Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Martyn, i don't think there is a snowball's chance of a completed L&B ever being used by commuters. A year-round service just isn't ever going to be practical and, even if it was, surely commuters will be traveling into Barnstaple, not away from it?
I also think that P&R is doing a lot of work here. Is parking in Lynton really that bad? we visited Lynton/Lynmouth by car in the middle of school holidays this summer and had little trouble parking even though the town was quite busy. And how many additonal visitors could be crammed into what is a quite small place with limited visitor draw? Lynton/Lynmouth is not Torbay or even Minehead. Further, people expect P&R to be cheap. It will be very difficult to persuade people out of their cars and pay £15 to £20 each to park and travel to Lynton when parking costs £2 or £3. And if you have put on some kind of DMU for the service, then you cannot even say that they are getting a heritage experience for their money. Its always a nice idea to think that your railway might take cars off of the roads but, in all honesty, has any heritage railway ever done that? The roads around Portmadog and Snowdon seem to be busier these days despite the WHR and I don't see that the summer-only Wareham service will continue.
A heritage steam railway cannot hope to be a practical P&R or commuter service.
So it comes back to the point I tried to make earlier. If you do want to be a P&R railway, then the end result will be entirely different to what has developed at Woody Bay - electric trains, frequent services, modern stock, fully paid workforce, year-round operations, modern stations etc. All very doable, but not the L&B, its just a new railway that just happens to occupy (mostly) the route of the orignal line. If you want to recreate the original L&B then you must be true to that aim, and you market yourself as a heritage steam railway offering a "going back in time" experience. I just don't see how the two outcomes are compatible and, as I said earlier, I can't think of any hertiage railway that has squared this circle.
Ian C

 

The Festiniog is currently 2 hours 20 minutes from book on to off shed with coaches. Then a further 45 minutes until scheduled departure from Porthmadog. Admittedly you could cut 20 minutes off this last bit but that time is handy if there is an issue. Typically there is a further hour disposal when you get on shed.

I'd say having loco stabling at Barnstaple would be useful if they ever get there. It doesn't have to be anything other than the bare minimum. Currently the FR is working trains out of Glanypwll to solve the exact same problem. The facilities are minimal and the train works back to Boston Lodge when inspections or maintenance are required then back up a following morning. This makes it all work with one crew to the timings booking office want.

 

I certainly don't see any commuter service, or shopper except maybe a Barnstaple Xmas Shopper as a special for locals.

I have seen often on the Lynton News page that Lynton and Lynmouth carparks are full, there is no more room at the inn so to speak.

So although mostly you may run heritage trains to those destinations, if its a busy day and the P&R is getting busy then you would pull out the P&R shuttles to cope with the extra traffic and add them in as in between services?

Lynton and Lynmouth can be odd places when it comes to visitors, some days it's quite quiet, especially on accommodation change over days, and then another, it's absolutely packed with cars not stopping as there are no parking spaces.

Edit: I would just add that as it becomes known there is a P&R at Blackmoor it could quite possibly be used a fair bit by walkers and hikers, who may then catch the train to say Woody Bay and walk form there, or Caffyns etc. Equally in the opposite direction to Whistlandpound, Chelfham etc.

I would envisage some stations being request only though.

 

Hi Chris some time ago, I was told that they were looking at 7 coach train sets since that was the optimum size for LYN and the new Manning Wardles. That being the case the loops will need to be longer or extended to suit a 7 plus two locos size train set.

Of course that may have changed but I am sure they where advised by our friends from the FR about getting the right balance of trains sizes and passenger number for the length of line. The other thing to consider is what is the optimum number of passenegrs per train are we looking at I would guess this has to be around 100+ per train to break even, then you have all the trappiong of tourisum to add to the train IE a loo and a snack bar, plus a brake van.

 

Some time ago I did suggest that we need to be looking at providing volunteer accommadation along the full length of the line, but now that question of staff and volunteers has raised its head again this is an area that need to be taken seriously.

Currently at three locations along the line there are suitable sites that volunteer hostels could be build and or converted from the existing property. Sure there are not going to be cheap and of course there will be running cost's etc to go along with all of this. But as I have said before not all the volunteers we need to could afford the current costs of a B&B or would they feel welcome either.

Volunteers are not skinflints but I get the impression that if they give up their time to volunteer, then the railway needs to be able to meet their needs halfway. The railway is set in a tourist area and to be honest do we need our volunteers taking up valuable tourist accommadation during the high season? I guess not.

Also not every volunteer will want to use a hostel and some will want to use a vist to North Devon as a break and not feel they are abliged to volunteer every day they are on the railway.

Personally I think the location is great but to attract volunteers to the area we do need to step up the support the railway gives to make the volunteers more welcome.

 

We can carry well over 100 passengers in a 4 as it is now.

We have been over loos etc before in this thread.

 

I spent the (rainy) afternoon thinking about where traffic would originate from and using a few online sources to plot driving times and populations.

I'll not bore everyone with the minutae of how I arrived at my conclusions (unless anyone really wants to know in which case PM me).

My key assumptions were:
- That only Lynton, Blackmoor Gate and Barnstaple would be realistic starting points for most visitors.
- A 50/50 split of day visitors and people staying locally (within 1 hour drive) on a day out.
- That people will usually make the rational choice to go to the nearest starting point.
- That people marginally prefer to go from somewhere to somewhere else rather undertake a round trip from the middle
- I made no attempt to discriminate between those going for a "short trip" versus a full round trip in their choice of starting point (which may or may not add a significant error - on balance I suspect not)
- I assumed that even on the 20 yr horizon needed to consider the complete line people will still mostly travel by car (electric). I assumed 80% would arrive that way. I also assumed that most of those travelling by Public Transport (PT) would arrive at Barnstable because of the better bus links and more importantly the mainline railway
- I used local populations within 1hr drive as a starting point for estimating where people staying locally would travel from to get to the railway. (On the basis that the bigger the population the more opportunities for places to stay exist - this has flaws, but I only had an afternoon).

I concluded that the following proportions of originating traffic might apply.

Barnstaple 54% to 59%
Blackmoor Gate 24 to 30%
Lynton 17%

The difference Barnstaple and Blackmoor Gate is to do with how attractive the latter might appear in comparison to the former mostly to car drivers. Are they equally attractive (54% at Barnstable and 30% at Blackmoor Gate) or is Blackmoor Gate less attractive, 60/40 in favour of Barnstaple (59% originating at Barnstaple and 24% at Blackmoor Gate).

Obviously this is massively simplistic, but it wouldn't take forever to refine this analysis. In fairness to @DaveE I was surprised by the apparently greater opportunity at Blackmoor Gate than Lynton, but less surprised that Barnstaple was ahead.

Now, the biggest issue of course will be parking, so if Barnstaple were not to have any associated with the railway, or it was very expensive or far from the station then Blackmoor Gate may become more important still.

The importance of continuing this kind of analysis cant be overstated. If Barnstaple were not to have parking then the overall numbers on the line might be compromised. It might also be the case that people would tend to travel from Blackmoor Gate out to one end or other. That has a profound impact on planning the service, and thus on the position of things like sheds. I think its important to try to anticipate where the greatest demand will come from though rather than letting the infrastructure dictate that to too great a degree.

The analysis would imply that the train service could well look a little like the WSR with a fleet of trains heading down from Barnstaple in the morning and back from Lynton in the afternoon, with less of a flow the other way.

On the basis of my thought experiment I'd still be inclined to try to site the main running sheds in Barnstable to minimise Empty Stock moves, possibly a shed at Blackmoor and not bother to have anything overnight at Lynton. In fairness to @DaveE there could be an argument for the works being at Blackmoor (land prices for example), but there will have to be a substantial presence at Barnstaple and I think it is possible that the shed at Blackmoor would not be needed even to pick up the trade on offer there.

 

One thing which goes to the heart of just about everything on here and that is this. Is it a heritage railway or a tourist railway we are trying to rebuild here? Since it is important to decide on what direction this project goes.

If you chose Heritage, then ask yourself what is it we are trying to preserve? The trackbed and the route? Since everything else is new unless you want to gather together a collection of old steam locos.

Or is it a tourist railway with all the mod cons that we are trying to build here in North Devon. Fundamentally they are like chalk and cheese sine they cater to different traffic patterns over to you to discuss.

 

Very interesting to deal with the hypotheticals of a built railway but I return to my point concerning how we get the railway built south from Killington Lane. This is the major priority and should be the immediate focus of all of us who would like to see a railway extended from Woody Bay to Wistlandpound (no 'h' in this place name please @DaveE).
[Also, @21B, the place name is Barnstaple (not Barnstable). I enjoyed your post above but every time I read Barnstable it grated on me!]

 

A very pertinent point Colin. However, I would argue that the railway is a re-creation of a once-existing railway. As far as is possible the trackbed and route will be the same as the original and the current and proposed locomotives and coaches are look-similar rebuilds. Obviously with the passage of time materials used and methods of production and control of a railway will change and improvements to these should be and often are incorporated. Does this make the re-build 'less authentic' and if it does, does that matter? Some will argue one way and others another way. This is perfectly normal and to be expected. I suppose what does need to be decided is how will appropriate variance from the original be agreed and permitted? This leads into your question of 'is this a heritage railway or a tourist railway'? Well, the process of rebuilding is definitely financed, followed and developed by those railway buffs of a heritage bent. Over time, these will inevitably diminish in number as 'railway romance' does not seem so popular among younger persons. It will be tourists who we hope will, in future, finance and follow the enlarged railway. So, it seems to me that the current ambition will be largely driven by heritage railway persons but if it is to succeed into the future then it must work hard to address the wishes and requirements of the tourist sector. This will require comfortable observation cars with modern well-sprung bogies, modern hygienic toilets, well-run cafes, on-board events (such as are commonplace on many heritage railways), possibly a well-run pub-restaurant at Blackmoor, etc. The ultimate termini of the line will be new-build stations. Will they be in traditional L&BR Swiss-chalet style or altogether different, perhaps like the WHR Carnarfon terminus for example? We know that a 'green-field site' is proposed for the Lynton terminus, nearer to the town: a good idea surely? What about Barnstaple? Perhaps thought should be given to how a connection can be made to Barnstaple (Junction) NR Station? As always, there are more questions than answers but they will need to be addressed at some date in future if the 'L&BR dream' is to become a reality.

Meanwhile, the question of how the L&BR extends from Killington Lane to Blackmoor is of greater urgency and significance...

 

I don't see that there automatically has to be a dichotomy between a "heritage railway" and a "tourist railway". Of course tourists are going to make up the paying passengers, but they can still be attracted by the heritage: not every former stately home has turned itself into Alton Towers to survive.

Personally I think the vision should be a heritage one as far as reasonably practical. That means follow the original route (unless absolutely blocked and requiring a deviation, such as at the reservoir); use the original buildings and structures as far as possible; use authentic signalling practice; and use replicas of original locomotives and rolling stock with minimal adaptations for modern conditions. (A wheelchair-accessible saloon? Absolutely. Tannoys in every carriage giving a running commentary on the route? No.)

Otherwise - don't bother. You can preserve the route and the remaining structures as a long distance footpath and you will have done a better job for the surviving heritage of the sadly lamented L&B.

Isn't there the small question of the intervening River Taw?

Tom

 

Not to mention a roundabout, the buildings along the quay and the uses that Town station have been put to. Oh, and that the L&B never actually crossed the Taw to Junction.

A Pilton base would be both central and minimise the negative impact of reinstatement on a town that has changed significantly since 1935.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This is absolutely my view as well. We follow the heritage as much as we can.

I come back again to when you visit Woody Bay and speak to people and there is a huge wow factor with those visitors.

They love that they have been able to experience a "step back in time", to learn about Lyn and the carriages, the charm of the L&B, with relatively minimal modern additions.

We do have the tea room and toilet block, in the modern world we cannot really get away from the need of those.

Tbh I can see that the L&B is now caught in between the world's that @Biermeister speaks of, that of heritage, and of a modern tourist attraction.

If we look at Woody Bay there has been a balance found between the two and perhaps it should be the model for the rest of the line. It works, it has the heritage and sympathetic modern conveniences of the loo block and tea room, but not over the top.

We have provided wheel chair access to the carriages, whilst not in use the compartment looks and feels the same as any other, when the wheel chair is loaded, the wheel chair user has the opportunity to experience the ride in exactly the same way as any other 3rd class passenger, the views etc, with the wheel chair at the same location in the compartment as the usual seating. This was one of primary aims of the design, to give that passenger that authentic experience.

Would the experience for visitors be the same if we had loos on trains, baby changing, meals and snacks, audio visual and so on? Absolutely not, the experience of travel that bygone age is completely lost. All these things are in my view more the fantasy of a few who want their own flavour of the L&B rather than doing what so many originally set out to do, and that's to recreate the L&B in as original format as possible, to recreate the charm, the heritage and that experience for everyone to enjoy and learn about.

 

I’m broadly in your corner on this one, but what the ordinary public find comfortable for a 2 mile round trip may not work for a longer journey. I’d particularly focus on seats here, where the 21st century posterior seems both better padded and more sensitive than it’s easy 20th century equivalent.

For example, my wife has a bad back, with titanium inserts. On a trip about 10 years ago to Alston, she did not react well to the stock then in use. Some of it was the wooden benches, some the track, and some the fire and aft movement generated by the locomotive.

There will be challenges to balance authenticity with comfort for hour plus journeys; better by far to have people going “that was good” than “thank goodness that’s over”!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Dear Tom (@Jamessquared) and Paul (@35B) and the rest of you too,
Did I not say: 'Perhaps thought should be given to how a connection can be made to Barnstaple (Junction) NR Station?' I did not say it had to be a rail connection through the streets of Barnstaple and across the Taw, did I? It could be a short-wheelbase bus connecting Barnstaple Junction with Pilton perhaps, or if the Barnstaple Light Rail were to eventuate, then perhaps that? Or, a new rail alignment from Goodleigh at the back of Barnstaple along the old Victoria Road alignment to Junction. Some lateral thinking perhaps? Any other ideas? After all we are dealing hypothetically here aren't we? There's no need to come out with the 'nah, can't be done' without some consideration of what could be possible, is there??

 

there's also the question of 3 apartment blocks built over the former route of the railway

 

Fair challenge, which I read as I did because it’s one of the great recurring themes!

I’m going to exclude a direct rail link in the GW direction because there’s a stuffing great hill in the way (one side of the Yeo Valley!). Having driven that way, there’s a lot of low gear work and the south facing slope towards the Taw is heavily developed quite a long way out. It also fails the “recreate as nearly as possible” test.

That leaves non rail transport. Pilton is close to the town centre, in which there is a bus station. It will therefore be well positioned for people already in the town centre. Junction station is a bit further but still walkable.

My starting position would be to work with the local bus companies to find routes that cross town, and harness existing services rather than invest in new kit.

All of the above depends heavily on the assumption that rail traffic from the Exeter side would a material component of demand for a rebuilt L&B. Given feedback from other main line connections established in recent years, my personal gut feeling is that it will represent a proportion of demand worth marketing effort but not significant capital investment combined with ongoing expenditure.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I don't know how many of you may have received it but a 'minority trustee report' has been sent out this morning, it doesn't make for pleasant reading.

 

Indeed :-(

From a brief read of the section relating to the OSHI :-

"It now transpires that the previous owner is retaining some of the original land, and that the Trust has purchased, directly from the Owner, the land required for the railway track and station area for a sum of £50,000. ......In other words, all of the land the railway needed was purchased separately for £50,000, and yet the purchase of the pub resulted in the Board locking up more than £850,000 of Trust Funds which cannot now be used for extending the railway."

So, as I read it, the Trust now owns the land actually needed to build the railway at BR, yet has spent a huge sum on a property not actually essential at this time. Consequently it would now appear to be so low on funds that it would be unable to pay for just about any substantial part of the proposed Option 'C' work.

Just about sums it all up, doesn't it ?

 

The email landed this morning, I’ll need to read it properly this evening. If the passage quoted is representative, it is an appalling situation that makes the debate I was having with others seen rather further away than I’d feared.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk