Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I understand your thoughts, but there isn’t really a parallel to the Bluebell in anyway. It’s adding about 500m to the line I think. There is only one reason for the scheme. The members are desperate to have a longer running line. This is a longer running line (just). The previous scheme having collapsed there was/is an impatience to do something. This is something so that’s what they are doing. It adds almost nothing to the current operation, might not be capable of being built, obstructs any further expansion, destroys the existing historical trackbed and will cost almost £2M in the process.

I would like to see a longer railway too, but very much doubt this is the right scheme.

 

So, from your comments the planners would be doing the railway a favour by refusing the application i.e. saving them from their own folly. Or is this a "set up to fail" strategy by the company to allow them to draw a line under any expansion of the Woody Bay site and thus direct efforts elsewhere?

 

That sounds like a very expensive way to achieve an end that, if the Trustees desired it, could have been more easily obtained simply by not putting in an application at all!

Tom

 

I'm sure that this is right, @Jamessquared

 

What gets me is that for an alleged membership of 3000 members, I am surprised that not many of them have taken an interest in having an extension to the Woody Bay operation. I guess that all the time the trust is seen to be trying for an extension, everyone must be happy.

But I guess that once the plans come back with a rejection, the standard answer will be, well, we tried, but they won't let us extend. And that will be that. I do wonder if the trust is boxing itself into a corner that it simply can't get out of.

 

But it's what we voted for...

 

How would 'showing an interest' be calculated, and how do you know that 'not may' have taken an interest?
As Martyn says, the membership voted for the CFL extension plan, so how would the membership be seen to be supporting the plan (excepting their donations of course?).
The board has not appealed for any help with the extension, so how would the membership know that help was needed?

 

Not all of us Martyn But the options were heavily weighted to guide members to option 'C' and without too much information given at that point, there was of course NO option to take time out and take stock of things.
If i recall correctly J.B clearly stated that any reports and documentation already done could still be used in an application to go to CFL, all set up to guide the armchair members into what the trustees wanted to do in their opinion and not what was actually in the best interests of the Trust.
At the AGM before last J.B stated that he had a pile of paperwork 'this high' and that if the members changed their mind and wanted to go in a different direction then he would walk away.
At the last AGM J.B again gave a little pep talk but the approach was to ask firstly who was against going to CFL (3), who was unsure (only a handful) so his conclusion was that the rest of the room was in support without even asking for a show of hands. It was interesting afterwards that many said not only did they not like being put on the spot but also that they felt uncomfortable to express their feelings so publicly therefore didn't raise their hand.
The trustees have most definitely cattle prodded the members in the direction that they thought best.

 

Ever since a triangle of land was bought at CFL to build a temporary terminus on the Trustees (or certain of them) have pressed this plan forward. Maybe because of lack of progress on acquiring the missing trackbed to BM G, w

 

They did, and if the committee go with the recommendations of the officers, the trustees will collectively own the consequences of that pushing.

If they then try to turn that round and say “you supported it” to the members at large, they (or at least some of them) may find themselves at the reaction they get.

Likewise, if the permission is granted, it will bring the ability of the trust to deliver into sharp focus. As @lynbarn points out, this puts an emphasis on fundraising; it will also require practical support. That’s relatively easy for the right project; it can be harder when the project isn’t so well supported.

 

Which brings us back to the shell game that certain of the Trustees were playing in the Extension to Parracombe fund, which turned out to be so much spin....

All of this - and the reported situation at OSHI/LBBC actually underlines how accurate the 'Minority Report' was.

 

@Pete Thornhill I think that's right. I've struggled with the idea of a two site operation, and ideally you wouldn't do it. But IF the extension to Cricket Field Lane is turned down in line with the Planning Officer's recommendation next week, then there needs to be a proper analysis of what the future options really are. This needs to be inclusive - the whole of the L&B family, including the Yeo Valley Trust / Exmoor Associates, on a completely equal basis.

 

There have been quite a few threads on this subject in various places over the last few days, so I can't recall exactly who said what and where, but....

AIUI the issue about gradient at CFL arises from (a) the intention to have a platform there onto which passengers can detrain and (b) the need to have an engine attached to the train at all time to prevent a run-away (even though it might be only a few yards to the buffers). If we could do away with the 'gradient problem', then (a) the track could be replaced at the original track-bed level and (b) that would eliminate most of the issues about the visibility of the railway poking up above the cutting etc. So, how to do this? Read on.....

Let us assume that we apply to rebuild from KL to CFL at the original track-bed level. At CFL there would just be the track and a buffer-stop - nothing else. No platform, no run-round loop. So, in effect, just a long, plain simple 'siding' from a new junction' at KL to CFL. Trains to/from CFL would be either push-pull (with the engine at the Barum end) or top&tail. (Yes, I know there are issues with both, but read on..). With no platform the passengers would not be able to detrain, so no need for foot access, so the railway site could be fenced off from CFL altogether (other than an emergency gate). Trains would arrive, stop, then after a short pause set off back towards KL.

As I see it, this approach reduces to the bare minimum any perceived impact on the area beyond that which would exist anyway if the trains were passing through to PE and beyond. There would NOT be any extended period of trains standing there while passengers got on and off, took photos, engines ran-round etc etc. With 'nothing to see' and no site access from CFL (other than standing behind the buffers and the fence), then IMHO even less temptation for Joe Public to wander to take a look. Short of a brief whistle or two when the train restarts, what realistic problem would remain for local residents to object to?

To get around the problem that (a) top&tail would need two engines and two crews or (b) push-pull might mean shorter trains, the idea would be that services between KL and CFL would be restricted to Galas and occasional other 'special days'. The basic idea would be that similar to (say) the G&WSR or Swindon & Cricklade etc who, over the years, have run occasional trips to their advancing rail-heads unencumbered by the fact that such rail-heads have neither platform nor run-round. The 'normal' L&BR service would be simply WB-KL-WB as currently. On 'special days' etc the service could either (a) WB to KL, reverse out, on to CFL, then return direct to WB or (b) WB direct to CFL, return to just north of KL, reverse into KL, then back to WB. (I do not see the need to stop at KL in both directions.) The use of P-P or T*T trains would simplify the task of reversing into/out of KL.

As I see it, the 'elephant in the room' [#] here is this business about extensions which appear to be only temporary stages prior to further extensions. So what? How many other heritage railways have not expanded on that basis, why is the L&BR so problematical? After all, we all know that the rebuilding of the railway is in the Local Plans and ENPA have already given permission once before for KL to BR, so where is the problem in doing it in 'bite sized' pieces so that we do not move on to the next before we have demonstrated that the previous has been succesful ? It seems farcical to me that we have to pretend that "we only want to go to CFL, honest" when surely everyone can see/knows that we would want to go to PE if we could and even further to BR if we could do that later etc etc? [#] After all, is not the answer to "how do you eat an elephant" simply "one bite at a time"?

If the ENPA will not allow us to build even the bare minimum of a length of track from KL to CFL, with a buffer-stop at the end, then what hope is there is being able to get permission for anything more extensive/adventurous?

OK, over to you all to pick holes in the above !

 

Isn’t that exactly what I was suggesting earlier? Maintain original levels, no run round, no platform, no alighting, operate on high days and holidays only …

Tom

 

I refer the honourable gentleman to my opening sentence

 

Although the question would remain-why extend to CFL if it will cost £££ and can only be used on special occasions?
I’m sure money could be better spent.

Perhaps it is time to look at transferring Chelfham and any other “southern” land to the YVT and encourage then to rebuild the southern section. Meanwhile the YVT transfers any northern land, the L&BRT actively starts buying additional northern trackbed, and opens the already approved section from Wistlandpound to Blackmoor.

 

>>>>Although the question would remain-why extend to CFL if it will cost £££ and can only be used on special occasions?

A very good question and I'm sure you are right when you say "I’m sure money could be better spent". However, one could argue that - with the new bridge at KL and the line to CFL in place - then it might be easier and cheaper to move on to PE itself if ever the chance arises.

I do agree that Chelfham should be transferred to EA/YVT. It is clearly part of the 'southern section', so why should it not 'belong' to them? Also, with both CN and BF then in the ownership of EA/YVT, and with the continuing absence of any formal L&BR (heritage) strategy, we could ensure that the two stations would be recreated in similar mode.

 

@Jamessquared - my understanding was that unless passengers could detrain, then this is no longer even a notional public transport solution, and therefore it attracts VAT as a fairground ride. Is this what happened on Bluebell on the northern extension for that element beyond north of the last open station?

As I understand it, in the L&B case, this would be complicated by the fact that the planning permission for Killington Lane is temporary and that once the railway extends south that KL needs to be removed and remediated. If that's the case, then short of getting additional planning permission to keep KL open, then this extension would be Woody Bay - bufferstop in a deep cutting, and it would attract VAT as it would not be even a notional public transport ticket, costing 20% VAT to have more operating costs.

If so, I can see why they want a platform at Cricket Field Lane, irrespective of the problems.....