Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I think Toby's response is the start of a very good arguement to the question you posed.

There is another point to add to his response...

The L&B is one of the few narrow gauge railways that wasn't an industrial/mineral run to begin with, it was built for tourists with the destination being Lynton and by extension to Lynmouth via the Cliff Railway. That destination, Lynton, expanded hugely once the railway was built with some notable buildings such as the Town Hall being constructed.

The heritage of the L&B goes beyond just the railway, it is only a part of the heritage of the area which includes not only the railway, but also Lynton, Lynmouth, the Cliff Railway, Sir George Newnes' story, etc, back to Barnstaple and the links with the heritage of Barnstaple station and the line to Ilfracombe.

The potential is not just in the railway, but the whole area. The start of the journey in Barnstaple, a lazy narrow gauge working it's way to Lynton, them a. short walk to say the top of the Cliff Railway or St Mary's Church yard and at 500' up look out across the Bristol Channel and across to Countisbury. A world away from the hectic madness of the modern world.

 

My understanding of the economics, @ghost was that it would be preferable to run fewer, longer trains (see: WHR). All of this will come out in a proper business planning exercise, and I'd be very happy to be wrong.

 

I agree, but to me the question about demand has to do with how many bums you can get in NG carriage seats. After all, an NG carriage will not take the 64 of an MK1 TSO.

 

I guess five narrow gauge carriages would have fewer seats than five standard gauge ones though. So a given number of fares would require longer narrow gauge trains.

Even so, I agree with the general premise about trying as far as possible to stick to heritage roots.

Tom

 

As far as I understand, 762/Lyn is capable of pulling an eight carriage rake but the biggest problem would be platforms.

Woody Bay is currently about 250' and can take five carriages at 40' each plus one loco...two locos and it straddles the crossing.

For a rake of eight plus loco....that's 350' or more and I don't know hardly anywhere on the line which could accommodate a platform of that length apart from maybe Barnstaple if somewhere suitable could be found.

Personally I would say five carriages rakes are about the limit for the L&B.

 

Let’s work out the answer to the question. Then sort out what that means in terms of what the railway has to deliver, which will answer the question about what service it has to run. THEN, we can worry about how many carriages should be in each train.

 

I am not sure if this is still relevant, but an older version of the trust's objects was to rebuild all of the Lynton and Barnstaple Railway. Now I suspect that much of the misunderstanding relates to the following, which needs to be agreed upon before anything else can move forward:-

1. What is the current vision, and does it need updating? Who are we trying to reach out to?

2. What is the Mission? I am sure it was to rebuild the Lynton and Barnstaple Railway, but is that still possible? And what does that mean?

3. What are the objectives? Well, we are stuck with those from when the Trust was set up, and for good reason. They are very wide to give the trust a lot of wiggle room. Many of them are bog standard and are based on the model version held by the Charity Commission.

These are the fundamental bricks on which the whole project is based, so unless we can agree and also be clear on them, then it is going to be difficult to make any progress.

 

Tobbes, Apart from stepping back and taking a serious breather this should have been the next step from when the S73 was pulled and not to run headlong in to going to CFL just because someone had done a lot of the documentation for the S73 which covered the CFL part of the line, the decision should have been based on what would of been of most benefit to railway and considering the untold investment the Trust has in OSI then linking the Pub with the Reservoir would have made better business sense. Planning is already granted although it would have taken a S73 to alter the start of works unless of course a logical step would have been to go to ENPA to start works on Rowley as a base to head to Wistlandpound. The knee jerk reaction to go to CFL has cost £1000s which could have been spent better had a breather to take stock been taken so it will be interesting to see how the Trust now stands financially and also how well the railway did considering the downturn in tourists last year. We were told a few times at various meetings that the railway was 'bucking the trend' but it now seems that might not have been the case.
Something else that needs to be taken in to account is the maintenance of Woody Bays station building as the roof needs stripping off and completely redoing for starters, let alone any other parts that need attention

 

For this project to have a chance of progressing, whether Blackmoor to the reservoir or Killington Lane to Blackmoor, or elsewhere, but maybe some way of extending the railway, we need a change at the top, in my view, before this thing stagnates. If the papers come in time (2.5 weeks) there will be a chance at the AGM on 17th May. We just have to hope that a suitable person comes forward (from within the existing Trustees or without) to take up the reigns and drive it forward, maybe initially with acquiring the missing bits of trackbed about which we have been told nothing for years.

Ducks below parapet.

 

How’s it going with Exmoor Valley Yeo Associates Trust (or whatever they’re called)? No website updates for ages. And I wonder if they’ll reconsider their own options once the CFL planning outcome is known.

 

The information that can be disclosed without betraying confidentiality with potential trackbed purchases is published in their regular newsletter 'Trackbed Trails'. I think some of the older issues are on the website, but available instantly to subscribers/shareholders. There are also details of the current three potential purchases by YVT in the latest issue. So the answer seems to be quite successful. There is an open invitation to the meeting in 2 weeks time or so where doubtless the latest news can be heard. In the latest NG World (page 9) there is the mention that 600ft of track has been laid at Bratton Fleming Station, and the pending move of the RH ex Lynton Station purchased by Exmoor Associates in 2021 to the site.

 

Trackbed negotiations are delicate and can be drawn out, in one case that I can think of, over decades. A blow by blow account of each is risky, so EA/YVT prefer to keep the cards close to their chest, and make any purchase announcements only when they are definite.

Come to one of the open meetings, and spend a weekend in the wonderful Exmoor countryside! You don't have to be a shareholder. (but might become one )

 

In some respects, notably motive power, the WHR is "a brand new tourist attraction that just happens to use the trackbed of a long disused railway". However it serves exactly the same purpose as the 1923 version; taking tourists for a ride through some scenery, with the option of stopping somewhere along the way. It is even viable (just) as public transport between Caernarfon and Porthmadog, and was used thus by at least one couple who came for Saturday's Snowdonian (having travelled by train to Bangor and by taxi from there to Caernarfon). Meanwhile the Heritage version exists alongside, with occasional runs out onto the main line.
Something very similar is one possible future for the L&B. The expense and difficulty of acquiring the trackbed and re-instating the track, signalling, etc would be the same, whether with that future or with restoration of something very similar to the original.
The WHHR is fortunate in having a loading gauge sufficient for the big African locos. Where existing L&B structures survive, would they be big enough?

 

Church Town Bridge (Bridge 61) by Parracombe Halt has a clearance to the top of the arch of 10ft 2in, and several others up to 10ft 6in. So excavations as on the rebuilding of the WHR might have to be undertaken to lower the trackbed where these bridges occur.

 

My AGM docs have just come through the door - Sat 17 May

 

Who is standing for (re)election as Trustees please?

 

Uncontested elections for both, so all re-elections

 

You might be right, or you might not. The problem with your statement is that you're assuming that the objections have swayed the planning committee into rejection; the reality is probably far more nuanced than that. Sure, some of the objectors will have made valid points - and equally some will just object on the grounds that it mildly inconveniences them (which isn't usually a factor in planning decisions, really).

Having successfully seen off two planning applications for land at the back of my house (which used to be part of the garden of my house, under previous ownership), my experience is that if you can point to ways in which the development doesn't align with the local plan, or applicable planning guidance, then you have a chance; if you can't, then the presumption swings more in favour of the developer. In our case, the owner successfully applied for a much smaller scheme (extending a tumbledown garage, instead of demolishing it and building a house) which was clearly a trojan horse for what they really wanted to do, but we got lucky after that as they then gave up and sold the land (to us and the neighbours, rather than to a developer) so we got our extended garden back.

My point in drawing this parallel is that it sounds as if the objections which have derailed CFL are around the change of levels and provision of a terminus; my suggestion gets rid of the change of levels entirely, the terminus becomes so rarely used as one that any inconvenience is limited to a few days a year (so no worse in terms of neighbour impact than organising something like a village fete or whatever), and what you are building ultimately forms part of the final scheme and thus entirely aligned with the local plan, however much one or another individual might personally not favour it. It then becomes increasingly difficult to object to.

Furthermore, it gives you a tiny footprint in the local community which gives you years in which to build good relations and show that you're a responsible neighbour and supportive of the local community. It may get you no nearer to buying the next section of trackbed, but at least if that opportunity ever did arise, you'd then be in a position to go for it safe in the knowledge that the next step would be relatively easy. In the meantime, you might even get some locals clamouring for you to run more than the suggested 4 weekends a year...

As for "why bother build it at all?" - is that a serious planning question? I could have asked the same about our now ex-landowner neighbour who wanted to extend a garage... it was quite clear what he was trying to do, but the planning officers simply looked at the scheme on its merits, not any number of what-ifs.

As far as I can see the only viable options, if CFL is refused as anticipated, are:
a) Do nothing.
b) Something like my suggestion above.
c) Apply for a T&WAO and do it anyway.
d) Go somewhere else.

And the problem with a) and d) is that they leave so many unanswered questions that people won't just want to leave it there, so the question of extending will keep coming back anyway. And c) is prohibitively expensive, could still fail and could alienate both the local planners and the neighbours to an extent that it really does become impossible.

 

Meanwhile, on a more positive note, coming soon to a viaduct near you, for one weekend only!