Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

We are no different to any other railway in fact our set up is based on the Swanage Railway?

 

Ah a paragon. The Land B have the chance to learn from experience of others. You don’t have to read this forum for long to know that communication and strategic purpose are essential. Both so much more difficult with a plethora of organisations.

 

In the days when HMRI used to approve such things there was a bible - Railway Safety Principles - and RSP5 dealt with heritage railways. That bible still exists and, although no longer an official ORR document it is a good starting point. It's a bit like an approved code of practice.; if you comply with it you are deemed to comply with the necessary requirements for a safe railway. One of the requirements is that new platform lengths should be long enough to accommodate the maximum number of coaches that will normally be used. If you don't comply with this requirement a searching question becomes 'What mitigating measures will you take to ensure that persons in a coach not adjacent to a platform will not come to any harm if they get out?' The chance of injury from such on the narrow gauge is probably less than on a standard gauge line but those risks need to be addressed.
As the railway was abandoned over 80 years ago, I'd suggest that this criteria should apply to all stations as you are rebuilding them and you should endeavour to comply in any rebuilding work.

 

Coaches were/are 39ft 3" (No 17 about a foot longer) over the buffers, so platforms on the old railway would accommodate the following number of coaches, ignoring the engine(s) which could stick out beyond (taken from platform lengths recorded 1927/28):

Chelfham 6 in up platform of 240ft; 4 in down platform of 180ft
B Fleming 5 in up platform of 207ft; 3 in down platform of 139ft
Blackmoor 5 in up platform of 229ft; 5 in down platform of 202ft
Woody Bay 5 in up platform of 234ft; 5 in down platform of 234ft

While about it Barnstaple Town was 495ft, so would accommodate 12 carriages, and Lynton 311ft main platform 7 carriages, bay 191ft 4 carriages.

 

What is the maximum load a single engine of the type envisaged will haul? Then add a carriage length so the drivers don’t have to drive with precision. Would that be about six carriages?

 

Where the HRA advice is sound, and SR are producing paranoid hype that you are regurgitating as fact.

Diversification is of course sensible, but the world is very rarely all black and all white. I had a text from a cousin yesterday; he’d been visiting family in Shropshire and they’d done a day trip for the kids to the Talyllyn. And none of them are rail enthusiasts…

Interesting, though I’d hope to see it properly analysed against the likely fares structure. Meanwhile, I would be interested to qualify the views of those members, and especially their own expertise in judging custom. The railway I cited takes 50 minutes to do the 4 miles up its branch and those seats caused this 6 footer no problems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I believe that the answer to the first question is five (hence the aforementioned design criterium), although to be fair the real answer probably will not be known until the new MW engines start hauling fully-loaded trains of 'new' coaches over the rebuilt line.

 

Sorry, but one can't always ignore the engine in this calculation. In a situation where two trains are passing at a passing-loop (or one is arriving at a terminus and another is waiting to depart), then the engine(s) must stand in rear of the Starting signal (which will be at Danger in such a situation for at least the first train to arrive). Such a signal of course may be (say) an engine's length in advance of the end of the platform, but it would easier for the platform staff /footplate crew if it were alongside a platform, in which the platform must be (at least) five coaches plus engine. Then there is the matter of a 'bit extra' for leeway when stopping.....

 

I think Lyd was design to haul ten L&BR sized coaches empty, but in service she is limited to seven.

 

As i understand it the CIC runs and operates the railway, if something serious ever went wrong its the CIC that is the fall guy and the trust would hold no blame

 

Equally, you don't need to read this forum for long to get the impression that both are sadly lacking, at least in a worthwhile form.....

 

Just checking Youtube for the following:-



and this

 

I wouldn’t like to be so sure of that. In discussions about the NYMR and its change of articles this year, the relationship between regulators, charity, and company was discussed. Without agreeing with everything that was said on the topic, it was clear that regulation crosses and will continue to cross organisational boundaries in these kind of heritage railway set ups.

Likewise, while the difference between charity and company has been important in mitigating some of the effects of the Llangollen’s insolvency, it also has the effect of reducing the asset value of the company.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

As far as I am aware Meatman is correct for the L&BR model. But talking to other railways, I have come away with the impression that you cannot compare one railway's legal set up to another, as while they may appear to be generally the same, they may well have evolved differently from each other.

I can only work on what I know from the L&BR's point of view and what information I have found on both the companies and charities commissions websites relating to the L&BR.

What I can say is that it is down to both the Trustees and the Company Directors to be aware of their legal and moral duties. The old saying of you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink rings so true.

 

As was the Blackmoor down starter. (because of the water tower) - see Measured and Drawn p181. Clearly acceptable to the BoT Inspector (sic). So if needs must the signal can be moved.

 

As a small factual correction, I don't believe the ACE ever had a Pullman portion. The Devon Belle was all Pullman, but didn't even start until more than ten years after the L&B had closed, though. I guess a 2 foot gauge West Country pacific might be quite cool ...

Being more serious, currently the L&BR is about a mile long - what's that, five minutes ride each way? Parracombe hardly extends that; even a Woody Bay - Blackmoor line is only just over 4 miles long. It's going to be about 20-25 minutes travel time each way absolute max. You aren't talking about anything remotely comparable to the WHR or similar. Look at a line like the Tanfield Railway, which is similar length, and has some carriages with wooden seats - they aren't an issue, indeed they are part of the charm.

Given that, I'd suggest getting all grandiose about Pullman's and on-train amenities is a waste of time. The critical thing for a line of that size isn't about what you can do on a train, it is about what you can do off the train. The Isle of Wight might be a model; the actual train journey is a fairly short one hour round trip, but there is plenty to see and do at Havenstreet. They don't see the need to create faux Pullmans for the fifteen minute journey from Havenstreet to Smallbrook Junction.

As for lessons of the last few years: the one I would draw would be simplicity. The lines that seem to be doing better are often those that haven't baked in to their cost model large fixed costs, of which staffing is one. I think your vision of big engines pulling heavy excursion stock when the journey is actually so short risks doing just that. Sooner or later such services become a monster in which the need to fill the beast of fixed costs drives ever greater reliance on services that are costly to provide. Short, but frequent, trains on operating days, with a really good museum at one end of the line or the other would seem a better route to success.

Tom

 

I can't exactly see why it is much easier for loco crew for the loco to be in the platform, especially as the locos are small and the platforms low. About the only advantage I can see of ensuring the platforms are long enough to accommodate the loco is it makes it easier for the public to see the loco (and go on the footplate if desired). Which is worth having, but it is hardly a deal breaker if it can't be arranged.

Tom

 

Two things:-

1) The Pullman suggestion was and still is only one possible vision for the future, it is not fixed in stone or does it have a fixed time scale.

2) I did chuckle at the Apple comment and suggestion that the L&B needs a new gimmick each year.

Thanks it was meant to be funny and I am glad you got the joke. Do any of my comments matter? possibly not, do I care not really.

Somebody somewhere has to have a vision of one time line or what could be, some of it flies while other part don't. I am never going to try to please everybody all the time, as life is to short for that.

So what is next?

Well I do know that there has to be some serious fundraising, if we are to grow and achieve our long term goal of rebuilding the whole railway between Lynton and Barnstaple and that is not just a dream that has to happen as too many people have invested to much for it not to happen now.

It is not going to be easy and it is certainly not going to be cheap either. There will be times that we want to say something but can not even if we want to.

So just in case I don't get back on here for a day or so Happy New Year to you all and do take care as it is rough out there.

 

Platform lengths; I am reminded of Thameslink on the big railway which a few years ago bought new 8/12 car trains replacing the previous 4 (could pair for 8) car trains. They extended some platforms but they certainly didn’t extend all of them, I think even the 8 car trains are still longer than one or two of the platforms. Totally different kettle of fish, obviously, but it proves that alternative mitigations can be put in place; absolutely no certainty of need to extend historic platforms (just make sure the loops are as long as they can be).

Seats; I am sure I visited one railway (can’t remember which) which offered to lend me a cushion for the journey. Which I declined, but I think it’s a great idea.