Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Salmon-pink and chocolate?

 

I do like Lyd's brass-capped chimney and brass safety-valve dome and think that Lyn might benefit from such adornments, in original L&BR-style. This is not a GWR theme. (Mind you, one has to say that the GWR did maintain a fine aesthetic throughout its lifespan.)

 

Umm, so your notion of "preservation" is to "consign to the dumpster" a remarkable survivor from the original line and replace it with a replica of something from somewhere else on a different gauge/network/story. Er, righty-ho....

 

Umm i think you may have misunderstood, i was talking original station colours

 

Indeedy! (And what does gauge have to do with a building? Hobbit houses?)

 

Southern National, from 1929. Don't know if they served Lynton and Lynmouth, but their Devon base was Barnstaple.

 

Well, all I can say is that my understanding of the word "preservation" is rather different to yours.

 

Well said - I just wonder why this is done - can't understand the motivation.

 

The L&B has a history, which includes the period of SR ownership. Views of that period, it's aesthetics, and it's conclusion will vary. But that shouldn't mean destroying surviving structures simply because they don't fit individuals' particular aesthetics. That kind of philistinism is of a piece with the institutional vandalism of the post-war years that nearly saw St Pancras demolished.

Ranging more widely, I find the disappointment expressed in the SR's treatment of the L&B surprising and dangerously full of hindsight. As owners, they tried to improve the viability of the line and make it more robust. They also faced declining returns on a very minor rural branch. Like other railway companies of the era, they closed some of their least remunerative lines and stations - the SR shut the L&B at about the same time as London Transport shut the Brill branch, and then there were the English narrow gauge lines that all died between the wars. I regret many of those decisions and timings, but can't hold them against the companies that made them.

The idea of the modern tourist railway, only running during the season, and possibly volunteer led, did not exist at the time. It needed post-war innovations to bring about, at the Talyllyn and elsewhere - I hesitate to use an Ealing Comedy as historical evidence, but just note the reactions to the idea of the Titfield branch being run by the villagers...

 

Surely the key question is 'Does this or any object that is being considered for "preservation" have any artistic, heritage or indeed any other merit?' I fail to see how an over-sized concrete rabbit-hutch has any merit whatsoever apart from the fact that it once provided rudimentary shelter at Parracombe. Shelter can better and more aesthetically be provided by such as I suggested (see post no. 6220).

 

And I would suggest that you may be right on artistic or practical merit. But you ignore the heritage merit, where it is an unusual survivor of it's era, and tells part of the story of the L&B. None of which means you need to like it, or how it looks.

 

I don't come to this thread for well reasoned and well thought out posts devoid of unnecessary abbreviations, wild speculation and unfounded criticism of an organisation that has moved mountains in fund raising, red tape cutting and physical progress. This logical post has confused and upset me as a result.

 

In which case, I'm sure you'll be at the front of the queue to fund a replacement shelter for Caffyns when the time comes?

 

The GWR had been operating the Vale of Rheidol as a summer only line since 1931 when the L&B closed.

 

Answer that and I suspect you'd be in an excellent position to improve the dictionary entries for the adjectives "informed" and "enlightened"!

Hello pigeons ..... here's a cat. The very reason for the scant provision of facilities at Parracombe is very much part of the line's history, dating back to the days of Sir George Newnes. Whilst the concrete edifice currently awaiting it's next train mightn't be about to win any architectural awards, it serves as a useful example of history repeating itself!

 

To pick up on a few points....

1. As far as I can tell, apart perhaps from a few concrete fence posts the shelter at PE is the only surviving relic from the pre-1935 railway still in situ at that station. Whilst I would not suggest that it should be 'consigned to the scrap bin' in any way, I don't feel that it per se should be the driver that predicates that PE must be restored to the SR era. If - and IMHO it is a big 'if' - there were to be a second platform at PE, then another shelter would be needed anyway. Even with just one platform, given the arguments from various objectors about the supposed 'lack of facilities' for passenger, then perhaps the L&BR might take the approach of providing such facilities in order to ameliorate those concerns and therefore would have to erect a second building anyway. Given that one of the arguments raised in past objections has been that the SR period infrastructure is not 'original heritage L&BR' and therefore not in line with the planning objectives, would the objectors be able to object then if any new buildings were done in pre-1923 style?

2. As regards such things as concrete running-in boards at Chelfham etc, I come back to a point that I have made before - and make no excuses to make again. AFAIK the railway does not yet have any formal policy that defines what styles of architecture, paint schemes, 'period representation' etc etc are to be used across the railway as it develops. As a consequence locations such as CM and BF appear to be left to develop at the whim of their respective volunteer groups. Possibly understandable at the moment, given that basically they all are 'isolated' sites, but what will happen once they become part of one large railway and it is found that perhaps they no longer 'fit in' with whatever the Trust may have decided by that stage? I can envisage the potential for many arguments and/or nugatory work which could be avoided by much earlier attention to this aspect of the 'recreation'.

I hope at least some of that makes senses

 

Ah! Get it. For some reason the term 'Salmon' seems to get people thinking in terms of the fish counter at Tesco (other emporia are available). HMRS indeed gives the station colour as a pinkish buff, whereas Salmon is nearer to a well-baked Rich tea biscuit.
Pat

 

Whilst RailWest is correct to raise his concerns about possible future problems I think that it is quite possible to have a variety of styles/era's represented by different sites. The GCR has Loughborough as 1950's BR, Quorn as 1940's LNER, Rothley - Edwardian and Leicester North BR 1960's and it all seems to work very well.
But I am just pleased to see the L & B returning to life, and whilst we would always like to have more information, we should accept that there are many complex issues and we rarely have the full picture...for good reasons in many cases.

 

I have no problem with that basic concept. Indeed my personal preference would be that (say) CM and BF should be done in the pre-1923 style with EoD replica signals, whereas WB could remain in the circa-1930s SR style etc.

But....IMHO such things need to be done in a controlled fashion within the umbrella of an over-arching pre-defined L&BR strategy. By all means allow enthusiastic volunteers to take on tasks such as restoring CM, but it should be done only after prior consultation with the Trust and agreement (or not, as the case may be) that the proposal aligns with the strategy. Otherwise there is a risk of a disjoint mis-mash result.

Others may disagree with me of course...

 

I think you are right about creating a standard sooner rather than later. I’d suggest it doesn’t need to be a homogeneous standard (i.E. fixed date) across the whole railway, but should be defined for each individual station. That is done at the Bluebell and NYMR, to name two examples.

What I would recommend is that you are very clear on the definition. In the Bluebell case, we define periods, but they seem to get interpreted as e.g. “Kingscote will have 1950s appearance” rather than “Kingscote will be portrayed as it existed in the 1950s”. The difference being that the interpretation has portrayed the station in 1950s colours, whereas photographic evidence shows that at that point, the colours were 1930s with an overlay of some wartime features.

So to my mind, define the appearance objective for each station, but be clear in how that is to be interpreted.

Tom