Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

The reason for the turntable was quite simple and has been explained before.

The railway wants to open to PE as a temporary terminus. Until such time as it may be able to purchase the relevant strip of trackbed south of the station which is owned by one of the objectors, the 'station site' is confined to an area between the Churchtown bridge and the end of Trust-owned trackbed at the rear of Ivy Cottage.

Whoever was planning the Sec 73 application calculated that there was insufficient room to accommodate a 'traditional' run-round loop with engine release point and dead-end spur (as per KL) that would be long enough for the desired length of service train. 'Someone' then had the clever idea to re-purpose the ex-Pilton turntable to act as a sector plate, thus enabling the engine to be shunted from one line to the other in less linear space. AFAIK there has never been any intention to use the TT for the purpose of turning engines (as at Minehead), but sadly this appears not to have been made clear when the Sec 73 was submitted, hence the flurry of objections.

Subsequent discussions between various Trust members and Trustees have suggested that a 'traditional' run-round could be provided after all, eliminating the need to use the TT. However it would appear that the Board, having noted whatever legal advice it may have received, decided that it would simpler/better/safer (choose your own option!) to revert to the original plan and simply provide as much of that as it is practical within the current station site. Hence what you now see is a plan that is effectively the original passing-loop, but with the Barnstaple end point chopped off as it lies outside current Trust land ownership.

 

Another problem here is that there will be some objectors who - quite understandably - will 'clutch at straws' and raise objections on the most flimsy and spurious basis, knowing that it will all add to the time - and hence delay in reaching a decision - while the ENPA goes through the consultation and response process. If you look carefully through the drawn-out process of determining the original applications, there were several instances where objections were raised on points which had already been clarified, but therefore had to be clarified again, or quoted 'historical facts' about the railway which were easily disproved from readily-available sources, or simply showed that they had not read the application clearly enough in the first place etc etc. All of these had to be sent by ENPA to the L&BR, which then had to spend time and money to get their legal people to respond.

As has been said before, the objectors know that the planning permissions are time-limited and about to expire, so all they have to do is keeping trying to delay the process by any (in)concievable means until it is all too late. I'm not sure that the sorts of discussion we are having here on NP are likely to have much influence on their approach.

 

Sorry but you can not compare us to any other railway, most heritage railways started out with either a reasonable section of railway all ready to go or only having one owner to deal with, such as the Bluebell (Sheffield Park to Horsted Keynes) but we don't have the luxury. This railway is being put back together on one section at a time basis we can't do it any other way and as I have said above we are dealing with multiple owners, some who want the railway to be rebuild and others that don't.

Sadly all the owners that do want the railway don't always meet end on, and we have to deal with some owners that don't want to sell period. I am sure the Trust will not only welcome your huge donation but also your expertise on this matter to get us back into Parracombe.

Buying something like Chelfham Mill is not a dilution of our effort, but it should be seen as a useful future asset, may be one we don't need right now, but one nonetheless.

It does not matter with some land owners if they sell to us or not, but one of them told us many years ago that he was getting peed off with all these so call railway enthusiasts not respecting his farm or land and asking to buy his trackbed and living in a dream World, lucky for us and after a lot of hard work behind the scenes we have been able to buy his trackbed, but the immediate problem is, it does not join up to any other part of the project we yet own and this could take some time to do. So do you still think that our approach is the wrong way round or would you prefer us to use CPP to railroad the building of a railway over all the landowners?

You have to realise that we not only work with these people but we live with them as well and the plan always has been to be good neighbours.

I don't think there is one single L&BR Trust member that doesn't get it. After all it takes time to put these deals together.

 

What is it about the water to the West of Taunton, or maybe it's in the beer, that causes people to argue so much about which Angel has fall off which pinhead?

 

That's why we stick to cider, the true amber nectar

 

I keep promising myself that I won't tune in to this thread, but so far I haven't managed to stick to it. I did make the same promise about the West Somerset, and now have no idea what they're up to, and don't care either.
Out.
Pat

 

Yes I can. The closest comparison is with the Rother Valley Railway which has now spent over 30 years patiently negotiating with multiple landowners, not as many as the L&B I’ll grant you but quite a few nevertheless, to the point where there are now only 2 landowners refusing to sell.

RVR have also successfully achieved multiple planning-permissions and a Section 73 variation allowing them to construct the extension in phases excluding, for now, the bits they don’t yet own. A crucial difference is they do not propose to open any of these phases until the whole thing is complete.

RVR have also applied for their TWAO, presented their evidence at a public inquiry and defended, at the inquiry, against all objections. They now await the SoS’s decision.

L&B have a few years to go yet before they get that far.

 

Then you need to look at what the Bluebell had to do to get north of Horsted Keynes.

In an ideal world, with unlimited time and resource, I'd agree. In a real world, priorities matter - and what is the priority?

I fully realise, and support. I don't

This L&B member gets the principle.

 

I'm sorry Colin, but I have to once again strongly disagree with you! To me the idea of 'buying Chelfham Mill' would very much be a 'dilution of effort'.
As I said in a previous post, the focus must be on buying the old Blackmoor Station (OSHI) and gaining all the benefits offered by owning that property, buying the missing lengths of trackbed, building the infrastructure (engine shed, missing bridges etc), re-instating the railway, building carriages and locomotives, getting trains running from Killington Lane to the reservoir. I have perhaps missed something but that is already an expensive shopping list.
If you do have a friend who would like to buy the Chelfham Mill site and donate it to the Trust then fine. I think it better to focus on what we can hopefully achieve in our lifetime!
I am getting tired of repeating myself so will now keep quiet...
Mike

 

aaargh. This point was already made, and I already knew what. S73 was. I didn’t need telling three times. In fairness I wasn’t careful enough with what I wrote, my brain was ahead of my fingers. What I was getting at was even if the TT had been an allowable variation under a s73 it wasn’t strategically wise as it hands an opportunity to opponents to make merry. Adding an already unnecessary detail into something where it isn’t allowed anyway, well….

 

Don't really know what th answer is. The purpose of my post was a reminder that opposers do look at this and other sites such as facebook. We just have to be careful what we say.

 

All the recriminations here certainly put off supporting the railway. Doesn't the L&B have other methods for members to air their grievances that would accommodate those with bees in their bonnet.

 

This forum has nothing to do with the railway. These individuals could contact the railway itself if they had some genuine concerns but instead come on here for the clout.

 

I beg to disagree. How would it be beneficial ? What protection would that offer in return for the investment, let alone a financial return ? Especially when you consider the inflated price asked for it. Are the owners likely to damage the pillars ? Unlikely I would say. If the idea is we would like a volunteers' hostel, consider how many years it took the Festiniog, and they and their Society are far better funded than we are. In a situation where there is land to acquire between Woody Bay and Blackmoor, and the rails to put down on it, let alone the need for accommodation to protect carriages from vandalism (EG fire) and weather in winter (which carriages were housed in a carriage shed at Pilton Yard when the line operated) I would have thought there were more important things to find the money for.

 

Exactly right - I think RVR's experience is very relevant to the situation with the L and B.

A quite a few things were demonstrated. Applying for a TWAO order is not a quick or cheap process. The paperwork need to be correct. It is inevitable that a Public Inquiry will happen. A public Inquiry requires expensive Legal professionals. It can take a long time for the inspector to write up his/her report and then a long time for the Secretary of State to reach a decision.

At least L and B are not proposing a Level Crossing over an A road which has been the major sticking point for the RVR.

 

That is the trouble Mr Woods you have a vested interest in the success of this railway. As hard as you might find it to swallow I do to, this railway group has been created by the membership for the membership and if this is the only way to get the message out there then so be it.

You are to young to know all about the history of this group, but I suggest you start talking to those that have been here a long time as you might then start to feel the frustrations that builds up with nothing new to show for five years or you don't even find out what is happen in the workshop at Woody Bay, may be you would like to take that role on and let the rest of us know what you get up during the day. Oh and how is the training going.

If you want to talk just pm on this site.

 

What message exactly? Please be concise in your answer.

 

Ironically the proposal for two level crossings across major roads in Barnstaple almost did for the Railway to that place in 1895. The Deputy Mayor was supported by a number of Councillors and eventually the Mayor in opposing the agreement with the Corporation for the facilities of going through the town (in theory FOC). This was before the LSWR had formally confirmed the proposal for a joint station at North Walk (already promised to the L & B) on acceptable terms. The Deputy Mayor said he supported the Railway but wanted a station at Brewery Marsh (and it was a marsh) on which Pilton Yard was later built. The Railway let it be known that the Promoters would take the Railway to Filleigh unless they got their way (and later wrote a letter to the local paper saying the Bill would be dropped). The Deputy Mayor who was on the Railway Committee managed to delay getting the agreement signed (not even allowing the draft agreement to be read at the Committee) from November 1894 until the end of February, three weeks before the Promoters were due to go to the Select Committee to do battle with the Filleigh scheme when things were getting desperate for the Promoters who probably realised they would lose without the agreement. The Sub-Committee had decided level crossings were the lesser evil to the alternative of a bridge over the railway at Pilton Causeway with gradients of 1 in 22 (the railway couldn't be lowered much because of the high water mark in the adjacent River Yeo). These two Gentlemen were outvoted. The LSWR had agreed to contribute £2,000 to building the joint station as L T Catchpole mentions. The L & B Company were destined to pay the rest. In the event it cost the best part of £7,000, and the L & B was not called on to pay a penny, only a rent of £150 pa for 30 years without any provision for review without any more charges for a completely staffed station. It sounds like they got a bargain.

Sorry - I am editing - living - in 1895 at the moment - back to reality in 2023.

 

Hi Colin,

Whilst I appreciate the sentiment behind your comment, please don't treat me like I'm a 5 year old. I certainly am not too young to understand the history of this group, anyone with half a brain cell could figure that out in about as many minutes. I am fully aware of the legitimate opinions and concerns that some members hold regarding the railways progress. As I have said above, you have every right to have your own opinion and to stick to it. The point I have been trying to make has been laid out very clearly in that same message from yesterday, I advise that you go back and read it carefully. What you said about Stuart and "the management" is incredibly disrespectful, and I hope you have realised your mistake and apologised. Anyone who has a "vested interest" in the railway should surely know better.

 

I suggest you look a few miles west at what such open public dissension has achieved for those seeking significant change, and what it cost to go backwards. You may also want to think carefully about how you come across; if there are issues with the Trust's leadership that need resolution, you are not convincing this new member of the Trust that you and those of similar mind are likely to be effective in delivering the reopened railway we all want.