist attraction for the area out of two parts, then the famous Grampian conditions could be coped with. James

 

As has been said, much of this has been thrashed ou many times in the past, so I will just pick two quick points:-

1. ...From what I can make out, and as the above seem to confirm, a proposal which meets the planning policies can get approval, and one which doesn't, can't.
Really it's that simple and I don't understand what all the fuss is about.....

Sadly, no, IMHO it is NOT that simple. You may propose something that is 100% compliant with all known and relevant policies and - from that perspective - could be elegible for ENPA approval, BUT....they also have to take account of the comments from supporters and objectors and weight them up as well. There are numerous examples currently in my area where the Planning Officers have recommended approval, but the Committee has thrown it out, or vice-versa. A lot of it may come to how the objectors of the (relataively) few may or may not be considerable to outweigh the wider public benefit - and that IMHO is a very subjective process.

2. ......But what I don't understand is why this 'all or nothing' approach, that there needs to be a terminus with a run-round loop? Other railways have managed for years without the ability to run-round; they simply top & tail, often with a diesel at one end to keep costs down.....

Top&tail means two engines and two crews, so double the staff resources and fuel needed on any particular day. Also the heritage L&BR never operated like that, so the objectors will argue that the proposed method of operation is outwith the ENPA's desire to keep as strictly to the 'original railway' as feasible.

 

Must say I doubt that ENPA would take that much interest in the exact details of a train consist. And you can do push-pull, as FR did on the Deviation. At HSNGR (OK it's VERY short!) and at the Middy (which is a bit shorter than the track at Woody) we have a Guard who is suitably qualified, and he looks ahead when the train is being propelled, being in control of the vacuum and hand braking system. So only one crew (2 on steam, 1 on diesel) is required at the other end, and only one loco. OK, that's not authentic for any railway, really - but if it's a choice between a slightly inauthentic operation (which most members of the public won't even notice) and none at all, well - the choice is clear. It is, BTW, also much less tiring for the crews (particularly in wet weather0, and allows many more runs easily, if such are required - and, most importantly, it is extremely flexible, as you can stop and reverse anywhere you like). James

 

Maybe not, but..past experience would suggest that some objectors will sieze on anything to raise as an objection (even if it's blatantly obvious that they are factually incorrect). It's all too easy to get lots of people doing copy-cat objections and clogging up the process, while compelling the railway to spend time, effort and money on rebutting each and every one :-(

 

Our local objectors are remarkably ignorant about railway matters - pride themselves on it in fact. We call them "Lardners" (I am sure you get the reference). Yours may be a bit more organised and intelligent. So all you have to do is to "discover" a historic document or photo which proves that the L&B actually did do such-and-such. Anything is fair in love, war and railways.... J

 

On one occasion it was claimed that we should not be allowed to build a station at Parracombe because historically there had never been one.....despite the fact that it had appeared in every L&BR timetable since 1899 and numerous photos of it all over the web and in numerous books. And the platform shelter still exists....

 

You can never over-estimate the stupidity and disregard for simple verifiable facts of the classic NIMBY railway objector. And they are usually believed by large numbers of formerly non-aligned people - and it's hard to impossible to refute any of it and be heard. I blame social media.....J

 

I don't think the L&B ever had a diesel locomotive, but it doesn't alter the fact that you have got one. It hasn't sopped the railway getting to the point it has.

Planning law is about the built environment; a planning authority has neither the competence nor the authority to create restrictions about how a railway is operated once built (beyond in the most general terms being involved if you want to have a change in use from that for which planning permission was obtained).

Propelling moves or top-and-tail working are both operating practices that have been used on other railways, and in particular on lines part way through extensions as a means to run something (perhaps only occasionally) without the need to build expensive, but temporary, infrastructure. Of course you need a safe way of operating (for the purpose of the ORR - not the planning authority!) but building the least superfluous infrastructure as possible is a good way to demonstrate your objective to remain true to the original footprint of the railway. If the planning authority are really insistent on a faithful recreation of what went before, then building just a single track to Parracombe but operating it top and tail is considerably more desirable than creating a whole signalled loop where one didn't exist previously just so you can run trains with the engine prototypically on the front each way.

Tom

 

Tom - absolutely right. Couldn't agree more (well, I would, having suggested exactly that in the original CFL discussion.....) James

 

In essence, based on previous proposals, any temporary run-round loop at PE would be no different from the one at KL. Certainly no 'forest of signals' - no need, and who wants the expense of installation and ongoing maintenance
Much the same applies to Wistlandpound.