Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I have to say that having a Museum at least about your 'own' railway, if not any others in the same area, seems to me to be a natural adjunct to the actual operational heritage line. This would be especially true in cases such as the L&BR that has such a unique history and, as Colin has said at 3 above, is part of the Trust's objectives anyway.

Having said that, I have seen both very good and very bad such museums. At the good extreme, you can go in there and learn pretty much everything basic that you need to know about that railway. On the other extreme are those whose view of a Museum seems to be just a dusty room full of rusty relics with fading labels of little relevance other than being something left over from an old railway somewhere. Somewhere in between are those who motto seems to be "pile it high and do it on the cheap".

Important also IMHO are Museums with (volunteer) staff who are well informed about its contents. My pet hate is going somewhere, seeing an item, asking about its origin and/or purpose and getting merely a brief 'dunno' and shrug of the shoulders. Hardly inviting, is it, let alone 'educating the public'.
Much is made these days about getting formal accreditation. OK, so that has its advantages in the long term, but frankly when I go to a railway museum I've got no interest in whether it is accredited or not - my interest is in (a) what it has in it collection and (b) what I can learn about those items while I'm there.

And for the avoidance of any doubt, I write as someone who has at times been variously an Assistant Museum Curator and a Joint Museum Curator of a railway-specific museum not all that far away from North Devon And yes, I've presided over some bad bits as well as good bits, but learnt along the way....

 

Fundraisers are EXPENSIVE and don't (tend to) work on a commission basis. We're best to use our own resources as the COF project showed.

Sorry, Colin, but £10m a mile is nonsense. Chris Duffell estimates the cost at £500,000 a mile plus major structures. So Skew Bridge to Snapper, would be £3.2 - 4.2m, comprising:

- Skew Bridge £1.5m (Bridge 19)
- two river bridges @ £500k (£1m) (Bridge 16, Bridge 17). Bridges 20 and 21 seem ok - but if not, add £1m to the cost
- 1.9km of railway (bit over a mile) at £700,000

The costs are the land, and the structures. North from Chelfham to Bratton, Bridge 24 will be £1-1.5m as it involves the main road, probably another £1m for Lancey Brook and Mill Lane and Bratton Mill Lane should each be in the £500k range. So that's £3.5m for bridges and 3.25 miles of track at £500k a mile is £1.8m. So even Chelfham to Bratton is £6m, plus the land and remediation at Chumhill. All in, that's roughly £10-12m for Snapper - Bratton Flemming, which is a bit over 5 miles, and has lots of expensive bridges.

There will be a museum already planned for the EA good shed at BF. We don't need a museum to run, however.

Sorry, Colin, but no. No, we don't need Statfold. Yes, there should be a discussion of relevant steam power, and I'd not be averse to NG15 2-8-2s if we're talking about 8-10 coach trains, with the heritage operation firmly in the hands of the MWs and 762. But we're miles from there - let's walk before we try and run. But even if the long term will be carriages that look like the WHR with NG15s, a key selling point of the L&B is precisely that it is about what was there. So for me, you repeatedly raising Statfold and Collection X is quite unhelpful and I suspect it just annoys people.

 

If you want an example of what you could become, look at the Isle of Wight. Five miles long, all the wagons and carriages and several of the most significant locos being directly connected to the line in pre-preservation days; an interesting museum of both area-specific rolling stock and small items; and stations sensitively restored in line with historic photos of how the line once appeared.

Things it doesn't have: giant continental locos hauling oversized inappropriate rolling stock; an adjacent heritage centre bearing no connection to the line; a professional fund raiser.

Tom

 

If the cost is £200M then I think we can forget it right now.

 

What it does have - a clear vision of what it’s for, a leadership focused on delivering that, and intelligent use of momentum as projects complete.

I’m a trustee of a grant giving charity. We give small grants to projects supporting young people, and we keep the application process light. But when we review applications, we look for a project that’s well formed, will deliver more from what we give than it costs, and which will have lasting impact. If the project is just “but we’d like to do x”, we just don’t give money - because experience tells us that those projects just waste money.

There are some interesting ideas being canvassed on here. But I'm struggling to see how they support reopening the L&B. Instead, they give the feeling of “wouldn’t it be nice”, and break the focus on the core thing that L&B supporters want - reopening.

The same goes for discussion of fundraising approaches. Any, all or none of them may work. But they need to follow the project, as that’s what will motivate those with large sums to give. That is where EA have been so successful in recent years - there’s a vision to buy into, including a contingency if reopening doesn’t happen.

Of course there will then be choices, and of course there will be disagreements over those choices. People I respect have spoken in favour of CFL; while I don’t see it, they aren’t just people who go “we need to do something, this is something, so we’re doing it”. But those conversations have to be centred on the core ambition.

 

The reality , I think, is that it is no longer possible to do another "Collection X" or "Statfold" - it would be almost impossible to amass another collection to rival those ones - so it will be unlikely that a museum collection of similar standing is probably a daydream, what is left will largely be the leftovers from these, another acquisitive enthusiasts.. If 134 proves its worth on the WHR it might even be difficult to get hold of another NG15!

 

And even if, given a billionaire's chequebook, a redux of Collection X or Statfold isn't what the L&B is about, anyway.

What is a useful thing to think about is what role will "heritage" services - ie, the current coaches and the new MWs or 762 - play in a significantly longer railway? They will certainly have a role, but does anyone seriously think that a hour or more without a loo in late-Victorian third class is where the family day trip market is? Much to learn from Ffesterbahn and, in particular, the WHR. Anyone fancy photoshopping an NG15 with a tender cab into Maunsell SR Olive livery?

 

Absolutely! I'm sure that FR no.14 will be a significant example of how that plays out. It's unavoidable, and 'tis devoutly to be wished, at least for realists. (And I'm speaking as the hopeless romantic who would wait for the bladder- busting slatted benches of 3rd class for the real experience).
Just hope that I live long enough to be able to make the choice!

 

I would like to add a caveat that the overall cost will include the amount of money/time/effort put in by Volunteers, I do wonder if any other railway has ever carried out such an audit to find out just how much volunteers would be worth to them if they had to pay them on say the minimum wage?

 

To be successful I think any scheme which will result in a significantly longer railway will need to:

- be enthusiastically welcomed by local people
- offer a range of interesting and exciting outcomes beyond just building the line in order to attract support from the widest possible range of public and private bodies. (Things like education, work experience, conservation, technology development)
- offer a credible plan that delivers benefits from the start and progresses in reasonable timeframe towards the vision
- have a clear vision of what a visitor attraction that is sustainable in financial and other ways by being compelling and appealing to a wide audience looks like

Or in other words to answer the question “why should I support this?” With a great answer for local people, potential volunteers and employees, donors, enthusiasts, grant bodies, local and national government.

 

Just a note on toilets onboard trains.

Ffestiniog do have toilets on certain trains with service cars, notably The Woodland Wanderer does not, and they advise that toilets are available at the layover at Tan-y-Bwlch. Other services where corridor carriages are used do have toilets but they say, "Our ‘Mountain Spirit’, ‘The Quarryman’ ‘Gelert Explorer’, ‘The Aberglaslyn’, ‘Snowdonia Star and ‘The Harbourmaster’ services have small on-board toilet facilities, however we recommend you use the station toilets wherever possible".

The Isle of Wight railway has no toilets onboard due to the carriage ages, layouts and compartments. Toilets are available at the stations.

Blaenavon's journey of approximately an hour again has no toilets onboard, but there is a 15 minute turnaround where toilets can be used.

The Isle of Man Railway is 15½ miles long and has no on board toilets, stating similar to the Isle of Wight in that the carriages are heritage and compartmented, but facilities are available at the stations and stops.

The Manx Electric Railway has no toilets onboard and none at some of the stops too. 1hr 15mins.

To create a rake which has a usable toilet would mean corridor carriages similar to the Ffestiniog. This would in many ways mean a certain number of carriages being built at the same time to enable passengers to use the toilet in that train. A very expensive project.

For the provision of some comfort in the heritage carriages due to the third class seats, it could be that cushions are provided on a per passenger basis and for say a £1 supplement.

I think overall we have to be careful in comparing our railway, with it's very defined history between the 1880's and the 1930's, and something like Ffestiniog which has has evolved over time. I always look more to the Manx Railways, Isle of Wight, The Lynton & Lynmouth Cliff Railway for where our railway sits in the order of heritage railways.

Maybe in the future something could be done for increased passenger comforts but I feel it would be important to keep the look and feel of our carriages and not to copy from elsewhere, this would in my view just dilute what the L&B is all about.

 

Perhaps before we build a longer railway we should decide what livery the interior of the toilet cubicles should be?

If we want a longer line we have to focus on what matters in the right order and proportion.

 

Is that what the TR mean by 'brown' vehicles?

 

As i see it at present, if this current planning actually does get rejected then Woody Bay will essentially end up as a 0.9 mile living history open air museum of the L&BR, it has enough rolling stock for its space, any more will end up in the way.
Any other part of the railway that then is possible to develop in to operational sections and that includes the southern end (because there are places to park regardless of what some so called experts think) can be a progression of how the line would have developed if it had not closed, personally i wouldn't want to see modern looking rolling stock, more 50-60s railcar type design but with essential facilities on board, the use of modern materials and a reduction on maintenance is essential. We only have to look at carriage 7 for that and its refurb cost£££ ( it might only be a model but County Gate offers inspiration of what could be achieved) Not only do we need to think outside the box more but we need to be more open minded about the whole way forward because the present leadership of the trust has over the last 10-15 years stagnated this project to the point of there being a very limited way forward at its current operational base

 

I sort of mostly agree in terms of the thrust, but again for me it goes right to the heart of ‘what we’re trying to do’ and the fact that there isn’t a common hymn sheet.

so essentially it’s a bit of a non sequitur that having another go somewhere else on the line means having more modern stock and railcars, it probably just means that the people that have long wanted to do that see an opportunity to push that solution.

Equally there’s no reason why the people wanting to ‘recreate what was there before’ wouldn’t be jumping up and down trying to insist on doing that. And so the ‘heated debate’ will continue.

the biggest problem is the stagnation that you point to, but for the potentially counterintuitive reason that no narrative has yet ‘won’ - to an extent there are as many ways forward as there are members, because there continues to be such limited forward movement.

essentially it’s ’paint your own future’

 

It's not that some people want to see railcars ect so see an excuse to do so, it's a necessity in this day and age to be 'environmentally friendly ', there's already issues with coal and it's price, I would prefer steam but you have to get up and running,in all reality and supporters have to face this one fact, those at the top of the L&BR tree have dithered over the last 15+ years that this railways growth has possibly got to the point that it has missed the golden opportunity of the heritage movement,as I said previously we have to think outside the box to eventually get what we all want

 

I agree, but those are the choices that will have to be considered properly. But as factors within a project, not primary topics.

 

As others have said, the whole project needs a business plan; without it, we will only flounder all over the place and look silly. The key to raising the sort of money we need starts with the Business plan and then getting all the members on board with that direction of travel.

As that nice man from the HRA said in his video:-

We need to stop thinking about the colour we want to paint the locos and think about the project as a whole, and how it needs to be managed

 

Having 'grown up' with the WSR from its earliest days, I've been accustomed to a heritage line with both steam-hauled coaching stock and also DMUs. There is no doubt that in its early days the use of DMUs enabled services to be maintained fair more easily and cheaply than with the steam traction, especially during the winter 'low season'. [Indeed, IIRC it was claimed at one time that it was cheaper for the travelling signalman to be driven from Minehead to Blue Anchor in the DMU than it was to use the company van or a taxi!] Also it is undeniable IMHO that you got a far better view of the line and its surroundings from the front of a DMU (but NOT those with the higher seats :-( ) than from within compartment or open stock. Indeed, I have often done the 'round trip' on the line in a DMU in preference to steam stock specifically for that reason.
If the choice came down to either (a) a line in the southern half of the L&BR running electric railcars or (b) no more line at all other than the current WB-KL, I know which I would prefer......