Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

How different would that be from the present situation?

 

Not much to be honest!

That’s why I think the Blackmoor to Wistlandpound section is a no brainer - it offers a station with bar/restaurant at one end and the reservoir and Calvert trust land at the other, plus it has pp and is owned by the trust. Over time it offers the opportunity to create a ‘works’ along with storage and maybe even a museum.

 

Fair point, I agree, so far as the short-term benefits would be, but from Woody Bay, we can't get to Lynton without first getting to Caffyns, just as we can't get to Blackmoor (and all stations beyond) without first getting to CFL and Parracombe.
When Woody Bay first opened, it was going nowhere - a few hundred yards to a railhead just short of a missing bridge, but (A) people came - and paid money - to ride just that short distance, and (B) if we hadn't got that far, we wouldn't have got to Killington Lane. Until we reach the end, all railheads are destined to be temporary termini - regardless of how long temporary may be.

 

In a way, I am reminded of what is now the Avon Valley Railway, but which started life as the Bristol Suburban Railway, aimed at rebuilding a commuter route from Bath (Green Park) via Westerleigh into north Bristol (I forget the intended destination at that end). They began with a base at Bitton in 1972. Their 'vision' has changed - and shrunk - over the years for varying reasons, not least a shortage of funds. For more details see https://www.avonvalleyrailway.org/about-us/history/story-of-the-avon-valley-railway/

To date they have achieved an extension southwards to a new station at Avon Riverside and northwards to a re-opened station at Oldland Common. AIUI the next target is further south from AR to a reopened station at Kelston (which actually is at the back of Saltford), but there appears to be no firm date for that and certainly no signs of any development. Currently a 'round trip' involves going from Bitton to Oldland Common, back thru' Bitton to AR, then back to Bitton (or the opposite way around), so a future L&BR running from WB to both Caffyns and KL would be much the same.

AR is much like KL - a station in the middle of nowhere which serves virtually no purpose other as a terminus simply 'cos that is as far as they have got, although you can walk from there into the Avon Country Park. Getting to Kelston would be much better, as there are several pubs within a reasonable walking distance (think PE station and the Fox&Goose). OC is basically a suburban area, quite different from CN. From a railway perspective however, apart from the actual ride the main activities are all at Bitton with the cafe, small museum and works.

The cafe actually does quite a good trade from non-railway customers, as it's a useful stop on the Bristol-Bath railway Path for cyclists and walkers alike, as well as coach parties and other groups which use the car-park for 'meet ups' and from my observations in the summer at least it can be very busy even with no trains running - to that extent it would be more like the OSI than the WB tea-room.

My point - without wishing to sound negative about the AVR - is that they started running trains in 1974, so almost 30 years before the L&BRT, but look at just how little/much they have achieved of their original dream. Food for thought perhaps.....

 

The GWSR started with a scorched earth in the middle of nowhere. It took them nearly 40 years to get to something that was a destination.
So keep plugging away ! Every bit opened is a bit nearer the final goal.

 

I agree that this section could well be developed into a working railway...in addition to the present Woody Bay to KL/CFL. I know people regard a second railway as diluting volunteer input but if we are serious about wanting a longer L & B then it will need more people anyway.....what's the phrase - "Build it and they will come". Due to the land ownership issue at Parracombe (and elsewhere?) building section, by isolated (at present) section, will see a greater L & B steadily coming into operation.

 

It would be good to speak to current landowners and attempt to buy trackbed through negotiation.

 

Agreed - which is where EA have been disproportionately successful in recent years, and where understanding differences of context and approach may bear fruit.

 

Exactly. Rother Valley railway used this approach and were able to secure all bar two sections of the trackbed. They did use the TWAO approach and CP powers to acquire the last two sections but this was a time consuming and costly process. Interestingly they were able to demonstrate to the Public Inquiry that there had been regular approaches to the landowners to buy this trackbed over a period of around 30 years.

 

The GCR has had two distinct bits for the last 30+ years and there are a few lessons to be learnt there, I think. One is that trying to stick the two organisations together after so many years of growing apart is no easy task and there will be those who don't make the transition. Another is that one site dominates in terms of income, visitor numbers, volunteer numbers and things to see, and ultimately remains the more attractive site to visit, and so the cycle continues. In the GCR's case there wasn't really much choice, it was either set up another railway or lose the possibility of extending altogether - and it certainly helped that the northern section still had most of its track intact and had not been sold off. And yet, 30+ years on, it still has barely any working signalling, no station at the far end, and has to run top & tail, when it can run at all, which it currently can't because of lack of bridge maintenance/renewal. With that level of progress - and no criticism of the GCRN (of which I have been a member for 30+ years) is intended here, I fully understand the constraints - one could be forgiven for thinking that 'two sites' is not a great idea. Had the south end GCR been able to plug 'the gap' and extend northwards incrementally over the last 30+ years instead, their greater resources (volunteers and money, even though they still need more of both) would undoubtedly have seen more progress north of Loughborough. Equally, had the GCRN started with a brown field site (other than the small bit at the heritage centre) and no track, I doubt they would have ever got much beyond the site of Gotham sidings, a location which makes Killington Lane look like a thriving metropolis.

So I guess what I am trying to say is... I understand the frustration from the L&B members, but start a second (nominally competing) railway at your peril, especially if the possibility of re-joining the two is far from certain. An intractible landowner is perhaps not as insurmountable as a missing series of bridges, but given the time and money that it will consume to overcome, it's probably not so different. But I don't think you're in danger of losing the bit beyond, and therefore there shouldn't be any need for a headlong rush to reopen that bit.

(And having written all that, whilst favouring extension over two sites, I still don't see the attraction in extending from one temporary 'middle of nowhere' to another, when you already own the trackbed into the next station beyond. Unless, of course, it is a Trojan Horse. Which is what I would be wondering if I lived there.)

 

But therein lies a problem, namely the rumour that one part of the trackbed between BR and WD may revert (with no refund of the monies paid for it) to its original owner if not brought into use within the near future (time limit and criteria for 'in use' unknown). Will they ever be willing to re-sell it again, and for how much extra?

Yes, it appears to be only a rumour, but - is it not worrying that so far no-one from the Trustees has taken steps to quash it if untrue?

 

If we are talking about the length from OSI towards the reservoir then it was the trust chairman himself that mentioned the time issue at last year's AGM, so if he mentioned it then he obviously knows how he is going to deal with it, if he doesn't then what the hell is he doing in the position he holds

 

I can think of quite a few things which the chairman has 'mentioned', but have never come to pass.....:-(

 

I'd be amazed if such a deal stood up in court. Whose name is on the land registry? That's really all that matters, surely. Possession is nine tenths of the law, and all that.

 

…. that’d be assuming the L&B’d taken possession in the first place. There are such things as ‘options’ to purchase within a certain timescale, subject to conditions.

 

Why? If that’s the contract signed? It’s not all that unusual a clause for the land to revert if not used in a stated timeframe. A variation of this applies to many sections of trackbed where if the land ceases to be used for railway purposes it reverts to it original owner or their descendants. I can think of at least 3 sections of land under railways I know of that have such a reversion clause.

 

IMHO there are three key questions here:-
1. Does such a 'reversion' condition actually exist?
2. If so, what are the precise conditions under which it could be invoked?
3. If the answer to (1) is 'yes', then what is the Board doing (or planning to do), to avoid any such reversion?

Meanwhile, the latest news from 'south of the border' is of yet more progress...

 

[QUOTE="RailWest, post: 2882672, member: 14581"

Meanwhile, the latest news from 'south of the border' is of yet more progress... [/QUOTE]

Only if you help with some funds to the YVT - it's not a done deal yet.

 

Only if you help with some funds to the YVT - it's not a done deal yet.[/QUOTE]
But surely such things as the Budd Wood trackbed clearance, the BF station work and the carriage purchase are already 'done' or in the process of 'doing' ??

 

[QUOTE="RailWest, post: 2882693, member: 14
But surely such things as the Budd Wood trackbed clearance, the BF station work and the carriage purchase are already 'done' or in the process of 'doing' ??
[/QUOTE]
And this illustrates the problem. When were the members last informed by the Trust on progress about acquiring the missing land on the railway north of Blackmoor ? We could have been informed with some news without betraying information that should be kept quiet. The membership really cannot be expected to support the Trust with donations and indications of legacies when there is no communication. Instead they hear about the considerable sum spent on revising access to Rowley Moor farm which doesn't sound like it should have been the No 1 priority in a situation when nothing has been done to protect the carriages from the weather. And that is before we remember the tremendous commitment made to OSHI which clearly (from my visit there during the AGM) needs a not insignificant amount of money spent on it.