Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

That is not the point, Tom. What would you say if I said that to the Bluebell Railway, that they shouldn't be running SECR, LSWR or even GWR stock because it isn't LBSCR Railway stock? At the moment, we have too much rolling stock to be honest and nowhere to store it all.

We still have people who want the railway to take on the NRM Coach. My point is that something like the NRM coach needs to stay where it is, as it is in a better storage facility than the current L&BR has, but, and like Dave has pointed out, we have rebuilt six coaches which do have a link to the Railway and have grandfather rights. New stock is a different kettle of fish as far as I am concerned, and I am not talking about that;

What I am talking about is like's of the Bluebell running a rake of metropolitan stock? But it is clear to everyone that they are not LB&SCR stock. So, how does that work from your point of view?

I am not suggesting for one moment that we go and get them now (unless they are in danger of being scrapped). But compared to the requirements of building new stock, I feel they would be a better fit for the overall experience if you like. I see all of this as a modern-day version of the Tallallyn finding Corris or Glyn Valley stock. And that is why I don't see any difference in acquiring heritage stock that would fit in with the overall collection policy. I once again ask people to read the M&A on this point.

 

The local plan contains reasonable guidance on how the policy of reinstatement should be implemented. To my reading (and I'm certainly no expert) the starting principal is the reinstatement of a heritage asset, and so wherever possible that must use the original alignment, re-use existing buildings, etc. The local plan absolutely does permit the addition of new infrastructure - but only if it is essential to the wider reinstatement of the railway, and when there is no alternative solution that aligns more closely with the original infrastructure.
In the case of the CFL proposal, the addition of the new halt (and attendant works) is clearly not a reinstatement of the original line. The question then becomes whether the proposal is essential to the wider reinstatement of the line, and whether an alternative solution exists that adheres more closely to the original.
In my view the CFL proposal appears to have failed on these grounds. One reason for this is because, as you point out, an extension to the original station at Parracombe would be far more likely to satisfy the requirements of the local plan. It would also of course be opposed ferociously by the railways opponents!

I think the clear lesson from the CFL refusal is that if future schemes deviate from rigorous compliance with the local plan guidance (even if it's for the very best of reasons, as I suspect it was in this case) they are likely to fall at the first hurdle.

 

To repeat myself, THE essential element of any future scheme is measurable and verifiable benefits to a wide section of stakeholders.

Some deviation from historic is completely inevitable. The line itself will be on a new alignment in places.

Frankly talk of what rolling stock to use is largely a waste of time for the moment. The question is what tangible benefits can a reinstatement of a railway bring. Then what is needed to deliver those benefits.

It is fairly clear I think that being able to show what the railway was like 100 years ago is very likely to A significant component of the scheme, but it is unlikely to be the whole part. Providing STEM educational opportunities, partnerships for local businesses, work experience and apprenticeship schemes are going to be important. Low or zero carbon access to the Yeo Valley, the creation of wildlife corridors, and there are others too.

Now, when we think about the benefits that could be delivered, and validate them and quantify them, we start to be able to engage local people with a positive message, and we provide reasons for donors and enthusiasts of all types to get in involved.

If you live in the Yeo Valley any reinstatement HAS to deliver a range of benefits to the community. Just playing trains is a label best avoided.

I think that a railway is achievable, and the right scheme will win many friends.

 

Regarding future/new rolling stock, needs to comply with:-

https://www.orr.gov.uk/guidance-compliance/rail/health-safety/laws/interoperability

 

https://www.orr.gov.uk/guidance-com...rogs/exclusions-mainline-railway-requirements

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/rogs-exclusions-approved list.pdf

 

At the risk of appearing pedantic (who, me?) the Sec 73 was not 'refused', it was withdrawn by the Trust to avoid the risk of rejection on the basis of legal opinion that the proposal was outwith the scope of Sec 73.

 

Well, that of course depends upon what you mean by 'the railway'. After all, if you look carefully at the line then all around you will see items manufactured by the Southern Railway in their own concrete works. Also the various rail-built signals which they made up, albeit perhaps from 2nd-hand rail. Even the GF installed at BF in the 1930s may well have been put together from spare parts rather than ordered new - if only we could read the maker's name on the end-plates :-(

 

It should be remembered (and this was clear both from the Officer’s report, and the Members’ discussion) the ENPA based their decision almost entirely on the planning criteria in the Exmoor Local Plan. Not on anything else objectors may have said.

The plan says absolutely nothing about rolling stock therefore, whilst not leaving it unplanned, this should not be the focus of the future development plans.

ENPA’s planning criteria are what any future application to them really needs to focus on. And to look at them and respect them as a whole, not trying to drive a coach & iron-horses through any perceived loopholes which is what the Trust tried to do with the CFL ‘temporary’ station. Specific exceptions (e.g. deviations, new buildings etc.) will be allowed when the proposed scheme, also considered as a whole, is good enough.

I think one of the Trust’s mistakes may’ve been to worry too much about specific things the Parracombe objectors said at the time of the previous application & S73, and not enough about what the ENPA clearly said was wanted when they agreed to support L&B reinstatement in their Local Plan.

 

Sadly IMHO there will always be those for whom any railway in any form will be regarded as an impact on their amenity. As for the idea of a battery locomotive, it might go down well with the 'green lobby', but I can hear now the cries of 'not heritage' and 'toy train'.
If you are going for the idea of push-pull, then why not steam anyway? But I suspect there will be a limitation on number of coaches permitted to be propelled, maybe as little as two (forget the idea of an equivalent to the Bomo-Weymouth with a Class 33 on the back!).

 

That's exactly right. The necessary range of stakeholder interests to be addressed includes those here, but also many others. That will perforce influence what is built. Heritage will therefore be a component, but not the only one.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

I absolutely 100% agree. Spot on.

This is not to say that arguments for the wider benefits of the railway won't play a key part in due course - they absolutely will. But any proposed scheme that doesn't comply with the provisions for reinstatement in the local plan will fall at the first hurdle - and those compelling arguments won't get to be heard.

 

But a planning committee can’t dictate what type of rolling stock you run, just the infrastructure needed on which to run it.

 

It absolutely can in the same way as it can dictate what colour you might paint your doors or prohibit uPVC windows. The planning committee can easily say "we told you that we would only accept a recreation of that old railway and so because you are proposing to run modern outline stock, we refuse the application"

 

Whilst I understand that people's energy has to be released in some direction, and not remain bottled up, this current debate about rolling stock etc. has left me baffled.
I have my own ideas about how the railway "should" be recreated, but they are, frankly, irrelevant.
To use an analogy, we seem to be having a debate about how we should furnish a house which we neither own, can currently finance, have built, or indeed even have planning permission for.
It's land that we need, gentlemen. Land, finance, a strategy, and a solid business plan to go with it.
Until then, everything else is just castles in air.

 

No it can't, the trains themselves don't constitute development under Section 55 of the 1990 Planning Act. Legally, development in the context of planning law is building, engineering, mining, or other operations in, on, over, or under land, or making a material change in the use of any building or land. So just the infrastructure.

You can paint your front door or change your windows as you see fit unless your permitted development rights have been restricted. This would be the case if a building was listed, or if it was in a Conservation Area with an Article 4 direction that had been served on it, to restrict permitted development rights.

 

As I have written elsewhere, I consider the CFL proposal to have been an ingenious engineering solution to an operational problem, namely how to build a terminus to cater for a X length train on a trackbed of maximum Y width and minimum of Z gradient. However no-one appears then to have compared it against the 'business need' to produce a plan that would meet the planning requirements of the ENPA - or, if they did, then they assessed it very badly.

I always regarded the CFL proposal as dubious at best, given the apparent assumption that simply moving the terminus a short distance to the north of Churchtown bridge would somehow make all the objections go away - but had it worked, then I would not have complained Sadly, it appears that it may have made the situation even worse now. I do not believe that now is the time for any sort of knee-jerk "we must try yet again" approach, but - if that were to be the Board's reaction - then I would argue that we should try again to get to the actual PE station site. (IMHO any sort of CFL Mk2 alternative would be a complete waste of time and money.) From what I recall the Sec 72 application plans for PE did not attract much, if any, adverse comment from ENPA as regards infrastructure and heritage policies etc (but I stand to be corrected on that) and, after all, the ENPA Officer's report did ask, in effect, "why not go to PE itself as you own the land?"

As someone who had a slight involvement with the signalling and operational design aspects of at least some of the Sec 73 proposals, it should be pointed out that there were a number of variations on that plan which did not see the light of day. One which may be useful to re-address at some stage was as follows:-

• Rebuild PE as just the original single platform, with a single running line which terminates in a buffer-stop at the Blackmoor end. So far, other than the buffer-stop, no different from the heritage format (other than that perhaps there might be a larger and better platform shelter), so hopefully in compliance with ENPA policies.
• Using the small triangle of extra land at CFL, install a short dead-end siding, not longer than (say) an engine and coach. Access to this to be controlled by a local GF. Now, although this would be extra non-heritage land, it might be possible to persuade ENPA to allow this as an operational necessity (see next point).
• During the day this siding would house a 'stand by' engine. It could also double up as a potential 'cripple siding', hence the reason to allow room for both engine and coach. Both of these could be argued as operational necessities. The original proposal envisaged a diesel engine (normally shut-down between trains), but a battery engine might be more suitable these days. The stand-by engine could come Up on the first train of the day and go back on the last Down train, to avoid leaving it there outside operational periods.
  
• Services trains would be hauled to PE and come to stand in the platform with the engine at the buffer-stop. By a process of various shunt/release movements involving the stand-by engine the train engine could get back to the WB end of the coaches in the platform and the shunt-engine back into the siding out of the way. The train engine would then haul the train back to WB.

A initial analysis of the original idea identified a number of issues, such as exactly how the shunt/release could be performed safely taking into account the gradient, curvature, limited visibility and safety clearance for staff etc. A key factor was that it would involved detraining all passengers so that stock could be propelled/shunted as ECS, something which they might not all want to do and certainly not in inclement weather. It would also take quite a bit longer to do than a conventional run-round. In the end the idea was not pursued once it was decided that some form of run-round loop could be feasible after all. Maybe it would still be a non-starter even if examined in more depth, but it would avoid the need for extra infrastructure at PE itself and the siding could remain at CFL in the longer term, if so required, without the need to remove it in order to extend further towards Blackmoor.

 

I know it may well be dated, but many years ago, the Welshpool and Llanfair had to use a similar shunt method when it got trains to Sylfaen in the early 1970s. The only difference to the L&BR was that the station area was flat, so I am sure that what happened was the train would run into the station area and stop, then the shunt engine would come up on the back of the train and attach itself (I think we all had to de train at this point) the train engine was then detached and ran forward. The shunt engine would then pull the carriages back past a head shunt, which would then allow the train engine to go into.

With the train engine in the headshunt, the shunter would then push the coaches back into the station, where they would be detached and then run back past the headshunt Point. Once clear, the train engine would pull forward out of the headshunt and back onto the Train and couple up.

The shunt loco in the meantime would have pulled up behind the train engine and moved back into the headshunt to be clear of the train service so the service could get back to LLanfair, I am sure they only ran three trains aday back then.

 

I think what this has all taught us is despite what various members and others may want, the over-riding benchmark is the Local Plan and what is allowed by the authorities.

Being as that policy has now been highlighted as king, that's where we should start.

Personally I find the refusal as useful, it's cleared many grey areas up and we know absolutely where we stand and hence, how to go forward.

 

The WHR employed a similar but simpler version of this when opened to Waunfawr. The loop wasn't completed in time, so the train stopped short of the station and the train loco uncoupled and moved forward into the platform. The loco (diesel) was then released from the short stub of the incomplete loop and coupled to the train.
The train loco then reversed back over the points then forwards into stub siding. Diesel then pulled the train forward into the platform and train loco coupled at other end ready to depart. After departure the diesel then moved back into the stub ready for the next arrival. This went on for several weeks before the loop was finished. There was no need to detrain any passengers as the coaches were not propelled at any time
and the operation was quite slick. It also took place on an adverse gradient. The shunt loco was attached inside the train loco on the first arrival and on the rear of the last train.
This method could, I think, be used with a short siding at CFL and platform at PE, but would it be necessary for someone to carry the staff from the platform to the points and back again? What would authorize the shunt loco to move back into the siding after the train has gone? Within "station limits"?

 

Good to see an interesting debate about all manner of things extension, which has now extended 12 pages since the decision on Tuesday, which shows that there is, despite everything, still strong interest and support for the L&B.

On the question of what the rolling stock should be and whether this is even relevant now, I'd offer that the infrastructure needs to be able to support the proposed timetable, and the proposed timetable is a pretty central element of the overall visitor experience/proposition. On that basis, there needs to be a discussion of both *within the context* of what we want to build, and as @21B says, the deviations from 1935 that we are proposing.

And this is a really important point: the L&B was not sealed in aspic from opening day to closing day; it evolved in rolling stock (liveries, vans, wagons), added a non-Manning Wardle, saw changes to the track layout (think of the singling of Bratton Flemming), and even added new stations (Parracombe). With the greatest respect to what the carriage team have achieved, I've never seen a picture of 762 in Southern Green hauling carriages in L&B crimson and white with the embellishments of the old company - so what we have now is a (very nice) pastiche.

What I think this means is that one of - if not the - iconic image of the recreated L&B will be a Manning Wardle pulling original coaches over Chelfham viaduct. But this is not the only thing that I think we should end up with. Consider the 1935 timetable at BG/OSHI:



Looking at Weekdays/Saturdays:


So if you wanted to head to Lynton around lunchtime, you've got up to a 2h+ wait, and if you miss the 1004 from BG, then it's 3h+ for the 1320 and nearly 3 more to the 1609.

This is never going to work for the tourist trade - what proportion of holiday makers are going to turn up and wait for more than 90 mins for a train ride? The Talyllyn high season timetable shows trains leaving Tywyn every 1h 10mins from 10am, and that's for just under an hour for the 7.25 miles to Nant Gwernol. In L&B terms this would approximate as BG/OSHI to Chelfham, and Snapper a couple of miles further on - BG/OSHI to Barnstaple is going to be about 12 miles given the deviation around the dam.

How many passengers do we want to aim for? For an extended line, are we aiming for 100,000? 150,000? If we are, how many trains of what length do we need to provide that level of capacity? How frequently do we want the ability to run trains from e.g., BG/OSHI? Hourly in each direction (ie, a train departs BG/OSHI every 30 mins)? One train an hour (ie, one in each direction every hour, or a two hourly frequency from the terminii)? I don't have firm views on these questions, but getting this sorted out at the design stage then tells us what the infrastructure needs are (and where, crucially) and some idea of the amount of rolling stock.

If we needed say three trains of five coaches, what would these look like? 15 operational coaches probably means 17 or 18 to provide maintenance spares. Do they all need to be to the original design? Is there value in having a differentiated offering for those who want an 1898 experience, and those who fancy something more comfortable? If we want to regularly run trains longer than 5 coaches, does this mean different motive power?

This is what a real options analysis would look at - and this is not something that gets rustled up in 10 days after a planning rejection.