Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

The question that matters is one of outcomes, and changes in organisational structures may then follow. If we focus on those structural changes now, it will distract from the choices that matter.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I agree there is much to be discussed and to be worked out before we can move forward. I think they call it consolidation

 

I fear that once again we are going around in circles.

Comments in the ENPA report asked, in effect, why the Trust was going to all this palather when it would have been much easier surely simply to go all the way to the site of the former PE station and terminate there. The Trust owns the land and it would be a rebuild of an original station on its original site without needing to mess about with altering levels etc.

I quite agree, but then - as we all know, but some in the ENPA appear to have forgotten - we tried that with the Sec 53 approach and it failed abysmally. In effect the ENPA shot down its own Local Plan to re-instate the railway because it allowed the objections of a few to over-ride the (admittedly projected) benefits to the wider area and its tourism.

Surely it is not beyond the wit of all concerned for the Trust and ENPA to agree on a method for extending from WB to the PE station site that the ENPA would be prepared to accept in spite of the well-known objections, on the basis of the 'wider good'?

 

The issue there, lest we forget, was with the change to the original approved planning application, where objectors successfully found legal advice that the proposed change was not valid under planning law, rather than on the merits of the proposed change itself.

 

We've never been told how much the s73 debacle cost - it would be surprising if the cost of this and the previous red line debacle were less than £100k. Worse, however, was the cost to the Trust's credibility from which it has struggled to recover.

The key now, though, is to pause, learn the lessons of the last decade, and plot a truly joint way forward. I look forward to hearing what how the Trust propose to do this; sadly, I can't be in Lynton for the AGM.

 

There is a lot of good information on that website, the only thing is that since that was written, I am told that more of the trackbed between Caffyns and Dean has been swallowed up by the highway agency, the alternative that was being looked at was a bridge over the A39 just North of Caffyns (on the Lynton side) with a minimum clearance of 18ft I think and then a route down the left handside of the A39 toward Dean Farm where it would then join up with the old trackbed that the trust already owns that takes it on to Barbrooke, from there it would remain at around the 235m height level all around until you reach Lydiate Lane.

As far as I know, this was the plan suggested to Lynton Town Council many years ago, and it got outline planning approval, which I guess has now expired. Also, I do know that at one time some Lynton residents wanted the railway to come further into Lynton itself, citing that Lydiate Lane would be no better than the old station site.

One suggestion was to extend the line from Lydiate Lane around the hill towards Caffyns Heanton Woods, where a spiral loop (Darjeeling style), would be built (I think the suggestion had been inspired by the FR deviation) and the line would drop down by about 50 m and then come out above Lee Abbey, it would then snake down the Valley of the Rocks and somehow end up on the opposite side of the road to end up by the cliff lift.

I don't recall it being published, but I do remember the grief the Association got from the people at Lee Abbey about the proposal, and I think the National Trust were not amused at the proposal to run down the side of the Valley of the Rocks either.

 

You are correct of course, but.....

My point is that, given that within the last 10 years the ENPA has already given permission to extend all the way from KL to Blackmoor, then surely a shorter stretch - such as from KL to PE - ought to be in line with that objective.

Looking back to the 'stumbling block' of the Grampian Conditions, at least with KL-PE the Trust would fulfill the condition of owning all the land already. The cost would be proportionally smaller, hence easier to raise the funds, and less by way of work to put out to contract. In theory it could be done in less time, reducing the perceived issues around construction traffic etc. Once up and running, it would help the ENPA and the local population to assess the likely impact of any further expansion onwards to BR and beyond.

Maybe with hindsight now, but perhaps the original Phase 2A 'grand plan' was simply too much too soon from an organisation not geared up to deal with all the issues? Proceeding in small chunks might be better after all, in which case it would have been better - rather than the CFL 'stop gap' - to have sat back, looked more carefully at Kl-PE, discussed at greater length with ENPA, and then put in a plan specifically for KL-PE. OK, so the same old objections about no terminus etc will get raised again, but if the ENPA are serious about promoting tourism etc then sometimes the answer to persistent objectors has to be "we hear you, but...".

 

My point is less the Grampian Conditions, and more the materiality of change, in an environment where process can trump outcome. I therefore draw few conclusions about how what happened in 2022-23 sets precedents for responding to this week's decision.

The question then becomes one of politics and relationships. I can see how an extension to Parracombe might get through planning, but also what the role of relationships might be.

 

It could be argued that the way the membership has been treated it should not come as a surprise with other professional relationships of the trust.

 

I'm not sure that this is right, @RailWest - if I were in Parracombe, the impact on me of a Parracombe terminus is much greater than Parracombe as a Halt on a through line. As a result, I think that a Parracombe only extension is actually fundamentally different to the KL - OSHI extension that was approved.

 

I think in some ways this decision may have done the wider L&B project a favour.

Reading this thread, we get all sorts of ideas about what the project is trying to do, from a near-facsimile recreation of the original line (in whole or part) through to flights of fancy about Darjeeling-Himalayas spiral and clambering down the Valley of the Rocks.

What the planning committee have done is to set a limit on what they are prepared to approve, and that limit is clearly at the "recreation" end of the spectrum. Now clearly a planning committee's remit extends only to the built environment, and not into such matters as what livery the carriages will have or whether the line might have seen Garretts had it not closed. But it is clear that the supportable vision is to build as far as reasonably possible something that in scale, mass and structures is close to the original line.

In many ways that is a very useful constraint, since it frames a useful question in any future strategic planning: "Is this recreating the old L&B? And if not, can we justify why we have deviated?" In that light, "we've had to find a new route through this section because the original trackbed is obliterated by a reservoir" is probably quite reasonable while staying true to the spirit of recreation. "We've built an entirely unprototypical station on fundamentally modified ground levels several metres higher than the original" isn't.

Of course there will have to be much introspection and thought from here before formulating a new strategy. But I think that what should perhaps emerge is a much more compelling vision of what the project is trying to do, and it is clear that - within the confines of the National Park at least - the further that vision is from recreation of the original, in whole or in part, the less likely it is to succeed.

Tom

 

I would add to what you said with the comment that it also has to be financially viable. Heritage has a double-edged sword. I am not against a replica L&BR as it was in say 1935, but we also need to add into the
mix what the public expects and wants in this day and age.

 

This. In spades. And twice on Sundays.

 

Yes, but from the perspective of some thorough analysis - I suspect that there are a number of hobby-horses around the L&B that are due a trip to the knackers yard

 

agree up to a point. I’m in my early 40s and do both social and commercial research with the public for a living as part of strategic and brand consultancy. My lead niche is actually public transport.

I don’t say this lightly, and professionally I wouldn’t pre-judge doing actual research, but I’m *fairly* confident that a 1935 recreation would get through the research if the research was properly neutral. Statfold SW would be more of a challenge.

I mean, I could (I’m pretty confident) skew the research such that Statfold/WHR SW would win, and also the other way that the most perfect replica of 1935 achievable would. My hunch is that reality in terms of unlocking funding and support looks more like the latter but that’s my professional instinct rather than a statement of fact.

I wonder if fundamentally we don’t have to just ‘own’ numb bottoms, short slow trains, and make a virtue of it.

 

Well, maybe but....

Quite obviously there is no way the Trust could rebuild the entire line in one go, hence the need to do it in stages, hence the original plan for 4 Phases.
If the ENPA could accept the idea of rebuilding in stages - as clearly they did when they approved Phase 2A without insisting on Phase 2B as well at the same time - then perhaps we could have a plan with more, smaller stages eg WB-KL, KL-PE, PE-BR, then northwards WB-CS and CS-LN. Yes, there will be temporary termini, but not indefinitely. Or are they going to say in due course "no, you have to do WB to LN in one hit".

 

In terms of your last sentence I think that’s going to have to be the plan anyway. Which is why it’s going to have to come last, funded by a high octane mix of proven capability, receipts from the rest of the line being open, and the general groundswell of money that follows success.

seriously, I’d want to do Lancey Brook before going north of Woody Bay

 

As an aside, and this might be misplaced euphoria, I think we’re standing at the crossroads of long awaited opportunity here. Depending on the decisions taken in the next few weeks, months and year or two, I can see myself resigning my Talyllyn direct debits and membership, and going all in on the L&B on the basis of greater need.

all eyes on the AGM, and waiting to see what happens next*

*ideally nothing/very little - so bonkers back of a fag packet plans will be a bad sign.

 

If I were an ENPA planner, I would expect that the core of my job is to balance a range of interests and proposals, and that there is rarely ever a "right" answer that is so obvious it can go through on the nod. As one of the key requirements for ENPA is protecting the Park, and my understanding is that they've repeatedly said that they don't want another terminus in the Park because of parking/community impact etc, I would hope that the L&B family would commit to building WB - OSHI and WB - Lynton as single phases. Both would have an intermediate halt (Parracombe and Caffyns), but neither Parracombe or Caffyns are likely to provide even an acceptable temporary terminus. A key point of the Grampian Conditions is to ensure that the Park is not left disfigured by a partially built line - a position that I wholly support, incidentally - and so I'm expecting that any future planning permission would see Grampian Conditions would be integral to the planning permission.

 

Of course - but there are many different models of heritage railway that, based on their ongoing existence, can be said to be financially viable. The Welsh Highland and the Tal-y-llyn are both admirable railways in their own idiom, but I'd suggest only one should be seriously looked at as a template.

Tom

 

So, is not WB-KL a 'partially built' line in that context, as effectively it goes from WB to 'nowhere in particular'? Would not WB-PE be better?

I thought that the reason for the Grampians in the case of the Phase 2A application was because the sheer size and complexity of the proposal, including as it did not just a 'new' BR station on a new alignment (admittedly just outside the ENPA) but also the construction of the BR Depot and the P&R car-park etc and the rebuilding of PE bank etc, bore the risk of one or more parts failing to be completed and so the entirety of WB-BR could not be brought into use. In terms of both scale and complexity, I would have thought that 'only' KL to PE initially would be a much safer bet.

Is the L&BR in danger of becoming like HS2 - cut back and cut back until it no longer serves its original purpose and therefore ceases to have a 'raison d'etre' ?