Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

There are so many unanswered 'what ifs' and 'maybes' etc as regards planning permissions considerations, ORR views on gradients etc which are being raised time and time again by various members. It is impossible to make any sort of sensible plans without the answers.

But sadly the Trust tell us nothing of any use. Either (a) they are not listening to their members or (b) they are not doing anything about it or (c) there are matters in hand 'behind closed doors' about which even the existence of such discussions can not be mentioned. Who knows?

Meanwhile we just go around in circles, rather than forward to a better railway :-(

 

Having a station on a gradient is usually accepted provided that the locomotive remains coupled to the train. If it is a station where trains terminate then anything less than 1 in 300 is unlikely to be acceptable and preferably 1 in 500. You might get away with a terminus where an arriving loco remains attached until a relieving loco is attached at the other end.

 

Finally home so I can catch up properly while getting dinner on....

One and a half hours later I can now post my response lol... Geesh

One big thing you are missing here is that Ffestiniog already had a huge following, and plenty of volunteers in a time totally different to now. Rvr is in a vastly more populated area than North Devon. It's not the volunteer that comes perhaps once or twice month that's important, we get a fair number at the work weekends, it's the every day or once per week volunteer we need to find. I think you are being over optimistic in finding such an army of volunteers nowadays.

I would say most consider themselves as L&B volunteers but also as a subset of that is the smaller groups of EA, YVT, or L&BRT. I know I have seen a few who specifically say they are EA volunteers, not L&B.
The hedging problem wasn't caused by cross organisational miscommunication, it was in house at one of them. Something they need to sort out so it doesn't happen again.

We may have a duty to land husbandry, but I ask you this, if EA/YVT we're running an operational railway say in Yeo Valley, do you think that their land husbandry would be as it is now with the volunteers engaged in tasks needed to run the railway? I think that some parts may well get left longer than desired as other things are more important. It also has to be remembered that you can only do certain land husbandry tasks between I think it's between March 1st and September the 1st that's soon to alter to include a two metre strip either side of the hedge in new legislation. The six months you can do work is in the winter months which means some days are lost to the weather.

Hmm, I thought it was a bit of land between KL and CFL that had that covenant, where there is four posts in the field?
As OSHI is doing at the moment, I personally think it will be a success if the railway is there or not.
Mark is doing great with the pub, and most especially in keeping winter trade going with the locals by having fundraising nights, bingo, quizzes etc.

(in reply to me saying, "With Woody Bay running heritage stock and live steam hauled many will expect that same or close to standard at BG, both visitors and the locals.)

It's not how you market it, it's how you gauge what you market will expect. M&S a few years ago had a range of clothing which just didn't sell, no matter how much they marketed it. They admitted they got the feel and trends at the time completely wrong. Marketing isn't the be all and end all, if you pitch to your market the wrong product or not what is expected, it won't sell.

I am not adverse to using diesel, providing its an engine that looks the part. I think we have spoken on this in the past. It would I think be good to see steam at least on event days.

Possibly, I can think of some amendments that could mean a smaller bridge. I dare say those options have been looked at by the Trust too.

As I've said elsewhere, as far as I understand will not salami slice the application and they view Bridge 65 as part of the KL to CFL section. Or might be that other authorities may do things differently but this is a National Park and they do in many ways do things differently and set bigger hoops to jump through.

I respect that others may have involvement in other raikways and successful ones too, but those railways are not the L&B, although the basics may be similar, there are differences and nuances to every heritage railway that have to be taken on their own merits. Eg: what may work for an NG railway outside of a National Park may not work for one in it, or that runs through one. Yes of course we should take advice or suggestions, but we should also look to see if that advice or suggestions are applicable to our situation. It is not always good to say something g is good just because he or she says so. As I said before, it's for the marketing guys at Woody Bay to work out if it's workable and where the profit/loss break point is.

We covered this in above post

A majority vote board discusses, argues, and debates questions and motions out forward, at some point it will go to a vote and once the vote is counted the question or motion is answered as a yes or no. The vote is useful because it measures the dissent. After the vote has been taken the decision is a collective decision by the board and if yes, it becomes the collective policy of the trust. There is no "I" in a board. The dissenters have a choice, either record in the records their dissent, but they still have to abide by the board decision, or if they dissent so strongly they have to resign, thereafter they can speak with voice of "I". This is how most boards work.
I agree we should work together, but what's going on now is the farthest from it.
I have tried to think of ways to try and get some sort of communications between the groups, but with the groups so entrenched I can't see a way.
There is an art to getting volunteers to do what you want them to do, and it takes a huge amount of politeness to achieve and making them feel line they are valuable and have worth, even if they just make the tea.

No, it might not be what's proposed, but it's what I can see happening. But right now, and for some time yet in my view, it is the centre of the show, it's where our visitors get the full experience of the L&B of the past. Of course eventually that focus will gradually lessen.

But that's what I can see happening if you don't have enough volunteers or cash flow to maintain what you already have.
Your view is but one of many views out there, you wont get everyone behind your view, that's the consensus mindset again which I am almoat certain won't work with the rebuilding of this railway. Whoever or whatever anyone comes up with I can guarantee someone will think the idea is wrong, or not possible or stupid. You will never get everyone to agree on a way forward.

I'm pretty sure I saw some mention there could be an Egm, even on here some time ago. The rights or wrongs of that EGM is for a lawyer, judge or authority to advise whether its illegal or not, not me.

If there wasn't the animosity between the groups I would perhaps agree with you, but right now we will have to agree to disagree.

Eventually yes, I expect there will be a single Trust. But right now it looks like a fight over one of them.
Although perhaps it's been tried elsewhere and failed, I don't know the details or whether they were given a controlling position, but I think while the animosity continues a non controlling mediation/liaison group is in my opinion the best option.

 

Thank you Steve, good info.

 

I expect others will know more about how these things work but bending a bit of thought to CFL.

If we have an existing gradient of 1in50, and the most we can allow is 1in300. My rough calc is that we need 300' (maybe 350'?) for a four carriage rake. (I've allowed 170' for carriages and 30' for a loco)

1in50 means a 6' drop in 300'.
1in300 is 1'.

The infill is 5'? If we take into account the gravel layer which I would guess is 1' or more.... It's not an awful lot to infill? 4' maybe?

 

Just picking on this point, something that has been mentioned before - if there are concerns about enough volunteers to operate 2 very short railways as a temporary solution, what possible chance is there that you'll ever have enough volunteers to operate 1 rather long railway? I'm not saying you're wrong at all, but to this outsider it's beginning to look like there are no credible options for how this project moves forward, and that is the real root cause of all this upset and disagreement.

At some level disagreement on the best way to proceed is far more deep-seated than the recent shenanigans, how long have the various other groups; EA, YVT etc. been going? I understand they came to be in part due to disagreements on the way forward back then (whenever then was). To me it makes we wonder how much will ever actually get done. Sorry to sound a bit down about it all, but every plan put forward has had very credible reasons put forward against it, which raises alarm bells to me.

 

There are others on here who know more than me about Civil Engineering and PW etc, but the 3 questions which have been raised before are:-
1. Where do you source the necessary material of the right type and quality to use as infill? It certainly can't come from just any old excavation somewhere else handy along the line.
2. How do you transport the stuff to the work-site?
3. How will you remove it all and dispose of it in later years once no longer required?

 

As any railway gets bigger you inevitably have to have employed staff.

Ffestiniog and WHR currently employ around 85 staff rising to 100 in the high season according to their website.

WSR employs around 40 permanent staff with around 800 active volunteers and are currently seeking people for 4 paid positions.

Both of these railways have a volunteer base larger than the L&B, with Ffestiniog and WHR able to draw on staff, both employed and volunteers, from the Porthmadog/Bleanau area and Carnarvon.

WSR benefits from Minehead itself and Taunton further inland.

The L&B is quite remote relatively with only Barnstaple some 25 minutes away to Blackmoor and near 40 minutes to Woody Bay.

It's not to say we won't get volunteers, but to really draw them in all this fighting has to stop in my view.

At the moment yes there is lots of animosity. But I see as that's most due to the huge amount of options and ways forward from this point in time.

There have been successes right along the railway in recent years, and some very unexpected advances such as the acquiring of Parracombe Halt (L&BRT) , Bratton Fleming (EA) etc.

Everyone is now eager to get things moving along probably much faster than it can be. I perfectly understand that, but with all those options and locations, the in between obstacles, many of which need carefully resolving such as more track needed, or road problems and bridge problems, planning, dealing with a National Park, etc it's not easy by any means.

At the moment I don't think whatever strategy we try to apply now it won't be the one that completes the railway. Too many variables, what if etc.

But, as with all seemingly insurmountable problems its sometimes best to cut it into smaller chunks and deal with those smaller chunks in turn.

This is where I think the separate groups, L&BRT, EA and YVT have the opportunity to do just that. The advantage is that instead of one organisation solving one problem at a time you have three organisations solving three problems at a time.

 

With all this talk about building a railway to CFL. Don't forget folks that we now have new neighbours in Heddon Hall so we need to talk to them first and find out how they will fill about a steam railway in their back garden as such.

My personal view is that we wait until we own all the trackbed from Parracombe Halt around to Rowley Cross and rebuild this part of the line in one go. IF you are hell bent of extending Woody Bay then work out a plan on how to get us to Caffyns (as stage one of going onwards to Lynton) which would be an extra 2 miles on the current operation.

North of Caffyns there is some serious amounts of civil engineering to be carried out which will cost a lot of money that needs ot be in place before we start construction.

But before anything in the way of construction takes place and that is 1) a 5 year business plan needs to be in place. 2 ) a Fundraising strategy and team also need to be in place. The current level of fund raising is way to low for a project this size, but the current situation we find ourselves in, is certainly not helping our cause.

One last point there would be no point in having steam at Blackmoor (just yet) unless you have all the facilities in place for it. The other thing is we also simple don't have enough steam locos to go around as I see it:-

Woody Bay:- AXE and LYN

Blackmoor:- currently nothing But may be we could ask Graham Lee and Statfold to loan a couple of their locos from the collection

Snapper to Bratton Fleming:- Possibly Sir George and one other yet to appear on the radar

I have not includes either of the new Manning Wardles as we are still a long way from getting one of them yet, It may even pay to buy in an unused 2ft gauge steam loco and have it rebuild to working order and leave it at Blackmoor.

Anyway you look at all of this issue it will be down to having the right sort of fund raisng going on in the back ground.

 

Not sure. I should imagine the ballast layer which is still existing could be graded down gradient to do some of it and replacing that with new sharp ballast.
Transport of materials and equipment can be by rail if you get the track to the area.
Later on we will need fill for Parracombe bank, this is where we need Excelsior back to shuttle back and forward through one winter to get the spoil out!

Not only would we be replicating the railway, but also how it was done originally with the original engine lol

Colin??? We might be needing an Excelsior... Any ideas?

 

How does a line that is one mile long and miles from the nearest standard gauge railhead get materials in by rail for an extension?

I don't know the topography so won't comment on the amounts needed - but anything that causes the formation to be built up will require many lorry journeys. Apart from being expensive, it will drive considerable traffic onto the local roads - hardly popular, and quite possible that any planning permission would have conditions about the maximum number of lorry moves.

You need to park any idea of significant earthworks in my view - follow as far as possible the original alignment (which in any case has heritage gains). Inevitably that means forgetting any idea of a terminus - even a temporary one - on a steep gradient.

Tom

 

That may have been how the animosity started, but one faction is so hostile to any disagreement that it is resorting to a long succession of dirty tricks to try to maintain its position.

 

The exploration of options is not contentious. The denial of a need to consider different options is.

The absolute refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue by the Trust 6 is the reason there is so much strife. They are the most to blame for creating division. Look at the failed S73 and the lies about fundraising, at the way they attempted to exert control over EA, the way they bully fellow trustees who question things, the botched AGM and election process, and now the serious confusion caused by the variety of instructions on proxy voting. It’s all got one root cause. A board unwilling or unable to work collaboratively with anyone outside their clique.

The culture of the LandB Trust is broken. Ask yourself who has been at the helm for 16years and who are relatively new to the situation. Which do you think is likely to have the greater responsibility for the broken culture?

 

I’m not saying this is a solution but it would not be a unique one. There are plenty of organisations looking for tipping space and, provided the fill is suitable, they would do the required fill and consolidation. As it is being used for a purpose then I’m fairly certain it doesn’t qualify as a tip. It would need to be well policed though but no different from any civil engineering project.

 

It's an interesting problem.

I've seen far more earth moved in Barnstaple to build houses up near the hospital and just before Burridge. They scraped loads away and half a hill to build them. Where the spoil was going I have no idea. The thing is now with house building they tend to level out developments now rather than build to the landscape.

If it was me I would bring the lorries into Woody Bay, load onto the ballast wagons and rail it down. The two SA ballast wagons can take a lorry load at a time 2 x 10 tons.

 

See my reply above.

Housing developments are often looking for somewhere to tip subsoil.

I've been trying to work out how much would be needed. A fag packet calculation...

If we have a 100yrd length, and I guess about 8 yards wide, to a depth of 5' at the Parracombe end.

That gives us 666 cubic yrds.

To convert to tonnage, x 1.125 = 750 tons.

37.5 lorries at 20 tons.

3 lorries per day, 5 days per week, just under 3 weeks worth of 3 lorry movements per day.

Let's say a month to bring the infill down from Woody Bay to CFL.

Cost? Top soil seems to be averaging around £390 - £500 per load, if we are taking spoil from a housing development it could be cheaper, but let's say £450 a load. £18,875.

Add about £1,000 to hire a 3t excavator for one end or the other as we only have one...

A touch under £20,000 all told.

In the big scheme of things that's not that expensive in my view when often people are talking about £millions.

Am I way out on my fag packet calculations?

Once we can get beyond CFL the spoil isn't a dead loss as it will be needed at Parracombe Bank, which can be moved by rail and no lorry movement at all or any real cost apart from perhaps an excavator hire again.

 

No it isn’t. It is a total distraction. Just like the whole plan to extend to CFL. It’s a dead cat bounce.

There are three reasons that might justify to extend the railway:
1. Because it better delivers the charitable aims of the trust
2. Because it attracts more visitors and by doing so creates more profit (surplus)
3. It enhances the visitor experience and thereby drives either or both 1 and 2.

CFL doesn’t do anything for 1 that isn’t done by KL.

CFL is most unlikely to in itself attract any more people except for enthusiasts for the first few months for the novelty of a new bit of line. It doesn’t connect the existing railway with a significant new source of visitors.

CFL isn’t going to make much difference to the visitor experience.

The benefits (such as they are) are so small that it can’t (to me) justify the cost. The money would be better spent on a carriage shed and a museum and a whole list of other things.

You have managed to argue this evening both that we should extend and that we shouldn’t. That we cannot possibly find the people to, and that the many disparate groups can make steady progress doing their own uncoordinated thing. That everyone is far too busy to get together, but that the strife needs to end.

IF, and it is an IF, a significant section (5+miles) of this railway is what is desired then I think that is a perfectly achievable aim within a decade, BUT it will not be achieved at all without a very significant change in approach from what we have seen to date. We have to shift mindset from the idea that we are building a model railway in 12inch to foot scale.

 

LOL see?

Whatever anyone says, someone will disagree.

Off to bed, night all

 

Yes, because that is what it comes down to, finding a balance between trying to get progress, but also being aware that we have limited resources most importantly volunteers.

Above was only looking at can it be done from Woody Bay without lorries having to access CFL which was the original question. In my view, yes it can.

Ideally we would want to be clearing up Blackmoor and doing things there too, but volunteers are your most important asset in many ways otherwise you have to use contractors which increases cost hugely.

What could be said from all this is one thing we need to do is somehow increase that volunteer Base before anything else, so we too have like WSR and FF/WHR an army of active volunteers.

At the moment with what's going on, if anything, we are driving volunteers away.

The problem we have at the moment is the going from one extreme to the other, from two groups (EA/L&BRT and now YVT) dealing with separate areas, and there have been successes across the board from those groups, plus the fantastic successes during the pandemic era, that all of a sudden we need to do the whole line as one strategy and under one organisation.

Its too much, far too quick, it's unsettling staff and volunteers alike, it's causing division due to loyalty to individual groups and sections, it's opening old wounds from before I was involved and it's just sad to watch so many attacking each other when underneath we all have the same aims and goals.

Right now the most important thing before anything else is sorting out the relationships between the groups, the people involved, the volunteers, because none of this fighting will get us anywhere and just perpetuates division.

This is why I think we need a liaison group (with no power) to act as a go between, open channels of communication, increase information flow and be ambassadors for the railway for the groups and perhaps even beyond.

The people problem needs sorting first, increase volunteer base and get the groups working together equal second and third, fundraise either individually or collectively to concurrently do KL to CFL and Blackmoor, and also see if something can be done at Snapper to increase the presence near Barnstaple, and any merger is for the future.

 

Dave, read my post. I’m suggesting that a firm looking to get rid of (suitable) fill will probably do the job for you, or at least most of it. Landfill cost are expensive and so is transport and, if it is just being dumped with no purpose it becomes a tip and requires planning permission and everything that goes with a tip, even if it is just subsoil. Your project would not be a tip and could be attractive to someone doing a nearby development. A road project would be a good example if there is surplus material.
The trouble is, until it’s led by people who know what they are doing, everything is a non-starter and it seems they are thin on the ground in both camps.