Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I really have difficulty relating to this. The intentions of the L&B "family" have been clearly stated and in public knowledge for many years. Anybody with ownership of the old track-bed will have expected to be approached, and probably has been, years ago. Objectors will have prepared their cases and now wait for the appropriate hearings. Apart from the precise figures for the purchase of bits of track-bed at the time they are being negotiated, there seems to be very little information that requires the cloak of secrecy that you think necessary.

 

Would they? That's an assumption. Tbh I expect the L&B is way down on the list of priorities especially where its a farm or business and they are trying to keep profits up. Additionally it's probably not wise to keep badgering folk in the community, once it's seen that someone is looking to move than you approach them or if a piece of land becomes imminently needed.
There are some plots of land which has a history of contact over the years but it doesn't mean to say all have been.
I think it's best if the negotiators who will have local knowledge and feel for these things are left to judge if its the right time to approach any landowner and how it's done and not dictate from here.

 

I'm really not sure what you are replying to: I don't see anybody "dictating from here" as you claim nor was I suggesting "badgering folk". I only observed that most owners of track-bed will be aware of the proposal to reinstate the railway. I absolutely agree that it is best left to local negotiators to deal with the necessary acquisitions when appropriate, something which Exmoor Associates appear to be particularly good at.
What I was asking was why you keep insisting that there is a need for most of our conversations to be guarded, even to the point of keeping information from the members, and how anything gleaned from these conversations can be used against the organisation(s) ?

 

Hope you don't mind, I've replied in private

 

The Brecon Mountain Railway - a commercially run line with no great raft of volunteers and generous donors to support it- extended from Pontsticill, its terminus of 15 years or so. Pontsticill had a station, cafe and other 'this is a workable terminus' paraphernalia. The 1 1/2 mile extension to Dolygaer was a decent additional run, to absolutely no-where. The old Dolygaer station is in private hands, and the runaround loop at the new end-of-line was inaccessible, invisible, and it seemed that Tony Hills had chosen this point exactly because it could not be used as a venue or vantage point, and for 20 years, that was it.
The extension itself changed the line. The flat-ish amble from Pant to Pontsticill became contrasted with the steep climb up past the reservoir, and through the pine woods. The Baldwin got to show its mettle, and the line suddenly differentiated itself from other 'quarry Hunslet and a mile of track' projects. It seemed to be going somewhere, at least until you rode the line and found that the somewhere was nowhere.
The ensuing 20 years were spent operating profitably, building much needed additional rolling stock, rebuilding another Baldwin and simply strengthening the whole body of the railway. Then after two decades, whizz-bang-kaboom, from nowhere the line is suddenly at a new terminus at Torpantau, and seems a complete railway.
Whether it needs or wants to ever go beyond this point I know not. There is the potential to extend many miles through the old Torpantau tunnel, and on to Talybont, Talyllyn Junction, Hay-on-Wye(ok, I'm in fantasy land), but IMO it doesn't need to go a yard beyond its current reach.

Whilst a new temporary railhead at Cricket Field Lane would not greatly extend the current line, materially change its character, nor offer a vastly enhanced visitor experience, it could be an attainable, workable, tangible advance. There is at least one precedent....

 

In which case, if the reported announcement on the website on 8 January that there was £700K in it was correctly dated, it appears the accounts at 31 December must have been mis-stated showing only nearly £222K. The only logical assumption must be that a Trustees' decision to transfer the difference from unrestricted funds was not reflected in the accounts until the new year.

 

Shareholders would not know one firm of auditors from another, but Boards must be highly tempted to put forward firms of accountants for appointment as auditors who are known to be 'soft' on reporting. And counterwise, firms of accountants are very reluctant to qualify reports criticising accounts for fear of being sacked, and therefore losing one of their clients. The regular number of companies that go bust having had a 'clean' audit report as recently as the previous year-end must go into thousands every year. 'True and Fair View' of the company's state of affairs is in danger of being lost. All about money as usual. We complain about the remuneration of 'Executives'. What partners in big firms of accountants get for signing off accounts would make most people's eyes roll.

 

To a degree. But at the same time, the standards for even external examination, let alone audit, are steadily rising. Even "soft" firms with non-audit interests in their clients are finding it more and more necessary to take a straighter line with their clients.

Meanwhile, where an evolving picture left room for judgment calls in the 2022 accounts, I suspect positions - for good or ill - will need to crystallise in 2023.

 

And, if I remember correctly the farmer owning the site of the Pontsticill terminus refused to sell - sounds familiar ? - and a terminus station had to be built on an adjacent site.

 

I believe the station at issue was at Pant, the southern terminus, or starting point, of the line. Tony Hills bought 5 miles of extant route, including the whole of the original Pontsticill site and remaining buildings, but the original station site at Pant had previously been sold to a neighbouring farm, and so a new station was built on some (bigger, better, flatter) adjacent land. That the original station site was sought is not something I had heard before.
What would have happened had there not been available land adjacent, who knows, but there was no historic imperative, or precedent for 2' gauge Hunstlet, Baldwin or Arnold Jung locomotives hauling new build rolling stock on SAR wheels up Cwm Fechan. Had the former Brecon & Merthyr line not been an acceptable compromise for his intentions, I have no doubt that the practical and pragmatic Mr Hills would have found somewhere else to settle.

What the supporters would say to a mile and a quarter deviation from Killington Lane via Bodley to Rowley Cross, bypassing the happy people of Parracombe I am not sure. Currently the L&B seems, as far as the Woody Bay section is concerned, compelled to either push on, or push off.

 

Ross, your posts are really interesting, thank you for taking the time to write them

 

Has such a deviation been considered? Could someone post a map showing these locations (e.g. Bodley)? and, importantly, is it known who own the land needed?
I've always thought a deviation around the problem land would be worth considering...

 

But which would cost more and take longer in the process - securing powers for, and then building, a deviation on a whole new section of route (which in the process would miss out PE station and therefore surely be outwith the ethos of the Trust to rebuild the original railway) or to secure a TWAO and then (hopefully) a CPO to buy the necessary land and then rebuild on the original route?

 

And not to mention that the local plan states that the line is to be re-instated as close as possible to the original route. This also means that the route is protected from other development - in other words a planning application to build anywhere on the trackbed would be turned down.

 

A 1963 Ordnance map, showing the by-pass.

 

I want the railway to go on it's original route, but "as close as possible" is amenable to interpretation. However, given the landscape around Parracombe, I'm struggling to imagine what definitions of "possible" might be needed to deliver such a diversion.

 

Loo

Looking at a contour map going via Bodley Cross would entail a viaduct across the Heddon of similar size or larger than Chelfham I think.

 

I don't see how missing out PE station would be outwith the ethos of the Trust - if that were the case, then the Trust would also be obliged to rebuild the Pilton - Town section. If a deviation was built (say sweeping across and running alongside the A39), the original route could be reinstated at a later date if the local community were more receptive.

But surely community opposition would be counted as making the original route not possible, and therefore a deviation would be acceptable?

 

Herewith the 1904 25" map of Churchtown, and further south to Holwill Embankment, just off the map