Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Building new locos that take the name of former ones is hardly unprecedented, in both the preservation and pre-preservation era.

Tom

 

True enough ...... though in the case of new builds, the original is 100% definitely gone e.g. Taliesin, Beachy Head & County of Glamorgan. True too that we've examples of two locos with the same name e.g. Black Prince, Winston Churchill & Peter Pan. Realistically, I'm fully aware that the odds against the original Lew still existing are vanishingly long - probably to the extent that a £100 bet could easily cover any conceivable 'matters arising', should Sod's Law dictate discovery of the original, a week after the recreation gains it's nameplates!

..... and I did say it was probably just me!

 

You never know.... all these forest fires in Brazil my burn away enough undergrowth for the International Space Station to say 'What the heck is that over there?'...

 

IIRC the 'dad' involved with the Sn******ch farce a few years ago claimed to have found Lew in the 60s or 70s and sent photos of it to the NRM. Of course the NRM say they never received any such photos, but it would be the find of the century!

Keith

 

All 5 carriages are fitted with L&B standard design underframes (No. 17 being slightly extended) built at Boston Lodge. Go to the L&B website and search (top right of the home page) for "underframe" for numerous photos of all 5 prior to fitting to the carriage bodies.

Here is the carriage 17 underframe: https://www.lynton-rail.co.uk/story/first-photos-coach-17s-underframes-and-bogies

Van 23 was originally fitted with a timber underframe which would not be suitable for running in a 21st Century passenger train, hence the timber-clad steel frame being fitted, to meet modern requirement while retaining an authentic look.

 

Many thanks, @Old Kent Biker . I'd previously seen piccies at Blodge, just not on a very large screen! The 'timber sandwich' frame sounds to be along the same lines as one done for an old (NSR?) carriage, a couple of years back .... which certainly looks the part. I can understand the lack of keenness for an old style timber underframe, but the restored IWR Carriage No.10, with it's laminated timber frame, provides an interesting contrast in approach. Perhaps some greater degree of commonality with the passenger stock might've tipped the balance?

Just think .... with Van No.23 and the dog-box on Carriage No.1, there'll be sufficient suitable provision for rowdy sproggits on every L&B train ..... Nasty old goat, aren't I?

 

Howard,

Perhaps it ought to be mentioned that I.W.R. No. 10 had extensive design studies prior to it's restoration that revealed the need for a steel central dragbox which has been provided but is nicely hidden by the wooden underframe. Restoration of the vehicle was not cheap like, I presume, the L&B vehicles. However, IMHO, this is the sort of thing tourist lines ought to be doing rather than getting into too much of a lather about Edmondson tickets.

 

Cheers Paul

I'd just use QR codes on the back of an Edmondson ticket, for all the IT gee-whizzery!

Given both the approach of both IWSR and L&B to 'wooden' underframes are based on practical, as much as aesthetic, considerations. perhaps the ultimate arbiter should be how each flavour does in service and how straightforward (or otherwise) they prove to maintain in the long run. After all, there's not exactly any great shortage of grounded bodies dotted around our heritage lines, is there?

 

I wouldn't be quite so sanguine. I believe, for example, that on the Bluebell there is a van underframe identified, or already used, for all the Victorian bodies identified for restoration, but no more: any further acquisitions would not have an available underframe and you would then be in a situation of having to decide between new build, or trying to buy one from another railway. Which is one of the reasons why the new underframe for I.W.R. No. 10 is of such significance.

Incidentally, FWIW, two of the LCDR vehicles on the Bluebell - 3188 and 3360 - have steel van underframes but with wooden headstocks to give a more prototypical wooden appearance.

Tom

 

Sanguine? Honestly not too sure I follow Tom. I fully appreciate your point about early stock .... which I guess has to include all surviving pre-grouping kit. What I was trying to reflect on was that solutions are being found, subject to the old bogey of adequate funding .... natch(!) .... and wondering about how solutions applied thus far might be seen a few years down the line.

Even for stock where PMV/GUV underframes are an option, the supply isn't infinite ,,, and surely a few of these will themselves be candidates for restoration in their own right.

I'd imagine that another serious issue, for grounded bogie vehicles, will be the dearth of suitable running gear. You may recall, a while back, I canvassed opinions on how useful a new batch of 'Fox' pattern bogies might prove. Let's just say it got a much warmer reception than my suggestion for coordinated MKI restorations!

Mansell pattern wheels got a mention too .... though IIRC, due in part to suitable teak supplies, general consensus was "as long as they look like Mansell wheels".

..... none of which detracts a jot from the magnificent achievements of at the L&B's 'East' group!

 

Thanks, I did wonder how we could get back on topic!

 

Thanks for those. Looking at various maps, I can now see Pound Lane under Bridge 54 as a fairly rough track and Bridge 55 as just a passage between fields. I do wonder why the original railway built Bridge 55, in the middle of the short embankment, rather than providing an occupation level crossing a few yards further along.

 

Bridge 55 is an "Occupation Bridge" which allows people and grazing animals free and unhindered access to either side of the railway.

 

Technically, was it an occupation bridge or a cattle creep? (The former being primarily for human users, and the latter to allow animals to roam). If it was actually originally a cattle creep, it would help answer @MellishR's question, in that farm animals are not generally well adapted to opening the gates at an occupation crossing! Prior to the coming of the railway, if that single field was used for livestock, the railway probably would have been compelled to have provided a bridge rather than an occupation crossing.

Tom

 

Bridge 55 was the highest Occupation Bridge on the L&B with a clearance of 13' 3" from ground level up to the underside of the concrete deck. The span width of the portal was 11' 8". Both these measurements are those recorded by the Southern Railway and are more than ample for the passage of both farm workers (people) and farm livestock (grazing animals), as well as the passage for horse drawn farm wagons or more latterly some types of mechanical farm machinery.

 

I’m sure someone told me that an accommodation crossing/bridge is provided to accommodate the farmer and an occupation crossing/bridge to provide access to land which you occupy. Hence you need an occupation crossing to get to your accommodation and an accommodation crossing to carry out your occupation.

This may have been after a few beers, though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

dont know if these will work but looking down through 55 and looking from top of 55

 

Thanks for the further explanations. A need for a cattle creep would explain the bridge, and then if they were building a bridge at all there would have been a case for putting it at the point where the ground level is lowest and making it big enough for carts rather than providing a separate occupation crossing. With so many bridges along the whole length, they wouldn't have worried too much about one more.

 

Many thanks Mark, will do.

 

Bridges to Blackmoor latest:

Bridge 54 looking rather proud, with its deck slab cast and scaffold in place ready for the stonemasons to begin dressing the abutments this coming monday.

More here: https://www.lynton-rail.co.uk/page/phase-iia-construction-news