Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Actually I think that we should make a principled argument in favour of it (or not).

Here's what I wrote.
_____________________________________

I support the extension of the railway, which has already demonstrated that when complete it will be a major attraction and asset to North Devon in general and the National Park in particular. The commitment of the Trust to reducing its environmental impact (e.g., low carbon alternatives to coal; recycled plastic sleepers instead of hardwood) are to be commended and show a responsible approach to sustainability that will only become more important in future.

As the railway reinstatement is subject to Grampian Conditions, and it has been made clear by some landowners that it will take TWAO Compulsory Purchase powers to acquire their land, there is a serious risk that the likely Public Enquiry will not complete before the existing Planning Permissions expire.

On the basis of a balanced decision that is fair to all, I strongly support providing the Trust with the opportunity to begin construction at Bridge 65 and the access roads off of the A39 in order to lock in the planning permissions already granted. These are a discrete set of works which provide the Trust with the opportunity to demonstrate how it will work with the Exmoor community to complete the railway in future, without the extension into Parracombe itself that I could only support if the local community were strongly supportive.

Successful delivery of Bridge 65 – and given their success further south with the two bridges already reconstructed in the NDC area, this is very likely given the finance already in place – seems to me that the Trust will have earned the right to tackle the remainder of the reinstatement in the ENPA area if/when the CP powers are made available via the TWAO process.

I would therefore be grateful if the Authority allowed variance for the rebuild of Bridge 65 and the access roads on this basis.

Many thanks for your time in reviewing this submission;

Yours Sincerely,

 

In looking at the recent comments on the ENPA planning site, I get the impression that some people have become confused by the reference to a 'turntable' at Parracombe. They would appear to be under the misunderstanding that this will be used to actually turn engines (ie thru' 180 degrees), when in fact it will be used merely as a sector plate to transfer engines from the platform road to the loop or vice-versa. Consequently they seem to think that it will become a 'spectator attraction' in its own right, in the same way as (much larger) turntable at Minehead station. IMHO their fears are out-of-proportion to the likely reality, but maybe it is something to which the L&BR should turn its attention in order correct this misconception before it gets out-of-hand?

 

Nevertheless, do you not think that a locomotive on a turntable looking as if it is to be turned (even if only through 30 degrees or so) would create the same enthusiasm amongst railway photographers as one actually being turned? I would think that it would become a magnet for such types, which is part of the Parracombe paradox.

 

i cant see why they dont just install a traverser like the Corris have just done, surely it would be more cost effective than restoring the old turntable

 

I would think that a sector plate would be simpler and cheaper than a traverser and take up slightly less space, as well.

 

I would agree.
I suspect that perhaps the Board decided that, as they already had the turntable, it made sense to make a practical use of it rather than build something completely new? But in the absence of any background information behind the 'decision making', who knows?

A sector plate, if carefully designed, instead of a turntable would also help to eliminate the risk of something inadvertently running down the gradient of the platform or loop lines and into the 'pit' if the turntable was set for the 'other' road.

 

Except that restoring the turntable needs to be done anyway.

 

Where is it planned to be used next after (temporary) use at Parracombe? Back home in Pilton Yard?

 

Separate traps in the standard gauge example that immediately springs to mind …



(Sheerness Dockyard)

Bembridge (IoW) comes to mind as an example of what looks like a turntable release but which was I believe in fact only a sector plate.



Tom

 

Blackmoor gate I belive it will be next used after paracombe

 

And this is the crux of it, I think. Seen from here, there's not obviously anything that makes secrecy beneficial. As of now, we know what the shape of the extension is and what the blockers are, viz -- and *please* correct this list where I get it wrong:

- ENPA planning permission expires in March 2023. If the Trust fails to begin construction by then, it will (at minimum) have to petition for an extension in time, or at worst, start the planning permission process again.

- The Grampian Conditions will apply to at least some of the extension, and this means having the funds and land in place before the start of construction

- Having all of the land is a problem, given that at least one landowner has publicly stated that they will not sell. Therefore, the fate of the extension lies on a TWAO including Compulsory Purchase (CP) powers.

- The Trust has not yet applied for the TWAO, and there is no explanation of when they will or what the delay is.

- This is a problem as the TWAO is almost certain to require a Public Enquiry. This will probably take 12-18 months from application to result, meaning that the ENPA Planning Permission would already have expired.

- The Trust is seeking s73 changes to allow it do some construction without meeting the Grampian Requirements. Any construction before March 2023 will have the effect of locking in the ENPA planning permission. This was the (correct) rationale for the reconstruction of Bridges 54 and 55 to lock in the NDC planning permissions.

- But even if it successful, s73 cannot give the Trust the CP required to acquire the land required.

So, the critical path seems to be:

1. Lock in the ENPA planning permissions before March 2023

2. Apply for the TWAO and prepare for the Public Enquiry.

3. If CP powers are granted, use them to acquire the required land.

4. Raise the funding to build the line.

1 and 2 should be able to be done together. 4 should be underway already. 3 needs the money in place to purchase the land as soon as the CP powers are granted, should they be so.

None of this is secret. Nor is it obvious who benefits from the secrecy if any of 1-4 were to fail; what there should be is an open and inclusive debate around the options (WB to Lynton? NDC first (BG to BF and Chelfham)? Give up? <<Insert other option>>).

 

However, it has been said that engines were turned there on rare occasions if needed to be done for operation/maintenance purposes.

 

Nice picture, but sadly insufficient length in the site at Parracombe to do that sort of thing.

 

Reminds me of the Academic exercise of getting an Austin Seven on Cambridge Senate House roof in the early 60s - of course, this was towards a Physics thesis on the system of levers required. And then there was the suspension of another one under the bridge (the Bridge of Sighs ?), by floating it down the Cam on a punt and then getting some students to climb down from the bridge on to the punt to weigh it down and float it away. Academia has not aspired to such experiments in more recent years to my knowledge. Austin Sevens supplied by Ray Walkers garage in Perowne St of blessed memory where my car came from.

 

...... and a turntable is just a sector plate where the pivot is in the middle rather than at one end. They take the same space, so if the railway already has a turntable, why not use that and benefit from its extra flexibility (to turn locos and rolling stock to even out flange wear, for example)

 

Isn't the Corris Railway planning a Sector plate for Corris Station ? Or is that my customary mis-reading of 'the news' ?

 

With respect, a TT at PE will take up much more space than a sector plate because the latter requires in effect only an arc of part of a circle, whereas the former requires the whole circle. However that's all academic really as (a) the space saved either side of a sector plate at the hinge end can't really be used for much at PE and (b) the critical factor at PE is the length of the deck, which would be roughly the same for either method.

 

Planned - designed - constructed - fitted. And a jolly good workout for operators it looks too!

This clip [12'41"] from the Corris:

 

Isn't Corris a traverser? (And jolly well done to them, too - very neat.)

 

In February 1897 the Engineer went to see the BoT (Railway Dept) and reported that 'they will not look on us as a 'Light Railway' unless we bring down our speed to 16 mph.' Similar limits had been imposed up to that time on UK narrow gauge lines - only later were higher ones allowed - such as the Leek & Manifold. The Company had to sign an undertaking to the BoT to limit speeds to 16 mph before they could open the railway to passengers. What is not made clear in anything I have seen, including the Board of Trade requirements, or the rules surrounding the 1896 Act, what relaxations were allowed if the BoT granted a railway light railway status, although the L & B was not built under the 1896 Act. There are comments from Major Marandin saying that they regarded the L & B as effectively a 'Light Railway', but still no explanation as to how that affected the requirements. The BoT did not require the starter signals that the Company installed in 1898/99, although it welcomed the Company's decision to instal them after the opening, and neither did it want distant signals. The inspector was happy for those at Bratton Fleming to be done away with as sighting was adequate at that station - the only station where they had been installed at the beginning. Can anyone help me to understand what relaxations were allowed to the L & B by the BoT compared with an 'Ordinary' railway ?