Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I was interested to see that someone had thought through the design enough to include 'dimples' in the sides, presumably to ease the task of lifting them with the traditional tools. You don't get that with PECO...

 

I was looking for the holes to push the track pins through

Tom

 

Oh, stop it! You'll be wondering about the supply of foam rubber ballast, next )

 

...and the 2,500 gallons of PVA to pour over it all! No need to dilute it, the Devon weather will do that...

 

I believe that the dimples are intended to give a key for the ballast. The material is too dense to allow the stone to bite in the same way as it does in timber.
(I'd love to see someone try to lay it Flexitrak style!)
Pat

 

All that watered down PVA gumming the ballast up? Nah!

 

I was interested to read in the latest magazine that the railway does not need a TWAO to extend to Parracombe Halt as they have the required planning permission. I know that short extensions have not been looked on favourably by the L&B but by now any extension might be preferred to nothing at all. I assume, however, that - as it's within the national park - even a short extension from KL to PH would be restricted under the Grampian conditions?

 

Given the clear information given in the same Report about the scope and extent of the Grampian conditions, I would also assume that to be the case.

IIRC also (without trying to wade through all the application paperwork) there was also a condition prohibiting the termination of trains at Parracombe (as opposed to through trains between WB and BR simply stopping there to pick/set down passengers), meaning that it could not be used as the terminal point of a 'shuttle' service either WB-PE or BR-PE.

Hence my caveat that people should not get too excited just yet about that particular report item...

 

Thats CWR.

What type of uncoupling ramps will they use?
Wouldn't it be easier to dig the holes in the ballast to fit the point motors before they lay the track?

 

Thermite welding ..... the grown up's alternative to a soldering iron!

 

If you look on page 12, paragraph 3, you will see that the 'next' move is explained, Google it for more details but dont think its as easy as it sounds in print, and, more importantly there is no appeal procedure depending on the outcome

 

The Rother Valley Railway have just taken this path for very similar reasons. They received approval for this variation (conditional, of course) on 28th January.

 

The conditions would need to be varied to enable any work on this section . I think this is called a Section 73 application - Rother Valley Railway have just successfully obtained one so that their development may be phased. This will enable further work on the trackbed which they own whilst the await the result into their Public Inquiry into their TWAO

 

It would be lovely to see an extension in some form, even if only Paracombe halt (subject to planning permission constraints). Just to keep interest alive and give the fabulous replica loco and stock a proper run! Would there be a possibly of creating car parking and a re-located station at Killington to take pressure off WB? I presume parking at Paracombe would be a no-no!!! I've not read the article, so my thoughts might be just wishful thinking!!!

Good luck with the future development!

Will

 

IIRC the planning consent conditions for KL were such that, once the line had been extended southwards (by whatever amount) to a new terminus (however temporary), the site of KL station - which is leased land outwith the original trackbed - has to be returned to its original condition.

 

Ah! To be honest if it's leased then there would probably be little benefit in keeping hold of it! Besides, the running line would probably be on a fair gradient to get under KL bridge anyway...

Is the article publicly online anywhere? Or just members at this stage? Glad to hear that things seem to be progressing, in some form (hopefully I'm reading into things correctly)!

 

This page https://www.lynton-rail.co.uk/shop/browse?search=magazine&category=All on the L&B website shows that L&B magazine 126 (which contains the article in question) can be purchased from the on-line shop at Woody Bay.

Another option might be to purchase L&B membership online via this page https://www.lynton-rail.co.uk/shop/browse/23/membership,-donations-and-100-club and get the magazine 'for free'.

Any support which you or others can give to the L&B would be greatly appreciated, so thanks in anticipation!

 

You are certainly correct that parking at Parracombe would be absolutely out of the question. Quite apart from the lack of any space whatsoever, restrictive conditions in the original planning consents prevent Parracombe from being used as a temporary terminus. Whether the railway intends to seek exemption from that clause, I don't actually know, but be that as it may, I am unconvinced that the railways landholding is sufficient to allow space for a 5- carriage platform, plus headshunt in any case.
This may well turn out in actuality, to be an "extension in being" only, in order to secure the ENPA planning consents in perpetuity, pending the TWAO. In which case, you may well see a railway on which no scheduled trains will run, for the time being, at any rate.

 

Just like the RVR, which has built large chunks of their proposed railway but is unable to open them to regular use, or build the remaining bits, until a TWAO is obtained.