Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I understand that but, leaving aside the 2 planning issues, there remain practical problems - namely gradient and width of trackbed - that would need to be overcome at CFL if the intention is to avoid the embankment in a new plan. If there is a solution like that, then one would have to ask why it was not proposed in the first place.

 

As far as I can see, the recent application to North Devon DC, which has been approved, allows for construction of the railway South from Blackmoor Gate without needing to construct the bridge under the A399 first.

https://planning.northdevon.gov.uk/Planning/Display/79416

I'd be very wary of establishing two railways in close proximity.

 

Yes, of course, it will all have to be put to the proof. I can only record my subjective impressions and I felt that maybe (a) some messages were being taken on board & (b) the newer trustees were beginning to influence things. As I said earlier, there was a change of tone.

 

I agree it is time to leave Parracombe for now, at least. It is like scratching a spot and making it bleed. We need to put a plaster over it for now so it can get better by itself.

 

I'm not sure why this is regarded as unwise if the intention is to have a (largely) rebuilt L&B then completing it section by section and linking up, as and when, possible would be a good way forward. There are several lines in N Wales close together as well.

 

The challenge, made worse by politics, is ensuring that they complement rather than compete with each other. If I go to Porthmadog, I can visit two different WHR operations. It is impossible to confuse the two, and they have evolved (I believe not entirely without trauma) as complementary operations. In the standard gauge world, the two GC operations either side of the "gap" have not always dovetailed well with each other.

It will be more difficult to achieve that if you have two short railways, one in the National Park and one in the (IMHO more attractive) Yeo Valley section. Both will be on the old L&B, both will offer high grade scenery.

I can see - and am increasingly seeing as inevitable - that two L&B lines may be necessary given the impasse at Parracombe; my concern remains that one does not undermine the other.

 

Of course, we already have a model in place which works, and that is the Great Central Railway, ie, Loughborough to Leicester North and Loughborough to Ruddington, they are currently separated by 500 meters of trackbed, and they know it is going to cost millions to rebuild, I think this would be a good project to model the rebuilding of the Lynton and Barnstaple on.

You could have two railways:- one set up as in the independent days and the other set up as a Southern Railway style operation

 

35B and Lynbarn refer to the GCR and I think they make good points - but slowly and steadily (despite the odd politics and "spats") the GCR is growing - to reach its founder's (MLPG) dream of a heritage Main Line between Nottingham and Leicester.
I think the L & B will do the same and two (or more) sections will complement rather than undermine each other. More volunteers will become involved and more people will visit the attractions in the area. Having a working railway through the beauty of the National Park will allow many more people to appreciate it, without the destruction associated with heavier road traffic.

 

Indeed. A museum with demo line at WB, a highly scenic train ride opening up circular & cycling routes in the South. They may eventually be connected.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

Giles repeated the word 'evidence' twice, but did not provide any. He heavily criticised speculation on social media, but it has to be said that a lot of this is because of the lack of proper communication by the Trustees with the membership over the last several years, leaving a vacuum which inevitably gets filled by speculation. If the Trustees have been bothered about inaccurate speculation it has been in their hands to do something about it. As an example, when did the membership last hear about progress with acquiring the missing land between Killington Lane and Blackmoor, essential to rebuild the line between these two places ? It was many moons ago. Such a contrast with the EA/YVT 'open' meeting earlier in the day. We have to hope that the new blood on the Trustees will produce a change of attitude.

 

Perhaps if the L&BRT deigned to enter the 21st Century & livestream the meeting those who could not attend in person might be able to participate. Likewise with voting. Both this & last year overseas members were disenfranchised. It's really not a good look.


Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

Unusually, I find myself agreeing with you.
I think a lot of us get quite cross when you appear to defend the actions, or inactions, of a railway government with this quibble about the charitable objectives being primarily about public education. But that is the small print that is so important.
Clearly, most railway societies claim publicly that their intention is to rebuild a railway, and solicit funds on that basis. And the supporters want to believe that the railway will be rebuilt, and the existing society is the means to achieve it.
Personally, I am not in the least bit interested in educating the public, except as an accidental side benefit of running steam trains. Just as I don't believe most of the railway ignorant public are very interested in being educated. The 'educational museums' at railway sites- the shed full of old mileposts and gradient signs- are of little interest and seem a waste of resources. You've seen one GWR signal finial, is there much to be learned from seeing another, identical finial somewhere else.
My significant takeaway from your comments- before becoming a member of any railway trust, take a good look at the charitable objectives and be sure they match the purported mission objectives before wasting any money, time or emotional energy.

 

My bug-bear in such cases are Museums which (a) do not tell you what a GWR finial was for, (b) don't explain the difference between yellow and red ones, and (c) neither explain nor illustrate (simply by pix if necessary) the difference types that were used over the years. As for those with wheels in.....

 

I understand Giles had a set of Powerpoint slides. Are these posted anywhere for those of us who couldn't be in Lynton (I was at a funeral).

 

Dusting off my PhD in the Bleeding Obvious

What trackbed is currently owned by the L&B Family

What trackbed does the L&B Family think it could acquire in the next year or so

Based on that what are the options for reinstating other sections of the line - allowing for access, planning etc.

 

There was an issue here as well as overseas,it would seem voting papers did not reach all of the members in time, some members at the meeting were without too

 

There was an issue here aa well as overseas,it would seem voting papers did not reach all of the members in time, some members at the meeting were without too

 

A question please for those on here who may have a better knowledge of the required details.....

Assume that you laid in a siding adjacent to a straight(ish) section of running line and this siding was in the form of a loop connected into the running line at each end. The point at the north end is facing to Up trains and the point at the south end is facing to Down trains. A trap point is provided at each end of the siding.

Assuming that the minimum required capacity of the siding would be two engines of a LYN or LYD length in clear of the trap points and not fouling the running line at either end, then what would be the minimum distance between the toe ends of the two facing points please?

I realise that the answer may be affected by the crossing angles of the two facing points, which I have not specified, but they would need to be only the bare minimum to enable the engines to enter/exit the siding safely.

Hopefully someone can help - thanks !

 

What you miss is that public education can be achieved in a number of ways - one of which is by running trains on the line. We then get into the challenging question of how to address the gap between what is formally stated, in quite broad terms, and what is the actual intent of the organisation.

At the L&BRT this member is entirely content that the charitable objectives encompass extending the railway and running that longer railway. My concerns are about the capacity of the L&BRT to deliver that objective, based on the last few years' planning history. To their credit, the Trust Board do not seek to use public education as an excuse for non-delivery, and I believe them in being committed to extension of the railway.

Any discussion regarding the relationship of L&BRT to the Charity Commission in this respect is a red herring - as far as I'm aware any scrutiny that they've incurred from the Commission has been in connection with internal governance matters, due to reports raised to the commission.

 

Well. EA/YVT have this down as part of the website here:- https://www.exmoor-associates.co.uk/ownership/

It is very clear as to who owns what on the southern section of the Railway. Sadly, the Trust does not appear to have the confidence to have a similar map to show you what it owns