Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Lot's of stuff in there about grandfather rights - are you sure they exist? Or is it just one of those terms you've heard about?

The situation on the mainline is clearly very different from a tourist line running at reduced speed and which has no requirement for interoperability.

There will be others who are better versed than I am in heritage railway safety, but everything I've heard, the general ethos seems not to be proscriptive from the ORR; rather they want to know if you have adequate systems for assessing and managing risk. For example, there was lots of hoopla a few years back that heritage railways would be "required" to put bars on windows to stop people leaning out and hitting their heads on nearby structures; but when it was probed into deeper, what the ORR really wanted to understand was whether you understood and controlled for the risk of structure - train clearances. Having a programme to cut back trees and maybe where possible slew tracks towards the centre of bridge arches could be an adequate mitigation of the risk. In other words, what they were interested in was whether the railway had a good culture to understand and mitigate risk; they weren't interested in mandating specific solutions. Similarly, on a 100mph mainline, there are very stringent standards about crash-worthiness of rolling stock. On a heritage line, you can mitigate that to a large degree by limiting speeds to 25mph, or lower where appropriate such as in station limits.

I think you could apply the same to doors of contrasting colours. It is a good solution to assisting people with poor vision if you are in an environment where some stations will be unmanned. But on a heritage railway, you can adequately meet your duty under the DDA and the risk of a partially-sighted passenger trying to get on in the wrong place simply by having lots of platform staff.

If you can point to legal prescriptions for heritage railways that new-build vintage carriages would automatically be banned and old ones are only allowed under some system of "grandfather rights" fair enough. But rather than just float those terms about - where is the legislation? From what I can find, a lot seems to be based around ongoing use of heritage vehicles on the national network.

Edit: IANAL

Tom

 

All this talk about a pub that hasn't AFAIK been bought yet.


When it is can we discuss the important point of what colours its going to be painted

 

I completely agree- a major part of the L&B's attraction is the 'mainline in minature' appelation that seems to have been invented for the RH&DR but is arguably more applicable here. This and the distinctive locomotives and stock is certainly what I'm keen to recreate - just because we (probably?) could send double-headed NG/G16s over Chelfham viaduct on the front of an air -conditioned rake of 15 Swiss NG coaches doesn't make it desirable (at least for me).

What *is* useful is a discussion about what sort of railway we want to construct and operate. For me, a close facsimile of the old line and its stock is what I'd like to see - and Woody Bay, Lyn and the coaches all speak to that (ignoring the coach and engine livery mis-match). But as @RailWest has alluded to in signalling, the modern L&B will have important differences beyond the new route around Wistlandpound Reservoir - and for me the most important is the intensity of service/frequency of trains.

It's easy to forget just how sparse the 1935 timetable was (see attached) - on weekdays, eight return trains from Barnstable between 05h33 and 19h50 with some hefty gaps - do we really think that a family on holiday would be delighted to get to Blackmoor at 14h30 and find that the next train to Lynton isn't until 16h11? Are our family-in-need-of-something-to-do-on-a-wet-Devon-afternoon really going to sit around for 100 minutes awaiting the next train? I (seriously) doubt it, and therefore expect we'd expect to run (at least) an hourly service in each direction - if not every 30-40 mins in the high season.

This also speaks to what are customers going to use the reinstated railway for? For many/most, it will be a nostalgic train ride rather than a practical means of transport to and from the seaside - the bus will always be quicker, just like it was in 1935! And even for those who are using the railway principally as a means of transport the service needs to be reliable and reasonably frequent; it would be very interesting to understand from the WHR what split they see between e.g., hillwalkers/day trippers using the train as transport, and those there for the train trip itself is the point of the exercise.

All of which says what sort of rolling stock of all sorts - and how much - and rail infrastructure would be needed for a 40 min timetable between, say Wistlandpound and WB (in the first instance). What does that look like with an extension to Lynton? Or Snapper/Pilton Yard?

Certainly a lot more than we currently have or can reconstruct. So there will have to be wholly new stock, leading to sensible questions about the design. I'd prefer something that 'looks right' but that has the modern amenities of the WHR/FfR latest series if possible.

Just my tuppenth-worth.

 

Why do you pose a question of apparent difficulty, then promptly come back with "very easy, but"?
The FR have managed to build very accurate replicas (3 Pickerings for the Welshpool, 1 NWNGR Ashbury for F&WHR, 1 NWNGR Pickering Brake for WHHR , 1 Sandy River and 2 (?) Darjeeling replicas for Adrian Shooter) all of which have entered passenger service without recourse to the "current regs" you allude to.
They are currently building a replica NWNGR Ashbury brake for F&WHR and three new carriages for the TR to the same design that John Bate drew up in the 1960's. Do think that any of these are unsuitable for tourist traffic?
My view (FWIW) is that, when the time comes, expanding the L&B fleet to include replicas of all the other missing carriages (preferably in Southern green) will be more than adequate.
You really do seem to be looking for problems that don't exist.
I notice that you occasionally crop up here and on facebook proposing importing frankly inappropriate locos for the L & B (the latest being Lxd2 bogie diesels from Europe). Are you sure that you are in tune with the aims of the project?

 

To pick up on some of the matters touched on by @Tobbes...

From time to time I have been party to some (informal) discussions about future L&BR train services. Once Phase 2A is in place the governing factor will be the running time from BR to WB and then back. To a large extent that service may well be geared towards taking P&R passengers to/from WB in order to catch the linked bus service from there to Lynton and back. [ At this point, I must say that I have some doubts as to the extent to which visitors will be prepared to make that sort of journey - by the time that they arrive at the P&R they may well decide just to drive on the few extra miles to Lynton and cut-out yet another change of transport at WB.]

Some outline planning suggested that for about 70-75% of the time a single train shuttling between BR and WB would suffice for the projected traffic. Increasing the frequency will require (a) a second train and possibly (b) at least an intermediate block post at PE (even if not a passing-loop). In turn that means more infrastructure costs, more staff needed to man the trains and the signal-boxes more often, with the added problems of recruiting and retaining additional volunteers, as well as the extra costs in coal etc. At a time when so many heritage railways seems to be cutting back on services, will such a L&BR expansion be sustainable?

Although in quiet times the (single) train might do the round trip BR - WB - BR- WD - BR (or vice-versa), there was a view that at busier times it might be better to operate as a 'railway in two halves'. BR - WB would be operated on a service designed to support the P&R needs, whereas BR - WD would be run more along the lines of the current WB-KL operation, as a short run-time higher-frequency shuttle aimed at the family/tourist quick&cheap 'steam train ride' market. Such an arrangement would also de-couple the P&R service from the BR-WD service and therefore avoid the possibility of problems with the latter having a negative impact on the former. But here again, AFAIK such things are still just at the 'discussion stage'...

 

Very interesting @RailWest, thank-you.

 

Er.... I'm at a loss as to how the L & B would come under any interoperability regulations unless there are secret plans to build a network of similar gauge railways throughout the west country.

I'm not aware of any legislation covering the building of new rolling stock other than those contained in ROGS (Safety verifications, etc), The Railway Safety (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1997 and the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations. The latter differentiates vehicles built to a design first put to use before 1st January 1999 and those built to a design made after that date. Thus, you can build a replica of an original coach as it pre-dates 1999 but if you build a new design of coach it has to comply with the legislation. At least, that's my understanding.

Edit: forgot to qualify it by saying that this applies as long as speed less than 25mph.

 

Thanks @Steve - in that case, mine's a vote for the coaching stock in 1935 condition (ie, in green with steam heat), please.

 

Seconded.
As to the question of building additional rolling stock beyond the limits of the "heritage stock" remit, ie. the remaining parts of original carriages, then perhaps a close look at FR no. 14 would be a valid starting point. Original appearance externally (or close to), but completely repurposed internally.

 

Thanks for the tip, Mark - and what a good idea: https://www.festipedia.org.uk/wiki/Carriage_14#/media/File:Carriage14interior.JPG

Of course, if Ffesterbahn ever wanted to sell 14 back to the L&B....

 

I'm sure many would welcome it back!
Thinking further, to make the railway more attractive as a means of transport, at least for tourism, would be the inclusion in the train formation of replica vans like no.23, fitted with racks for the carriage of bikes.

 

Yes, I'd always assumed this was the plan - quite right, too.

 

Ridiculous statement.
I'm a railway enthusiast, my wife is not so I suppose she must be a tourist. But we would like to be able to travel together in the same carriage, please!

 

Will Garratts go under Collard Bridge (10ft 9" height, 12ft wide) unless they dig a very deep hole ? And Bridge 26 near Chumhill is even less wide at 10ft 7". What's wrong with replica L & B carriages ? Being made of wood they're comparatively light at 8-9 tons. After all the Festiniog based what they used to call 'Barns' on them.

 

I seem to recall an expressed view that the L&B had ruled out Garratts. Does anyone else recall this, or have any more info?

 

Bearing in mind that one of ENPA's conditions for the reinstatement is that the railway should be reconstructed to be as close in appearance as possible to the original L&B, the idea of South African Garratts providing the motive power might just lead them to believe that they had been thoroughly sold down the river. along with the vast majority of the Trust's members, too. It would also bear out the assertions of one notable objector regarding the "Disneyfication of Exmoor", and I would have to agree with her on that score. I don't know why we're even talking about it.
The L&B is a holy grail, there will never be another chance to recreate that lost world of Exmoor, so please let's admit there is only one acceptable course to follow. Anyone wanting Garratts will find them plentiful in North Wales. It's been done already.

 

It's interesting how people have such strong opinions about the ideas of others... None (well, most of us) on here are going to influence what might actually eventuate on a rebuilt L&BR. Obviously the heritage elements of a rebuild are very important but surely this does not mean that there cannot, indeed should not, be any non-heritage elements, does it? (Barrage of criticism from the ultra-traditionalists here, yes, I know!)

I rather like the Ffestiniog Railway Observation Car. See: https://www.festrail.co.uk/content/publish_m/mobile/mobile/news/Carriages_for_the_21st_Century.shtml
A similar new-build for the L&BR would be a great addition to the current heritage coaches.
(Aside: A full rake of new-build Pullman cars would be amazing too but perhaps best left until (most of) the line is properly open!)
Furthermore, for Southern aficionados, no, I don't think a Southern green livery would improve the delightful L&BR coach livery.
(Further aside: I have occasionally wondered why an L&BR loco livery has not eventuated. I suppose the Southern traditionalists like to see SOUTHERN in huge (and garish?) lettering emblazoned on the locomotive water tanks. Anyway, if the proposed Manning Wardle's come along, perhaps one (or two?) could be in L&BR livery?
(Further bleating from the Southern traditionalists! But remember it was the SR who actually closed the line...)
I rather like the All Third Centre Observation Coach No.7; see: https://www.lynton-rail.org.uk/page/lynton-and-barnstaple-railway-trust-heritage-carriages-project
This idea could be extended for an Open Air Viewing Carriage, as with New Zealand's TranzAlpine (from Christchurch through the Southern Alps to Greymouth).
See: https://www.greatjourneysnz.com/tours-and-trains/scenic-trains/tranzalpine-train/
An open-plan saloon would enable the whole carriage to consist of open air viewing.

The careful reader might realise that these ventures might perhaps best suit a tourist train rake, with of course, relevant fare surcharges. (Bleating anyone?)

I rather like SWR's buffet trolleys. Perhaps something similar could be used out of Van 23 and sales hawked at several stations en route on a re-opened railway... ??

Finally, these are my musings. I wouldn't want anyone to raise their blood pressure too much while alighting from their armchair or computer desk...

 

probably southern bloomin green again

 

I can’t guarantee it but I’m pretty sure the ENPA’s planning officers would view a garratt in the same category as a new build manning wardle - a steam train. I would suggest they were referencing the overall appearance of the line, the buildings, the line side fencing, the track work, vegetation clearance etc.

 

Have you herd of a little engine called Axe... Which is in L&B livery? I think we can all definitely rule out Garrett's.