Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

It also clearly states in a solicitors letter words along with lines of 'at a meeting with their clients a representative of the railway said that if a deal could not be reached there was always CP'. Interestingly the owners of the pub also put in a very nice letter of objection towards the S73

 

But it is only within the last couple of months, as you yourself flagged up, that Blackmoor plc has been reactivated. Surely that alone carries a degree of significance?

 

I wonder if by objecting they are being "seen to" support one of the significant objectors. As has already been stated in another post - my understanding it that a TWAO would only give powers for the CP of assets essential to running the railway

 

They’ve employed a good negotiating strategy. Let’s face it what business wouldn’t want an eager and persistent purchaser? One that isn’t going away too! Seen through that prism, their tactics are readily understood and make perfect sense. Can’t blame them for employing a good strategy after all.

 

That is correct. CP can only be used for the rebuilding of the railway and nothing else, the pub itself fall outside of this so the Trust cannot use a CP order to obtain the Pub. It is after all a lot of money for a business that relies on tourism during the summer and as I understand it, there will be no one else that is mad enough to want to buy an enterprise which as I have been told is only just making ends meet. I don't know how much debt it clocked up during the pandemic but it must have a been a close run thing.

Perhaps looking at it as a business model, running a pub may not be such a great thing to do, as it once might have been.

Personally I still feel the Trust should have waited for it to close as a failed business then buy it, I know that sounds sad and it is. But if you first of all agree with what has been said to you and then claim you are being kicked out sorry but that is business as far as I am concerned.

 

While reading this thread it makes me wonder just how much all the planning has cost the project in financial terms, I have been told off this list that the Trust has had to pay out more money for a cock up on the first planning application, can anyone confirm or denie this?

 

Meanwhile, in the background.....

Those of you who have been following the Sec 73 saga will know that one of the key subjects of many objections has been the proposed turntable. In part this is due probably just because the objectors have failed to understand why the TT has been proposed and how it will be used, particularly since – as far as I can determine – this was not ‘spelt out’ in the application. But to the fair to the Board, I’m not sure that it would have occurred to anyone that such a basic matter of railway design/operation would have been of relevance to a Sec 73 application anyway.

Another factor has been the fear about a TT at Parracombe becoming a ‘tourist magnet’ along the lines of Minehead, something which IMHO is wildly misplaced. Discussions with fellow WSR volunteers suggest that the vast majority of those who throng the TT at MD whenever an engine is being turned are people who are there primarily for other reasons – arriving by train, about to depart by train, or simply passing by to/from the promenade and wandered along to ‘take a look’; even amongst the die-hard enthusiasts there seem to be very few who would drive to MD just to see an engine being turned. And meaning no disrespect to 'LYN', but there is a difference between a small NG 2-4-2 using the TT at PE on a daily basis and a 'big name' standard-gauge 4-6-2 turning up at MD off a once-in a blue-moon mainline special.

A fellow Trust member with professional track design experience has been working on a draft plan for PE which shows that theoretically a conventional run-round loop (with point + spur instead of the TT) could be fitted within the restricted confines of the PE site and allow for a 4-coach train. I must stress that this plan is theoretical, as it is based solely on currently available data such as L&BR locomotive and coach envelopes, bridge clearances and the basic measurements of the current site; it is impossible to prove/disprove it until such time as the site has been cleared and a full survey undertaken, but it does offer some hope. The details have been sent to the Trustees for consideration.

Purely as speculation, but it may be that the Trust will decide that pragmatically a 4-coach run-round will be better that continued problems with trying to use the TT just in order to run 5-coaches. There is also scope perhaps to ameliorate at least some of the objectors by saying in effect “we’ve listened to what you said and made alterations to accommodate you”, though clearly there are some who will never be satisfied other than by a complete failure of the project. Looking ahead also it will be simpler and cheaper to extend onwards to Blackmoor merely by removing the buffer-stop rather than having to recover the TT and refill its pit. Who knows, but a small glimmer of hope perhaps?

 

I'm sure that the OHSI / Blackmoor would be significantly more remunerative with a world-class tourist attraction on its actual doorstep, which is why I found the landlord's opposition a bit odd. But let's hope that the L&B family can close the deal, which will then have Woody Bay, Parracombe, Blackmoor, Bratton Fleming, Chelfham and Snapper safe. Given the risk to the project long-term, this is a near-miraculous achievement - any one of them could have been sold for a dwelling and then lost to the Railway for several decades.

The s73 variation concerns us all because of the need to preserve the Planning Permission by starting substantive works, as the two bridges south of Blackmoor have done, but @RailWest post is perhaps a glimmer of a way through. Personally, I don't really care whether there's an extension to Parracombe as a temporary terminus or not, as long as the PP is preserved for the TWAO and associated trackbed acquisition powers.

 

The Engineer's proposal for Church Town Bridge with a span of 12ft is reproduced on page 202 of 'Measured and Drawn.' And this agrees with the SR Bridge Register. It actually measures 11ft 10" but was otherwise built to the plan. The clearance (including about 1ft 6" ballast etc) is shown as 11' 6", and is currently about 10ft. The SR Bridge register has a clearance to the rails of 10ft 2". But I'm sure the current Engineers have all this information and exactly the extent of the L & B owned land south of the bridge as it can be measured from the road. The gradient appears to be 1 in 100 going south - at least its not 1 in 50 - that's the gradient north and south of the confines of the halt. But that will have to be checked when the bungalow is removed. Anyone who is familiar with Penrhyn station on the FR will appreciate what starting a train on a gradient and a curve can be like in wet weather, not to mention being sure of stopping in the other direction.

 

Agreed. Several rich donors in a sea of small(er) ones, mirroring a bell-shaped curve, provides a much more resilient path to progress. Having said that, at least one would be especially welcome right now. (But don't get me started on the ownership of football clubs either, many of which have a foreign, usually US American, well-cashed-up owner who typically has little interest in football as such and knows little about the way the game has evolved in Britain (or Europe in general for that matter) yet feels that they have the answer to how their team should play and the game should evolve!) L&BR certainly does not need any such donor who somehow sees the railway as his personal train-set project. The L&BR is a much more important English project than that, with the potential to become a premier tourist attraction for north Devon.

 

Somebody earlier drew attention to the potential to do away with the need for a TT, or even some of the point work, by the simple expedient of using a traverser. Given that the engines likely to be used will be relatively small and light this seems, on the face of it, to be eminently "do-able"; and would reduce time and the space needed for the reversing operation. Can somebody explain why this idea has been rejected ?

 

Insofar as objectors are concerned about a turntable (with or without reason) wouldn't a traverser be just as bad in their opinion?

 

I wonder how many of you guys have looked at the traverser on the Corris railway as an example

 

Even simpler would be to station a diesel shunter in a siding and shunt release the train. There have over the years been many lines which used this expedient in some cases for years.

 

Yes the Welshpool for one

 

An idea already considered and rejected for various reasons - a bit too long and not really suitable to discuss here.

 

The TT already exists, albeit in need of restoration. A traverser would have to built from scratch.

 

For those of unfamiliar, could you explain please, @RailWest ? I can see the problem being a lack of land for the siding, but is there more to it than this?

 

Location of siding, method of operation, sighting problems for LE movements between station and siding, safety controls on siding, possible shunt moves on steep gradient with no engine at downhill end, need for extra engine crew, possible need to have some form of controller at PE etc etc.

 

with all due respect the tt is in a very sorry state,as far as i am aware the actual frames are shot and 3 new wheels would need to be cast for starters, i think a costing exercise should be carried out first to compare prices,the corris traverser does seem to be a simple yet cost effective design