Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

My personal view for many years has been that if each separate group has the same person at the top it is not necessarily the best situation and definitely does not guarantee continuity, and can very much promote the wishes of one person,luckily now we are slowly seeing changes and forgive the pun, a totally different train of thought that ultimately needs to spread throughout the L&B family,id rather see a board room in discussion with different views needing to be hammered out rather than a board room full of nodding donkeys

 

I completely agree. And as the saying goes, Rome wasn't built in a day

 

If the only possible opportunity to travel behind a recreated Manning-Wardle were to travel to Devon, then that is what people would have to do. Then they would get to visit the recreated L&B, and do that 'adding to the local economy' thing that all railways claim. If, however, one got the notion that sooner or later an itinerant Manning Wardle would turn up at the local narrow gauge line, then one might not bother with Devon at all, and just travel behind Exe2 at some other location.
The M-W might earn steaming fees, which it seems are not enough to cover the wear and tear incurred, but the host railway would get the earnings and the benefit of offering this 'unique' experience.
Surely better if the recreated L&B locomotives stayed on the railway whose character the originals helped establish, and the L&B kept its usp of being the L&B.
However, that being the case, it might be better to proceed slowly on the loco-building and prioritise building more L&B, rather than just WB, for the public to ride on.

 

How many devoted manning wardle fans do you think there are?

And how many of them will come more than once if ticking off MW haulage is their aim?

 

What is more, with due apologies to the good folk at Bideford, the L&BR is the only operational heritage railway in North Devon - and NG to boot

What we need however is the incentive to get visitors to come to North Devon without getting 'distracted' at the WSR on the way and then failing to go any further west. Still a struggle IMHO when you compare the two 'offerings' and their ease (or otherwise) of transport links.

 

I really like the L&B, I think that Woody Bay is one of the great achievements of the heritage railway movement. But having said that, the different, and seemingly many, components that make up the enthusiast bodies of the L&B are one of the regrets of the movement. These bodies are quite disgracefully argumentative, destructively so, quite incapable of working constructively together as this latest bout illustrates all too readily.

 

Here it is!

Planning: EXM/26/172/FULL - Online Register

Check out the Aerial Overlay of Parracombe (under Documents) for the track layout!

 

I thought "the latest bout" was move to much more co-operation.

 

What 'bout' are you talking about exactly, and where? I feel things are going rather well at the moment...

 

PE Planning Application.

In Item 11 of the Community Involvement document it is stated that "The pedestrian gate will normally be locked with no access permitted except when trains are operating. The guard on the first train of the day will unlock the gate and the guard on the last train of the day will lock the halt."

OK, fine, but.... elsewhere it was stated that the last of the five trains of the day would run "dependant upon demand" or words to that effect - I've lost the reference at the moment. So how will the guard of the penultimate train know if the last train will or will not be running and so he/she should or should not lock the gate?

 

I'm sure there are many possible solutions,but I take that to mean that the railway will schedule the 'last train' on days where demand is likely to be heavier, and not on quieter days - not on an 'as required' basis at the time the last train was due to depart.

 

It hardly seems beyond the whit of man to be able to inform the guard before departure whether they are on the final service, or the penultimate one!

That said, I'm surprised there is that level of what is basically operational detail in a planning document. What if the fireman locked the gate instead - are you now foul of your planning permission? OK, that's perhaps a bit of reductio ad absurdum, but surely it isn't for a planning document to get into the finer technicalities of who will do a task, you simply need a statement along the lines "the gate will be unlocked upon arrival of the first train of the day and locked just before departure of the last".

Tom

 

I agree. It is a naive level of unnecessary detail IMO.

 

My impression is that a lot of the paperwork - and there is a lot! - is not so much about the actual physical infrastructure application, but rather part of the supporting stuff designed to address various known issues and deflect any possible reasons for objections. Some of the documents seem to be examples of saying the same thing in umpteen different contexts. I found it very hard to sift out the basic facts of what they actually propose to build from all the 'noise' of the rest.

One thing that did emerge is an apparent intention to keep and use the existing KL station once they start running to PE. It's not clear what the impact will be on the existing KL installation (other than realigning a siding) and the operation of it as an intermediate location in a WB-PE section.

 

So if the gate to the proposed new Paracombe halt will be open, people using the railway (mostly tourists) will use it as a destination/embarkation point, potentially causing lots of pedestrians to walk in narrow lanes, or car parking problems, and upsetting some residents?

 

If you read the online documentation, it has been made very clear that it will be made clear in all publicity that tickets can be bought ONLY at WB. No doubt a notice to that effect will be posted at PE as well.

Having said that, it is also stated that, noting that there will always be the occasional rambler etc who may turn up at PE on foot, they will be allowed to travel on the train to WB and buy their ticket on arrival there. However that facility will NOT be publicised.

EDIT: now, you may say that in effect I have now publicised that option bytposting the details here. But then, it is already available for all to read publicly on the ENPA Planning Portal, so it's unlikely to remain secret for long anyway

 

Quite a bit to read.Found some statements.
But with the current Killington Lane stop passengers can get off the train, but there is not much they can go.
With the extension, what's to stop passengers parking at Woody Bay, then getting off at Paracombe in large numbers to wonder round the village, maybe upsetting some residents and getting a later train back?

 

What do people think about the projected four years for construction?

I can understand the desire to minimise the construction impact on the local area, but might it not be better to get it over with as quickly as possible rather than to prolong the agony for all concerned ? Softly, softly maybe but....

Then, of course, there is the 'small matter' of raising the extra funds.....

 

Short answer - nothing at all
The assumption appears to be that such number will be very small, but I'm not sure if the comparison about walking from KL to (say) the Fox&Goose as compared with walking Churchtown to the F&G is really valid. I've driven to the station in the past, so I do know the problems with the road. But I do wonder if it will really ever get so bad as some seem to fear if you add in X number of railway passengers?

It would be really useful to get an accurate view of whether the number of people who have valid objections to the railway (as opposed to those who simply don't like the idea) does or does not outweigh the number of residents who can see future benefit in having the railway.