Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

parts of it are stored at different L&BR sites

 

Didn’t the turntable originally go to the RHDR when the assets of the L&BR were sold off?

Tom

 

Yep. Apparently, Jack Howey, who could likely have bought the whole kit'n'kaboodle, wasn't at all taken with the MW locos.

 

There were to be two turntables, one at Lynton and the other presumed at the Barnstaple end. The object was not to turn engines, but the observation coaches 1 and 2 which had open ends. When the Engineer suggested the Lynton turntable could be dispensed with if the ends of these carriages could be glazed rather than open to the elements (as were coaches 3 and 4 with the saloons at the ends of the sides, 4 of the thirds in the centre) the Directors accepted the idea. This was June 1897 when the opening had been deferred until the following year and costs not budgeted for, (especially the price of land and the amount of accommodation works) had made themselves felt, and the Directors needed to save expense wherever they could. Tenders had been sought for the turntable(s) and Isca Foundry of Newport, South Wales offered a range from £200 to £65. The one bought cost £107.10.0d, and a firm called Garland Bros. were paid £56.2.7 to install it, a total of £163.12.7. An analysis of coaches and wagon photographs suggests they were only turned round very rarely. The story that the table was used for turning vehicles to equalise tyre ware therefore seems a little doubtful, although the fact that odd vehicles were turned (eg coach 2471) might suggest some truth in this but only occasionally. To do so involved a quarter-of-an-hour's work transferring the coupling tightening gear from one end of a vehicle to the other. Photographs suggest it was a useful asset to use for rolling stock maintenance. It would have been tricky reaching brake gear with footboards in the way on coaches out on the line. When the line closed Capt. Howey of the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch railway sent a representative to the auction who bought the table for £9. It was installed at New Romney. When the Railway decided to dispose of it in 1987 it was offered to the L & B RA and £50 was paid for it. It was dismantled by a team from the L & B at Easter 1988 and the pieces transferred to Clarence de la Cour's yard at Landkey. Some years later they went to Woody Bay and Chelfham Stations. Photographs attached at New Romney, in 1968 (no wide-angle lens in those days), and Easter 1988 when being dismantled. Clarence and Mike Buse in the picture. The acquisition was described in Magazine No 23 and the recovery in No 25.

 

Reading some of the responses on ENPA planning, I am baffled by an objection from Lynton and Lynmouth Town Council, who state:
"Lynton and Lynmouth Town Council are disappointed that this does not reflect the aspiration of the 2013 Lyn plan. The ultimate connection with Lynton will be lost."
With no follow up as to why this would be. There are some strange responses to this application, that's for sure.

 

Given who this one is from, it needs to be taken seriously. Is it perhaps to do with the proposed extension around the bluff to the "better station site"? Let's be honest .... picturesque as it was, the old station was never in the best place.

 

Maybe, but in the context of the application, it's a non sequitur. There is no discussion of extension in the Lynton direction here, whatsoever. It is not relevant to the application, so unless something has been stated off the record, my observation still stands, so L&LTC really need to clarify their position here.

 

Is there anything within those 'Grampian Conditions' which might have some bearing on linked matters at the Lynton end? It does sound mighty odd, but you'd surely have to assume even the most 'local' of Local Authorities would get a legal eye to give anything headed for the public domain the once-over ..... wouldn't you?

 

I would agree. The Sec 73 applications relate to planning permissions for Phase 2A only. The extension to Lynton will be Phase 2B, for which - as yet - no applications have been submitted.

AFAIK there is nothing whatsoever with the Sec 73 applications to give rise to any implications of a subsequent knock-on effect on Phase 2B. Indeed AIUI 'Grampian Conditions' are no longer permitted, so hopefully the Phase 2B extension may not suffer in that respect, although no doubt by then environmental constraints will have become harsher :-(

 

Looking at the '2013 Lyn Plan there is a section for the railway returning to Lynton, taking into account that this phase 2A was initially to return to Blackmoor Gate and then phase 2B back to Lynton, is under the sec 73 stating that in between these two phases an extension from Blackmoor to Wistlandpound is to be added thus possibly pushing phase 2B further down the list, perhaps this is the reason for the objection

 

Although the Wistlandpound add-on, which should be quite a straightforward part of the project, has been in the public arena for a good few years, now . I'd be surprised if no-one in the council had been made aware, either of the application to NDC, or of bridges 54 & 55 being rebuilt for this.
No, it just doesn't add up.

 

AFAIK the extension from Blackmoor to Whistlandpound (within the NDC area) was/is all part of Phase 2A anyway. All that has happened really is that the Sec 73 applications have sub-divided Phase 2A into various stages which may progress other than in a strict geographical order. Perhaps the L&LTC have misunderstood that?

 

Whether or not it's a misunderstanding, surely the L&B team briefed all the major stakeholders?

 

I'm sure I recall a bit of info on few sheets of A4 doing the rounds ahead of the Public Enquiry.

 

It might depend upon who was considered to be a (major) stakeholder. And some briefings can be better/worse then others, with the result that the audience do not always get the intended, or correct, understanding of the situation.

 

I checked the minutes of the meeting which deals with Planning on the Town Council website - but there is little further recorded other than their comments which were sent to ENPA - the only other thing recorded is an explanation of 'Grampian Conditions' following a question from a member of the Public.

 

Looking at the ENPA website again over the weekend, amongst the responses on the main Sec 73 application (trackbed + PE terminus etc) I found a ‘Consultee Response’ (sixth one on the list, from an address at 1 Kemble Street London) from the ORR.

I found their comments at Item 1 quite interesting as they said that, other than for level-crossings (which AFAIK would include occupation and accommodation crossings), they had no statutory approval or acceptance role for new works such as the L&BR's extension. Given a comparison with the old days of the HMRI, one might question to what extent we would need to worry after all about what they might think of our proposals.

Item 2 is interesting as well. One only has to look at the many photographs of heads out of carriage windows with cameras to wonder what will happen at Churchtown Bridge! As for those passengers who might be leaning out of the 'open' saloon......

 

I take it nature's own method of encouraging common sense from window hangers ..... brambles ..... still flourish in more sheltered locations on Exmoor?

 

Sea buckthorn is much more effective than brambles.

 

If it'll grow away from salt laden wind .....