Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

But there are those who claim that it would be possible to get (squeeze) the line to Lynton past the shed at WB, maybe with a bit of widening in the cutting. I don't know how true that might be in reality, but IMHO it is not clear-cut at the moment whether or not the shed must be moved in order to get to LN. So perhaps it will prove not to be an obstacle after all?

 

Thanks. I just have no idea any more, which is why I asked. Fund raising on a very large scale is obviously required. The more this debate goes on, the more seems to come to light and the more daunting the challenges seem and we haven’t yet any costs (do we?) for the breach at Parracombe Bank to throw into the mix. Someone above here suggested a 10-15 year window but this couldn’t this just as easily be doubled? I am starting to wonder how realistic some of the project really is. Sorry.

 

I am very much for total reinstatement right from Barnstaple to Lynton. What I do understand is that it won't be done overnight or in one go.

The thing is so many are focusing on doom and gloom and ignore what has actually been achieved. For a railway that was once said it would be impossible to reinstate, across the L&B family there has been some absolutely fantastic successes and especially in the last few years in acquiring some quite prominent buildings and land.

The problem is where we have groups in different locations who are passionate about their particular bit they have focused on and after many years of negotiation, clearing etc are looking to immediately lay track and have trains running, at Snapper, Chelfham, OSHI, etc. I am not condemning that, that is the extreme enthusiasm, dedication and passion this railway seems to create.

But with all these sections and bits and pieces of the jigsaw coming back to life almost all at once it does create a division, along with options, and hence pulling in different directions, each group thinks they have the answer and think only they are right.

As I said before, perhaps each group has part of the answer, but some appear to be claiming it's my way or no way.

Tbh I can see a situation where if you actually did a desk top viability study on ways forward there could be a number found, and none absolutely ideal. What it will come down to is cash flow and what is feasible due to resources, logistics and manpower.

I can absolutely see this railway being completed, but it's not going to be easy or quick and the more arguing that goes on, the more pulling in different direction there are, the longer it will take.

Right now we have two main groups. Getting those two groups to find middle ground is at the moment I think not possible, but both are doing great things. Both groups have some quite severe challenges, both groups need cash, both groups need resources and manpower.

Sadly I think it will be piecemeal right along the whole line, purely because you are getting the parts to the jigsaw piecemeal, a jigsaw that is hugely complex, but it's not impossible by any means.

 

I'm not so sure that there is as much "division" as some seem to think. Yes it is piecemeal, as land is acquired and yes, development is taking place in various locations. But I think all the groups and supporters are still aligned in their desire to rebuild the L & B and create a superb asset to the Devon economy.

 

That’s precisely why a pause for consideration, proper desktop analysis, and open and frank discussion are required.

I doubt that there is an ideal solution; all of the options I’ve ever heard mentioned involve compromise and challenge. The question is over which option(s) are most likely to succeed, and how those chances can be maximised.

The current focus on CFL seems, by contrast, to offer instant gratification (well, relatively!) at high cost, and in a way that adds to future challenges. It may be right, but I’m not hearing the case for in a way that allows me to understand it as a balanced option.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Perhaps division in the short term is a better way to put it, long term and in the overall vision of reinstating the railway, there is very little division.

 

I think you are absolutely right in all your observations, but I think you draw the wrong conclusion, which is that this is just how it has to be because that is how it is now. Lots of groups and interests that cannot be reconciled. I don’t believe that is the case. I believe that a weak and ineffective board of trustees has permitted it to become so, when they should have been focusing on bringing the groups together. Build bridges not walls. Because as you say, the end goal is common. What we need is a credible plan to get us there, in stages, which is deliverable in a sensible timeframe so that whilst some people’s pet project might not happen immediately, the goal is reached earlier. Otherwise, it would be better for a lot of people’s blood pressure in the railway and in the local population if everyone stuck to building a model railway.

 

Some would look on this as a vanity project and one of self importance to those involved, it was clearly stated by one trustee 'I've done all this work so if you want to do anything other than option c then count me out', yes he might have done a lot of work which is appreciated but sometimes you have to swallow your pride and admit that in the bigger picture your hard work might not take precedence, the chance was there in 2009 to return to CFL, back then it would have been a lot easier to do with less opposition in the area, even the bridge had been designed, at a members forum it was clearly stated that the extension then didn't happen because 'they had no money to do so', shoot forward 14 years and they now want to go to CFL, they still have no money but its THE 'option'. Sadly not only did they miss the boat on this one but in the intervening years they managed to upset even more locals

 

There is of course something which has not been mentioned and I am not saying it to muddy the waters, but what if an extension to say Caffyns were possible? why not build a new workshop base site at Caffyns and have it ready so when the extension is ready to be connected up at Woody Bay the building at Woody Bay can be dismantled and moved to Caffyns.

The only issue I think we may have is that the shed at Woody Bay will be higher that the track coming in from Caffyns so some realignment may be required at that end of the Woody Bay before they can be connected.

But then if this is all planned before hand it shouldn't be a problem.

 

Colin, I think this does muddy the waters!

 

You mean build a workshop where it’s on the skyline to replace one buried in the cutting at WB? I can see the planners loving that!

What you do illustrate though are the issues - even assuming Martinhoe Cross can be navigated - in heading north from WB.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I don’t think you can really have a plan that is piecemeal. You can have a plan that coordinates development at a number of places sequentially and in parallel. If we continue not to pull the strands together I am not sure that the rate of progress will improve.

The association was founded 44years ago. There is now 3/4 of a mile of railway. At the current rate of progress it will take until 2037 to make the railway a mile long, and the whole line would not be finished this millennium!

Now I would be fine with a conclusion that it couldn’t be done and we should focus just on the very wonderful Woody Bay, and be thankful we have that. If that were the conclusion of a thorough investigation, well so be it.

However, I think we all feel it could be more, and that we can all see it is its own worst enemy right now. Shouldn’t we at least try to create a plan that could shorten the build time down by maybe 1050 years or so?

 

perhaps movement of the tectonic plates might move Lynton and Barnstaple closer together so by the time the trust are in a position to start building the task will be much simpler.

 

Whilst I share 21B and johnofwessex's sense of frustration, I do think that there has been a lot more progress and achievement than they give credit for. The main station sites have been purchased and nearly half of the trackbed has been secured. Teams of volunteers are active at several sites and the working section of the railway is a commercial success.
The hard and patient work of hundreds of people both local, and far away, is to be congratulated.
Remember - they started literally with nothing.....most of our heritage railways started with a line that had only recently stopped working.
I visited the area 25 years ago and there was nothing of a railway bar some private houses and the odd bridge or abutment.

 

Out of interest, what is the longest section of re-instated heritage line opened in one go?

To add some qualifications - I'm talking about a section of line, either to get an HR started, or extending an existing line, that had to be substantially rebuilt, typically at least laying new track and repairing structures. And "opened in one go" - I mean the length over which full-scale operations started.

Finally, what proportion of the whole did that extension represent?

To give an example (but I wonder if there are longer sections), the Bluebell's northern extension was six miles, but opened in 4 separate chunks. So I think the longest section opened in one go was the final 2 miles, which in turn represented 2/11 (or about 18%) of the whole. The line extended in four separate 1 - 2 mile chunks, allowing capacity to be gradually built. I guess the MHR Alton extension was longer and a bigger percentage? What others?

The reason for asking is that the line is currently 1 mile, and the aspiration is 18 miles. It's inconceivable that you could open that in one go: you simply wouldn't have the locomotives, carriages or trained operational staff to manage. But even to go from a 1 mile line to, say, 4 miles to 8 miles (as has been discussed by e.g. @Tobbes ) is a tremendous step up in operational terms, with all the issues about needing greater maintenance and operational capacity. I wonder what precedent there is for lines extending to that degree?

Incidentally, I think the tipping point in operational terms becomes the point at which you can no longer run a round trip (with necessary run-rounds and pauses for loco-servicing needs such as taking water, re-coaling etc) in about an hour. When it gets longer than that, you start to need to run two trains and your direct operational costs suddenly double. Those things happen in steps, they aren't smoothly proportional to the length of line.

Tom

 

Or members of the Trust in my experience. Regular readers will recall I offered to fund the roof lamps on Coach 9 a year ago, currently starting to being built, and eventually after I mentioned the lack of response to @Dave on here I got a response 10 months later - no I was told the drawings for more accurate lamps I provided in September 2022 would be used on the next coach - Coach 1. No mention of my offer or a quote to allow me to consider it. I wrote again in mid-August. - no response. So we shall have a sixth coach with visibly inaccurate lamps. What I have just described seems to be symptomatic of the communications of the six towards the membership. Why should anyone bother to deal with these people, frankly.

 

I take nothing away from what has been achieved. I think it does not honour that Herculean effort to allow the stagnation of the last few years to stand unchallenged.

 

I think you will find the WHR holds that record for the longest extension open in one go which was opened in 4 phases the longest I think was Portmadoc to Beddgelert. It is worth reading the following:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_Highland_Railway_restoration

 

I only know about the WSR
Minehead to Blue Anchor March 1976, 3.5 Miles
Blue Anchor to Williton, August 1976, 6 miles
Williton to Stogumber, June 1978, 4 miles
Stogumber to Bishops Lydeard, June 1979, 6.5 miles

So the last portion to BL, 6.5 miles.

Ian

 

I guess the first two are interesting: firstly to go from nothing to something; and then an extension that more or less tripled the length of the then extant line.

It's really the jump in capacity needed I'm interested in: to go from 13.5 to 20 miles (as in your final phase) is one thing, but you are already starting from a reasonably well-developed operation. Whereas if you are currently less than a mile long, even an extra mile is quite a jump.

It's all in the past now, but I wonder to what extent the Grampian conditions should have been seen as a red flag: even had the money and land been available, could the line have stepped up in one go and operated what they built - even allowing a period to build rolling stock, that wouldn't have allowed the major ramp up in operationally-trained staff needed? I can't see many precedents for it.

Tom