Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

IF traffic is the key factor, then you are probably right on priorities, and I think for other reasons too. But I think that @21B has it about right when he comments "the last x hundred pages is firstly a discussion about how the next move is not in fact obvious". Those come back to what we are trying to do, and how it is best achieved.

 

I largely agree @RailWest - with the rider that if there is a credible opportunity to open a section from Blackmoor Gate - Bratton Flemming first (if the Twitchen Lane issue can be addressed, there aren't many more parcels on the ever-helpful EA Map to acquire) to open a four mile stretch of the line - including some lovely scenery coming up to the dam and then around the lake. If - and I stress if - ENPA would allow the construction of the planned works complex at Rowley Moor Farm, this would allow covered storage and proper facilities to care for the coaches and the railway could then pursue the TWAO and CP powers in order to connect up Blackmoor Gate to Woody Bay over a longer period. This would also remove the risk of land south of Blackmoor Gate reverting to the previous owner if we don't use it (I think, by 2025).

On that basis, a prioritised list of actions could look something like this:

1. Apply for planning permission to build Bridge 65.
Rationale: deadline for handing it over to Devon Highways.

2. Lay full spec railway but operated by diesel/railcar from Blackmoor Gate to Wistlapound.
Rationale: the risk of losing the land we've already purchased, and providing an attraction for OSHI.

3. Apply for planning permission for the works at Rowley Moor and the bridge south to Blackmoor Gate *only*; and construct.
Rationale: the works will be needed anyway, and opening down to Bratton Flemming would mean a four mile run which would naturally become the main event on the railway until the extension through to Woody Bay becomes available.

4. Progress Planning and thence TWAO with CP powers for the rest of Killington Lane - Blackmoor Gate.
Rationale: this is probably a five or six year process (1 year consultation, 2 years for planning permission, 2-3 years for TWAO) and so needs to happen in parallel.

5. Open full spec railway to Bratton Flemming as soon as possible to produce a 4m 08ch operational railway.
Rationale: with extant permissions and the support of North Devon District Council, this is likey to be easier than the extension from Bridge 65 to Blackmoor Gate.

6. Connect Bridge 65 to Blackmoor Gate to produce an 8m 24ch operational railway - with luck, for the 2035 centennial of closure.

7. Chelfham and then Snapper - extending the railway to 11m 25ch and then 13m 25ch - and depending on support in the valley, to Pilton (15m 50ch).

8. Go north to Caffyns, and look at credible modern options of getting to Lynton.

 

Well thourght out stratergy Tobbes... I would only add a 2a that concurrently with design for a railway from Blackmoor gate thourght should be given on how the OSHI can be developed to support the greater railway - and here i am thinking Museum - Undercover area with track for display.

 

Thanks @ianh - there will be a museum at Bratton Flemming if YVT/EA's plans come to fruition in the recreated Goods Shed - see page 5 here - so with an extension and goodwill, this could be a sensible piece of joint work in future. It will also provide something for those who don't want to walk up to Bratton Flemming to do between trains!

 

I think you have hit the nail on the head if the purchase of the OSHI. Had this been put in terms of this is only the start, as we want to do xyz on the site then I could go with that, but there appear to be no vision for the site at present, but then that is my take on it.

 

Please.... Wistlandpound. Bratton Fleming

 

I know I'm going to cop a load of flak for saying this, but I have been involved in development projects, rail projects(big railway), renovation projects since 1987, and I have seen a few struggles in that time. Some went well, some went badly. A few were completed on time, on budget, and delivered exactly what was planned. Some we pushed through despite adversity. Some failed.
One of the most difficult stages in a difficult situation is putting down all previous plans, preconceptions, and appraise the actual reality of what is in front of you.
It is a swine to have to admit that £200, £20,000, or £100,000, or several million has been expended in the wrong direction, but that has been the case and more besides. When the £2m had been wasted(according to my lights), refusal to accept this meant that that waste exceeded £12m before the clever people accepted reality and pulled the plug. They then successfully went with an amended plan that I could never have imagined.
Looking at the L&B today, specifically the Woody Bay to Killington Lane setup- is anybody actually ready to face it and ask 'have we spent 20 years building the wrong bit of railway?' It might not have seemed it at the start, but now it seems that the line is trapped in its current limits.
If we were starting over, what would we do?
Given the land under control of the greater L&B, if there were not already rail laid WB-KL, where would we start?

Some might think that starting at Blackmoor Gate, and working towards Wistlandpound, as Tobbes has suggested, might be a way to create an attractive, workable, marketable line with market potential and growth potential. Take all the toys there, and start over.
Or put trains across Chelfham viaduct and work from there.
Or something else completely.
Or perhaps Woody Bay really is the best option, but I would like it to be explained why, other than "we've already spent a lot of time and money there."
It just seems that everyone has got so used to sitting and wishing at Killington Lane that all dynamism has been lost. I would personally be more inclined to support a new approach than see everyone keep banging their heads against the A39.

Edit: To be clear, what has been done at Woody Bay is GOOD. really good, and I salute the efforts and industry of all who have worked very hard to achieve it.

 

Those are really, really, good challenges.

Whatever the answers - and I'm in the camp that would retain Woody Bay as a base - it's that kind of thinking that I fear has been lacking since the failure of the S.73, and without which it will be difficult to successfully extend the railway.

 

I have to agree with you and would add, with all due respect to members and supporters, too many people cant think outside of the Woody Bay box and think that everything must revolve around there when there is a damned site more to the L&BR than one station

 

I know I have said this before, but the last serious attempt to rebuild this railway took place back in the 1970's with Peter Rampton later to be known as the owner of Collection X.

The story goes is that he was almost about to buy Blackmoor on the understanding that the then North Devon District Council would give him planning permission to build a railway as far as the reservior. The rest of the plan so I am told (and it depends on who you listened to) was that he wanted to buy the farm that surrounds Blackmoor and also have a railway heritage centre, I would think that it would have been the blue print for Statfold.

I am not sure just how much of the old railway would have got rebuilt, but my feeling is that once something like a Statfold set up had been established more of the line would have been reopened.

The one problem I have right now is it feels like a scattergun approach to rebuilding this railway with no real idea on how to go about it. Tobbes has outline an approach which to me is very sensible and could work however I would suggest that points 1 to 3 need to have a costing attached to them as nothing like having a figure to work toward concentrates the mind so much. It would as I see it focus all our efforts on rebuilding the railway and once points 1 to 3 have been done we could take a breather.

Even if it took ten years to achieve I still think that it would still be to soon to think about joining Blackmoor to Woody Bay. If anything I would look toward rebuilding the railway all the way to back to Chelfham first of all. This would give us around a 7 to 8 mile railway and it would prove to those that oppose us that we can do what it said on the side of the tin.

Now for the difficult bit now while this is going on I would look towards acquiring all the track bed that we need as far as Lydiate Lane and Lynton. But I feel that we should concentrate on the Blackmoor to Chelfham section and get that part up and running first of all.

For the rest of Toobies plan I think we shall need to cross each bridge when we come to it

 

I find myself conflicted with all the talk of plans for the way forward. The L&BR Trustees had what seemed a good plan on paper (Phase IIa and IIb for starters) but turning this into reality has proved difficult. Their assumption was really: as we have planned our action then all we need to do now is action our plan. Indeed, but how? The constriction south of Parracombe from the Grobs and their supporters have stymied the plan. So now they present us with the new (mini-)plan to extend from Killington Lane to Cricket Field Lane. To what end for goodness sake? Half a mile from nowhere to new nowhere? I would say it is purely to appease Members who want to see movement.

@Tobbes new plan (post no. 10962) is well thought out and suggests a new suite of staged developments. Stages 1 to 4 seem eminently sensible, practical, urgent and important. Step 5 running trains from Blackmoor to Wistlandpound is aspirational but seems to me in the same 'let's move ahead' mode and is not particularly important or urgent. Why is it necessary to open it to traffic? The fact of having track laid from Blackmoor to Wistlandpound would provide enough impetus to go for a TWAO over the whole route from Killington Lane to Wistlandpound. To me, this should now be the approach: building contacts (obviously including talking closely with Mike Hart et al at RVR), engendering local support and filling a big pot of money, for a successful TWAO application. This will take time, probably five years at least, from the time that Stage 4 is completed, but as Tobbes has suggested it could be started in parallel with the earlier stages.

Stages 6 and 7 are so far into the future as to be purely aspirational. Stage 6 (south from Wistlandpound to Chelfham and beyond) should continue to remain in the capable hands of EA and Stage 7 (north to Caffyns and Lynton which is important but not urgent) should involve buying land when it becomes available, subject to available monies.

The urgent crux of the matter is to build support in Parracombe and work feverishly to fill that big pot with money, starting now!

 

Sorry, but IMHO, there should be no further extension, for the present, conciliate, on what you have, streamline your organisation, so land purchase is separate from operating a railway, and pub, Bring the various land purchasing bodies into one, and transfer the already purchased land and building's to that body, then apply for planning to build the line, and an TWAO in the meanwhile raise funds to enable the purchase of land should it come available, the CP powers will have to be used to purchase Parracombe, because i can see no other option, short of buying another plot of land, and offering the Grubs a new location to the side of the station site, but the land has to be first piority forget about reopening isolated sections of track, that just dilutes time and expenditure, for what? once the L&B own the entire track bed, then you can start thinking about extending the railhead,

 

Success begets success; just waiting till everything is owned before starting gives extra veto power to those who dislike the railway, and dilutes the momentum that will help keep supporters, donors and volunteers interested. It also does little to build credibility with those who’d have to consider planning, TWAO or CP powers.

Ultimately, what matters is what works. The plans discussed in the spring are, as @Biermeister rightly observes, not really being followed. There has also been little reflection on how we go from a mile of track based on Woody Bay to a longer line.

@Tobbes presents a good argument for a different approach, acknowledging the current constraints and showing a different way towards joining the pieces. Whether or not “right”, it opens up different perspectives and ways of thinking, taking advantage of what exists and thinking strategically towards the end goal.

Stepping back, looking at what options exist, and how they can be used is essential. That opportunity was not taken in the spring; I’d like to see it taken now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

When you sit quiet and listen its amazing how many different opinions on ways forward for the L&B there are. This isn't due to any failure by anyone, in truth it's due to the massive successes in acquiring so many different parts of the old L&B, stations, trackbed, etc in the last 10 years or so.

The problem is that there are now so many options and bits to consider it's become quite a headache.

I will just throw these observations in...

Going North from Woody Bay there is immediately a huge engineering problem of crossing the A39, it's not a simple bridge(s) to construct and would require a complete shift of the road temporarily to install. Essentially you are creating that road twice over.

Any option which looks to shift operations away from Woody Bay now would involve a huge undertaking to move all to another location, the machinery, the equipment, and everything which provides the fascilities we have now would need to be shifted however many miles. With staff and volunteers at a premium I cannot see that being done without considerable closure, months, maybe even a complete season and considerable transport costs. Alongside this is the set up costs at the new location.

In my view commercially and financially we cannot now change the base as Woody Bay. From there we look for options forward.

It must be remembered that even continuing to go for CFL, doesn't mean other considerations cannot be done in parallel.

 

As several people have been suggesting, it is a sensible way forward to build where you can - and gradually extend, to achieve the aim of a recreated L & B running from nearly Barnstaple to nearly Lynton
Yes, it does mean that there may well be more than one operational railway, but if the aim is to have a long railway, then more people and equipment will be needed and these can be brought into operation in stages.
If the argument against is that there are barely enough people to run the Woody Bay site, than how can a longer railway be staffed?
As more parcels of land are purchased and more is done in terms of fencing, drainage etc......and as Chelfham, Snapper and Bratton become seen as part of the whole, then more it will be realised that the Rebuilt L & B is a significant benefit to the whole area.

 

I don't think we need to think about moving from Woody Bay any time soon, as it is important I feel to keep that operation running.

What I think we do need to consider and that is the setting up of sub or friends style groups for each project. I realise that some will say, Oh no not another sub group! but I think that with a number of sub project groups (each tasked to do just one job) then I feel a lot more could be achieved rather than relying on everything to be done by the Trustee.

What will be needed is a plan like the one suggested by Tobbs and each section given over to one person to head up or chair that sub group.

I do agree that all the trackbed and land should in time be owned by just one charitable trust. Just how we get there from here is anyone guess right now, but it has to be something that everyone wants to happen with no egos attached either.

As I have said before this land trust should not be involved in the operation of the railway in any way and that is part of the problem we have now, As far as I can see we simply don't have a working management structure in place, I feel this is more important to establish this than anything else right now.

 

You are quite right in what you say, but.....all that would have to have been done anyway if Phase 2A had come to fruition and the focus had shifted from WB to the new BR Depot instead. So was the Trust planning to have a complete season's closure in that case? - I don't recall reading that anywhere in the plans.

What we do not want, of course, is to go from the WB to X (wherever that might be) and then from X to BR at a later date.

 

@DaveE & @RailWest - yes, this was a suggestion to move once to the new (permanent) works at Rowley Moor in order to support a longer line. This was specifically tied to a longer railway to Bratton Fleming - if it was just a railcar shuttle to Wistlapound (thank you @Ross Buchanan ) then you'd leave the existing works where they are for the time being. Obviously, it will take some time, but properly planned it should be achievable over a closed winter season - we cannot afford a 'year off'.

 

I don't think it's the same thing, if Phase 2A had come to fruition things could be gradually moved over a period of time along the track, a machine here and there, maybe even in V23, one run per day or as time allows.

And yes that is what I meant, and have seen suggested over time, WB to x. WB is a good base to work from, it's working out how to maximise all the bits we have while we work on CFL. There is much that can be done in parallel to otber works, it doesn't have to be sequencial.