Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

"The point is surely that plans exist to make it more than just that in the future. Accordingly it will need better facilities."

That is a VERY dangerous thing to say, considering the railways current situation regarding planning applications. Not least because it is not true. Some of the locals are objecting to it being reinstated as a halt, imagine how they'd feel about a fully fledged station?

 

Questionable....

In the temporary terminus form the loop will be simply a double-ended siding. If left in situ it will not give much 'operational flexibility' other than as somewhere to shut-in a PW train or similar - there would be no signalling nor block working capability for there to be two trains at once between WB and BR.

Also there would be the need to maintain two ground-frames (one at each end, or one larger one in the middle) and also two sets of P&C work with all the attendant overheads of wear&tear on the crossing noses etc for something which might be used once in a blue moon. More likely IMHO to remove one point and leave it as a dead-end siding (if at all).

 

But do not forget that the original - and approved - application included a passing-loop with two platforms, a signal-box and signals etc. Shelters on both platforms would seem to be a necessity in such a case and not much less in terms of a 'fully fledged station' than (say) Chelfham but without the main station building.

 

As was pointed out to me off list and something I should have know or at least remembered myself was that the period after the SR took over the L&BR we need to remind ourselves just what it was like back then, I have been told there was no dole money as such and times were very hard people think it is tuff now, just think, no central heating, very little electricity about and your main heat was from a coal fire, no fridges so food had to be fresh.

I will be honest and say I have never read much on the social situation of that period, but if you didn't work you didn't have any money.

Two things about the Railway at the time, just after the 1st world war and the boys had come back to what? Nothing, so many had died during the war and as the bodies were not about Farmer turn to machines to help run the farms Tractors etc, again very little work for people many of these farms were now able to be run with a small hand full of labour so times where tuff.

Now this is the bit I had forgotten and needed to be reminded of, like most of large employers at the time the SR took a share of Government funding to try and boost the economy around the country (it was this same money that the GWR used to keep its 3 narrow gauge railways running) once that money had run out, then lines that could not support themselves found that they were shut, the argument that the SR should have keep the L&BR open for the summer months doesn't hold any water simply for the fact, that they would have had to still employ all the station staff along the line for do nothing during the winter.

Also around this time the SR was concentrating on the electric commuter service in and around London and the South East. the plan as I understand it was to extend the 3rd rail as far as Exeter and beyond but the wall street crash put paid to that and by the mid t0 late 1930 the SR was running out of steam power, so alongs comes Mr Buillied and designs them the heavy Merchant Nay class and the lighter West County /Battle of Britain class locos and as there was also a need for a good loco the New Q1 class also appeared at that time.

If the SR had invested more money would the line remained open I doubt it, it was after all mainly a tourist railway and who in there right mind during the depression had the money to go off to the countryside? if however the line had built up more of a freight business beforehand then that might have made a big difference, but without that, the writing was on the wall.

Coming on to Manning Wardles, as was know MW's was part of the engine loco builder federation or what ever it was called and it was agreed that after the war a number of these companies would merge to try and make things work that much better. As we know it ended up with Hunslets becoming the dominate force in Leed's after this.

LEW was not just built on the 'spot' but as something to keep people employed if any thought have been given to her she might have been a total different locomotive and if you like it was just a case of built us another loco like the last three you supplies us. I think if you look at the Manning Wardle works list she was about the sixth and last narrow gauge loco that was built by Manning Wardles before they shut.

The late 1920's saw the famous Wall Street Crash that took out a lot of money most notably in Germany and we all know what happen to Germany in the 1930s-40's

I am sure I have one or two things wrong but I hope if give you all a taste of the background to what was going on at the time of closure.

My thanks to KV

 

Yes but "...much more than this" implies things like a station building, toilets, possibly even a shop/tea room. Surely any ambiguity surrounding Parracombe should be cleared up, considering that the section 73 application is still out for review?

 

That is just brilliant

 

You want to be careful - there are those on this thread who disapprove of pastiche

Tom

 

In these extremely rural areas, if you had a job on the railway, you were considered very lucky - a safe income all year-round, plus a few perks, like coal, off the company. Anyone else needed a second string income, usually some form of artisan craft, to tide them over the lean months.
I've heard it said that the Depression was a different entity on each side of the Atlantic. Industry suffered terribly in this country, but nothing like it did in America. A lot of the "Old money" was tied up in land, and overseas investment (empire), so the dynamic was different, but that meant that the rural economy was badly hit, with large chunks of the landowning aristocracy going under, and dragging their tennant farmers with them. Only the war, and the desperate need for home grown foodstuffs, reset the rural economy, and that was basically state subsidized.
Ever since McMillan stated "you've never had it so good", that status quo has remained.
I think it's only now, and we do still have a very long way to fall yet, that we may start to get a taste of how our forebears lived. But we have been living on recklessly printed currency for far too long, just kicking the economic can down the road. With no reserves as collateral, there is only one way to go.

 

Including me, hypocritically enough!

 

Uncanny. Superb, love it @Mark Thompson

 

Thank-you @RailWest - I thought I'd seen that as a design somewhere.

 

Thank you, Toby. Much appreciated.

 

A nice bucolic picture of the line and St. Petroc's Church. Pity about the mid-platform shack...
Incidentally, 'brutalism' is an architectural style of rough concrete with cubist elements. Strictly speaking it emerged in the 1950s and 60s but I am choosing to apply it to the Exmouth Junction monstrosities which seemingly therefore were ahead of their time...

 

Very well done Mark. This and the photo create a powerful artistic view of... unfortunately, the unartistic.
JB was a larger than life character in his trilby (I think) and raincoat, and you have captured the essence of his style. I cannot imagine given his irreverent but prescient view of modernism that he would have looked kindly upon Parracombe shelter even though he would have felt strongly about the loss of the line. Nevertheless, your vignette does lighten the scene. Perhaps he might have said:

Come friendly JCBs, attack Parracombe shelter,
'tis unfit for a new railway there.
For there's no salve for travellers care,
If they be wet or merely swelter.
(Please forgive me Sir John)

Mark, as for Adlestrop:
Yes, I do remember Adlestrop.
I went there on holiday, free
from school to find that station.
I saw no train, but I did do a wee.
(Profound apologies to Edward Thomas)

 

I hope that Parracombe gains neither signals nor up and down shelters. This project will fail if such unnecessary adornments are adopted.

To be sustainable the L and B will need to be as cheap to run as possible in both money and people.

The concrete shelter is both adequate and appropriate. It is part of the history of the railway and the history of what will one day be the story of how it lay dormant for the best part of a century before regeneration. Destroying it or moving it from the site would be every bit as significant a piece of cultural and historical vandalism as tearing down the Doric Arch at Euston, and achieve far less of use in the process than that appalling act

 

I would agree to some extent with the last paragraph, except that while I consider it essential from an historical concept to retain the shelter I do feel that at least some modest increase in it capacity and/or facilities may prove to be necessary, but I am sure that such can be provided in a sensitive and appropriate form.

On the matter of a passing-loop and/or signals......from what I can gather, the idea of a passing-loop was included in the original planning application on the basis of a 'nice to have' option and so was included as a precautionary measure to avoid the need to come back to the ENPA at a later date with a fresh application just to add it. However subsequent discussions about possible traffic patterns and potential operation requirements suggested that its main use would be limited to Gala Days and a few 'busy days' in high summer, otherwise it would simply be 'useful' for the odd occasions that trains might be running out-of-course and/or there was a need (say) to shunt a PW train or LE out of the way. It seemed difficult to find a strong business case to justify it, especially with the added costs of the civil, PW and S&T engineering.

From the signalling design perspective, the last time that I enquired it was still the case that no firm decision had been made as to whether to build it (even if not in readiness for Day 1 of Phase 2A) or drop the idea, but design work would continue in a way that would allow for it to be done if eventually that was decided. However, even if no passing-loop were to be provided, there is a potential need to provide some form of (intermediate) block-post between BR and WB in order to reduce the time interval before a 2nd train can leave behind a preceding 1st train. There are a number of ways to do this, but the more 'traditional' methods may require an infrastructure that is difficult to switch in/out 'on demand' and staff appropriately (no one wants a signalman sat at PE all day long 'just in case of need'). Alternative methods may be cheaper/easier to implement, but might conflict with the 'heritage' ethos - dare I say that I looked at one or two possibilities that would certainly 'frighten the natives' ! Quite a bit of 'blue sky thinking' was done on this last year, but the matter has not progressed any further at the moment - once again, no point in spending too much time/effort without a formal operation requirement, always other things to do already

 

In terms of signalling I would be an advocate of the FR/WHR approach or even to begin with the WLLR approach. They do have semaphore signals where essential, but manage very well without for the most part. The WLLR approach is so simple and inexpensive. IF traffic warrants multiple trains in operation complexity can always be added later.

 

What the signalling of the rebuilt L&BR should look like was one of the reasons for producing the Signalling Principles (SP) mentioned previously.

Although the L&BR was built under its own Act of Parliament, rather than the Light Railway Act, it is often viewed as a 'main line in miniature' in terms of its signalling infrastructure. At the same time IHMO it had much in common with Light Railways, as evidenced be the fact that originally the loops at BF, BR and WB had no starting signals. In later years, apart from the fact that all its main lever-frames were all covered, it was little different from (say) the nearby ND&CJLR.

For various (often undefined) reasons, there seems to be a trend for the signalling of NG railways to be different from those of standard-gauge (SG) lines. For example, although the former might well have Facing Point Locks they seem to lack either locking bars or track-circuits (as is the case at WB at the moment), but why is that situation permitted? What difference does the gauge make - if any? It may be the case that, given the nature of the original L&BR installations, the lever-frames were regarded as ground-frames and the point-work was deemed to be sufficiently close to the 'GF' to fall within the relevant exemption. For future L&BR work however the SP has adopted the principle of providing track-circuits at all locations with manned signal-boxes, with retrospective application to WB to be considered as necessary. This will provide increased operational safety without compromising the 'heritage landscape'.

Of course, like so much else at the moment, it may well all turn out to be completely different in due course...

The basic principle of the SP is to try and recreate the 'look&feel' of the original railway, hence the intention to provide fixed signals worked from manned signal-boxes. [You could do without both, but it was felt that a key feature of the original would then be missing.] But what then do you do about shunt/ground signals, given that the original line never had any? The ways in which the new line will operate differently from the old, coupled with a desire to minimise the number of movements that would have to be controlled by hand-signals rather than the safety of an interlocked system of fixed signals, means that at least some will have to be provided (especially at BR). So what will they look like, given that the old line never had any?

EoD did have a pattern of ground-signal (as could be seen on the Hull & Barnsley Rly for example), but my personal view is that they looked rather crude and utilitarian and would spoil the L&BR 'look'. Those currently at WB are the later SRly 'half-disc' pattern, which are not really be appropriate for an early SR period recreation. Having seen a trial with the older miniature-arm pattern at WB some years ago, that seemed to fit in much better with the L&SWR-style LQ arms, so the SP has adopted that style as the default. In cases where sighting from a distance is important then the half-disc pattern could be deployed instead (it only requires a change of face-plate), but at the moment the need for that style seems unlikely given that in future all such signals will control movements from a standing start close to the signal rather than approaching from some distance away (as is currently the case with 9B at WB).

 

Those reading this coming up to Octogenarian will recall it was not just their forebears - it was like that in the 50s. No central heating - a boiler that was so badly designed it was impossible to keep alight and even when working with poor quality coal didn't heat the kitchen let alone the house which was damp as well as cold. And the lack of heat meant the damp permeated from outside to inside and stained the wallpaper. And the coal gave off obnoxious fumes which made house smell of it. and of course, it was traditional to paint interiors of schools and work places a depressing all-over dark brown. Some houses still had no electricity - coal gas lighting which covered everything, including the ceilings, with black soot. Even if double-glazing existed then income didn't run to paying for it. The basics of life were cheap but people didn't have any money. There were few coffee shops because the idea of buying a drink on the way to work was totally unaffordable out of the wages then paid. It was difficult enough to save up the money to buy the next (obligatory) grey suit required for work. Most people couldn't afford a fridge - it was a meat safe in the larder - often home-made - 1" by 1" frame with pierced zinc covering to keep the ever-present flies off. A well-off family in the road had an enormous American imported Frigidaire fridge which made a loud humming noise. And as for a car, probably pre-war, having been on bricks during the war (no petrol then) to preserve the tyres and very second hand - forget it - the post war car manufacturers merely started up the pre-war productions again because they knew people would be forced to buy British. In 1963 when Beeching closed my railway line to work I was advised to steer clear of post war cars even if I could have afforded it - I was told to buy a 30-year-old car. Some of us mixed the petrol with paraffin to make it go further and put up with the awful smell and the damage to the engine (which had to be decoked and the valves reground every 10,000 miles or so.)

So are we going back to this - most people would riot on the streets before accepting this as they dont know what it was like within living memory of some.

This is true, as my father-in-law experienced, but the downside was the way you were treated - he was moved from a station on the S & D to one in rural Leicestershire (and the incumbent swopped to his area in the south at the whim of railway managers.) The station house flooded when it rained because of the slope of the platform. Water in the house froze in winter as did the condensation on the walls. Baths were in a tin bath fed by a boiler in a shed (like miners) The work at the station was hard because of 24-hour-a-day war materials passing along the railway. His wife had to help with the paperwork because of the constant trains. It was so bad for his young family that he had to move out to a prefab in the village which incensed the managers so much he had to resign and take a job with another railway company starting again at the bottom of the ladder on the lowest pay and work himself back up to stationmaster (at Mangotsfield in Bristol). Even then his wife had to run a haberdashery shop to male ends meet.

Fred Kidwell, who started as a cleaner at Pilton Yard in July 1925 was laid off by the SR (so, not in a job regarded as permanent) and spent some time arguing for unemployment pay at the pay the unemployment office. And, of course, if anyone in your family was earning, no unemployment benefit. I taped my several interviews with him between 1987 and 1990. The fact that he had joined the 1926 general strike marked him out. He was 17 when the Union man had said 'will you come out with us ? it'll be alright - we'll see you're alright. Did they ? we came along with them, and, of course, everybody got to march back to Barnstaple Junction to see Mr Granger. (the Loco Foreman) Reporting for duty, Sir. No, we haven't got anything for you. . . . . . Well, that was our instructions; I'm sorry. We did have the work, but when you went on strike . . . . got nothing for you. The Union man: 'We'll help you - he didn't did he.'

People don't know they're alive these days.

 

So FPLs are essential. Separate drive and detection for each switch blade desirable (or alternatively the trailable self locking switches that the FR employ).

Track circuits? Really? Are you expecting the service to be frequent enough?

The problem with complexity (and track circuits interlocked with lever frames is complexity) is someone has to maintain it, and pretty quickly you get to the point where if the train runs daily in the summer you will not be able to cover the breakdown maintenance without paying someone.

It would pay I think to plan only on signals at the principal terminal and have ground frames everywhere else UNTIL the traffic grows souch that that is a real operational headache.