Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Who knows ?

I could argue that, as reinstatement of the railway is in the local plan, then ENPA should have a presumption in favour unless there are over-riding reasons not to do so. Question is, who decides what is 'over-riding'?

It should be quite clear that there are a number of local residents who are fundamentally (dare I say ideologically?) opposed to (a) a railway and (b) a railway terminus, however minimal it might be. To what extent can they keep objecting on those grounds before ENPA no longer places any weight on those objections?

Another issue can be demonstrated by the issue of the 'turntable' in the Sec 52 proposals. Sadly the Trust failed to make it clear in the proposal that this was to be used solely as a sector-plate (utilising an exhibit heritage L&BR item) and not for turning engines 180 degrees (except perhaps for occasional operational or maintenance reasons). Consequently the idea fermented at PE that the station would become a mega-attraction like Minehead, with hordes turning up for every train to watch the 'spectacle', all accompanied by lost of engine whistles etc. Once that idea got hold, it proved impossible to counter it, even though experience of my fellow volunteers at Minehead (including our GM IIRC) is that barely anyone actually travelled miles to MD just to see an engine turning - most of the 'audience' comes from visitors already at or near the station anyway.

Every time a new scheme is submitted, I fear the persistent objectors will find something about which to object. Past experience shows that many of the objections were demonstrably factually incorrect, and could easily be dismissed at first glance, but the objectors can still drag out the process as every point has to be sent to the Trust to come back with an answer (at the Trust's expense), even if it's all be worked over once before.

 

They will. But that then comes back to the question of whether the CFL proposal does or does not form part of what's in the local plan. And that's where it gets messy.

 

I feel the best thing to do right now is to walk away from any extension that comes close to Parracombe and concentrate on buying all the rest of the trackbed. You could always suggest that something like this could be run in North Devon, but just watch out for the number of apoplexy cases rising very suddenly

 

Does that mean we can go on it?
Park in the school grounds?

 

I think thats the general idea.
Makes that weekend look pretty enticing, doesn't it? Particularly for those of us facing the rather grim prospect of the L&B Trust AGM later on that evening

 

My mental health is pretty rocky at the best of times - I’m coming down Thursday/Friday and doing Newnes’ grave, Woody Bay, Chelfham viaduct, and probably the EA AGM, maybe Osbourne’s Models in Barnstaple.
Wild horses will not be dragging me near Lynton Town Hall on the Saturday, I’ll be M5 heading north.

 

They should have that presumption. The problem is, what is currently proposed is not reinstatement of the railway, it is building something quite different, particularly in ground levels and footprint. At which point, it is both more obtrusive; and can't easily be argued as being a stepping stone to further reinstatement, since so much of what is being proposed would have to be undone at a future date.

The logic of what @pmh_74 proposes is that it becomes much harder to sustain an objection on the grounds of not fitting the Local Development Framework. Now, it might be that any further extension through Parracombe is fundamentally blocked, in which case even a minimal extended siding to CFL is a white elephant - but if so, what the Trust have proposed is even more of a white elephant by virtue of being more costly.

Tom

 

Yes, parking should be at the school ( now called 'Grow Forward ') I'm not sure if times have been confirmed but proposals were Saturday grand opening 12 until 6pm and Sunday 10am until 4pm but if I hear a definite I will post it here

 

Thanks, Andy. Will the idea be for people to come and go as they please, or will everything need to be on a rigorously escorted basis?

 

Let's just hope people won't be presiding over the death-knell of L&BR restoration....

 

Hardly - I’m totally convinced we need a one-railway approach and there are too many organisations but if we were to be boxed in in the north I hardly think it would be game over for EA/YVT.

the fact it’s not joined up properly at the moment may well be part of the problem, but also in the current circumstances not necessarily a bad thing

 

I hope not, but I think there must be some very hard thinking going on at Woody Bay right now. Late last night, the major issue came to me while I was consuming some Jack Daniels (Yes, I know I shouldn't be drinking it being diabetic, but this railway drives one to drive sometimes).

The main issue here is that we have two groups trying to do their bit for the railway, and each group has a different outlook.

Most heritage railways start with what I would call the builder mentality, those who are very much hands-on and like to build stuff and get dirty. I think on the FR, they got to be known as the deviatonists. If you look at the two main groups based on the L&BR, you have EA/YVT, which to me is the construction gang and the L&BR Trust, who are more happy just running the railway at Woody Bay.

Now, as I see it, there are two different mindsets, both views are valid and in most railways, the transformation from the builder to the operator's mentality can sometimes be difficult to do, I am sure we all know people who were at a project for years doing something, until a change in how thing were being done and they left and if you asked them why did they leave the answer is something like its not the same anymore the truth often is that what attracted people to a project in the first place may have finished and there is simply nothing left for them to do or more likely nothing left that still interested them in that project. But they still have that desire to continue to build something, so they move on to a new project where they feel they can be useful.

This then leaves those who are happy to drive trains, etc, but after a while, it becomes too much and starts at a silly hour in the morning, which then goes on for a long day. Reading other forums, I see that many railways are advertising for new footplate crews, which means it has to be a young person's role, and besides, I don't think I would pass a health test to drive now, even if I wanted to.

So somehow we have to allow both groups to work their own patch, so to speak, and at the same time cooperate over the long term. Due to the amount of distrust that there is, I can't see a short-term fix happening, and in this case, I feel it is down to the trust to offer the olive branch to EA and YVT to get the discussion going. If the trust just stopped trying to build a railway and left it to EA/YVT to do, then I can see we might just get the extension everyone is asking for. But we must be prepared to cooperate and stop acting as the big I am. Nuff said.

 

I think you’re right BUT no chance. There’s actually a better chance (and I still mean pretty much none) of getting somewhere if EA offered the olive branch.

I can hear the shouts from here.

call it pragmatism, call it realpolitik, but I strongly suspect the way forward is rapprochement that flatters the appropriate egos then slowly manages them out through competence, demonstrable progress, and increasing weight of numbers.

If Machiavelli was around, I reckon he’d be telling EA that the way to victory runs through making the first move now.

like I say, I think your diagnosis is right, but the prescription is wrong.

for the sake of defusing argument, I’m not suggesting for a second that either of us has any chance of seeing either happen.

 

Unduly pessimistic I think.

 

A unified approach is the only medium and long term way forward, and if the CFL planning application is rejected next Tuesday, then it should be clear that Woody Bay will be linked up from the south at a time when it is possible to build through Parracombe in a single bound from Blackmoor Gate/OSHI. We should be honest (and realistic) and be clear that this is likely to take a decade or more.

For me, the best way to demonstrate the value of the line to the Parracombe community, to the planners and the politicians is the successful opening and operation of another section of the line. The two obvious sections are, land acquisiton permitting, Blackmoor Gate/OSHI-Bratton Fleming or Barnstable-Snapper-Chelfham. Both of these sections would be between 4 and 5 miles long, enough that it would be a hour's round trip; both would have scenic highlights (Wistlandpound; River Yeo; Chelfham Viaduct), and both have real challenges (getting around Wistlandpound Dam, Twitchen Lane; Scout Camp, River Yeo bridges). But these will need to be solved if we're to succeed, and so let's get on with it.

 

I received the AGM documents in the post today but does anyone know what has happened to the membership cards? I sent my renewal off a while ago but I still haven't received my membership card. Has anyone else received their new card yet?

Sent from my XQ-BT52 using Tapatalk

 

The renewal paperwork said they'd come out with the next magazine