Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Well I’m glad you have a few £ million to address all those conditions in the next few months.

Don’t suppose you can lend me a tenner could you?

Given your job is to vet posts on other sites a shut down any questions, I’m not surprised you seem to minimise and trivialise the gravity of the situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

A couple of years ago, on a visit to Woody Bay, I brought up the subject of sheeting over the carriages during the close season, and the train crew told me it had been discontinued, if remember rightly, due to ambient effects, condensation, trapped moisture, etc having a detrimental effect. I may be slightly wrong in the details, but it sounded feasible, and we all agreed that it was a great shame they had to sit out at all, but what else could be done for the time being?
Are you saying that under the circumstances, the heritage carriage project just should not have been started at all?
Conrod, something you need to remember is that the membership who frequent this forum are mostly scattered to the four winds, with little or no personal knowledge of the protagonists, and character assassinations are not only deeply undifying, but provide no end of fuel for those opposed to the project.
I agree, the elections here have been poorly handled and the system needs overhaul.
But bad-mouthing individuals has no place here in public. Keep it for the messroom, or private messaging.
From all of this, ive come away with a gut feeling, rather than an informed opinion, and I've no idea at all if it is correct. But all we've got are personal opinions and heresay, of which yours is by far the most strident. I just wish I lived nearer to Devon, because this stuff is really messing with my head.

 

Thanks @Old Kent Biker:

Well I’m glad you have a few £ million to address all those conditions in the next few months.

Don’t suppose you can lend me a tenner could you?

Given your job is to vet posts on other sites and shut down any questions or negative feedback m, I’m not surprised you seem to minimise and trivialise the gravity of the situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I understood that the recent rebuilding of 2 bridges had secured the planning permission?

 

There are a lot of planning conditions but having skim read them, most of the environmental ones are pretty standard. It’s a little unusual to require a delivery and funding plan before carrying out certain works but that’s probably to avoid the works grinding to a halt if the funding runs out…

Hopefully somebody is working on a prioritised plan to discharge the conditions. Some, for example, are dependent on the ecology calendar or on having a Principal Contractor on board. It’s still a big task.

Demonstrable progress needs to be made to build credibility with the planning authority and other statutory bodies (and to avoid giving ammunition to opponents). I think ConRod is concerned about the abilities of some of the current folks involved and the apparent lack of pace before planning consent lapses.

 

That will just apply to the section south of Blackmoor, handled by North Devon Council. The ENPA section from there to Killington Lane I believe very recently had its "clock" reset, when the Red Line boundary changes were approved, in which case Con Rod's alarm is misplaced.

 

Thanks for the explanation Mark

 

Just send me your bank details, and I'll send it right over

No, I have assumed a role moderating ad hominim attacks on members of my groups. I don't think I've ever stopped any questions being asked or answered in appropriate fora. I hold no official Trust (or CIC) position. Nor do I intend minimising or trivialising anything to do with the L&B. I just try to offer solutions rather than problems, and see the positive contributions that anyone and everyone can proffer.

 

That is my understanding as well. I am unclear why it was considered necessary to post all the planning conditions - I think that most of us who are following developments with the L and B are well aware of the situation with the various planning consents.
It seems to me that there are some on this forum who are not happy with the arrangements with the forthcoming trustee elections. This seems to be based [in part] on an overheard conversation. We will have to wait and see the outcome.

 

mmm as far as i understood it the red line boundry issue was just to correct a mistake that wasn't noticed earlier on,and a very expensive one at that so ive heard,asked the question 'how much' and was told it was buried in other costs! i understand the planning still expires on its original date but in the words of one of the trustee's at the AGM who gave a talk they are seeking higher counsel to try and get the grampian rights lifted,this,imho,could open a lot of questions about how things have been done with the planning,quite a few months ago i posted on here about how they could have gone back to Heddon Hall which was the next planned progression may years ago (magazine 81 p33) i also mentioned why, in the present planning it wasn't split into 2 parts a) to Parracombe and b) the rest of the way to Blackmoor gate,the opposition to the railway from a certain resident has been know for many years so why try to do all of this in one section,also why were the grampian rights not questioned at the planning meeting,whilst like everybody else i want to see the railway extend i believe some sort of restrictions by enpa should be put in place for protection if the project ran out of money,leaving a blot on the landscape.
As for the carriages,i was at WB just over a week ago and i have to say they are not looking great,infact as i pulled into the carpark the first thing on view is a row of goods wagons,none looking at their best and one filled with junk,a carriage in the bay siding looking worse for wear complete with semi green algae covered roof and the carriages in service could do with a good going over ,the paint shop cannot be accessed because of the restoration of a loco so any touching up of paintwork has had to be done outside,i really feel for the paint team,they do such a great job of keeping these carriages up to scratch but its all out of their hands at the moment and at this time of year you can pretty much count on some rain every 24 hours here in north devon,the railway own rowley moor where there are sheds,a proper paint shop could have been kitted out over there with more room than at WB, transporting a carriage might cost a bit but at least they would be getting looked after,in the dry and could be stored when not in use,i believe the railway did have a carriage trailer some years ago so costs could have been kept down for transporting them but it seems that was sold

 

Just a quick "Thank You" to those on the ground in N Devon for keeping we, more distant supporters informed - obviously there are differing perspectives and understandings and it is good that this Nat Pres forum exists. Never forgetting that we all want to see a vibrant L & B both now and in the future.
However this may firmly put me in ConRod1's eyes as .......
" Let’s hear from the arm chair enthusiasts living in cloud Cuckoo land who seem to think the future is rosey, at least it might be through your rose tinted glasses!"

 

I think the Grampian Conditions will give you greater clarity in your understanding.

There is also the reason and the cost of the ‘Red line’ change to consider. Its not a child’s colouring book so why is it not being asked who ‘coloured’ in the application the first place.

That said, those that follow L&B developments will know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

>>>i also mentioned why, in the present planning it wasn't split into 2 parts a) to Parracombe .....
If one ignores for a moment the current terms of the planning consent, then in theory one could extend from KL to Parracombe on land now owned entirely by the railway. However it seems quite clear that neither the ENPA nor the local residents want to see Parracombe used as a terminus, with the possible attendant problems of a lot of footfall and also excess vehicular traffic from those who - human nature being what it is - will insist on trying to take cars to park at/near the station site. So why try to do something which is likely to upset even more local people?

A more problematic and practical issue is the fact that the trackbed immediately south of the old station site is not (yet) owned by the railway, so any station would be confined within the space between the Churchdown overbridge and the southern boundary of the trackbed. Results from surveys done so far suggest that this will simply not give you enough space to provide a run-round loop for anything more than (probably) about three coaches. Why extend the line, only to run trains with less capacity than currently? And of course, with the extended journey time, the frequency of the service would probably have to be reduced as well.

 

Both of those problems could be overcome by laying a short siding (rather than a longer loop) and employing a 'shunt and release' loco and by not allowing boarding at Parracombe. Not ideal but it has provided a short term solution elsewhere.
Ray.

 

I must say that there does seem to be a lot of hearsay in some of the posts in this forum. Obviously supporters are concerned about some of the things reported but solutions are often not easy to find. We are where we are with the planning decisions both with North Devon Council and the ENPA. Some of the planning application do seem to be taking rather longer than expected. The Local authorities cite the Pandemic as the reason and we have to accept that this is the case. Lets not forget that the proposed site for the works is in the ENPA area so modifications might need another planning application.
With regard to the Grampian conditions I understand that these were imposed by the Authority with the original ENPA planning consent and carried over into the 'red line' application. You are able to listen to a recording of the ENPA meeting where this recent application was discussed and those who spoke against the application were very vocal that the existing conditions be kept in place - their objection letters also mention this.
Further development also needs a TWAO - we must not underestimate what need to be included in this bearing in mind that there could be a Public Inquiry where every document is subject to close examination.

 

This seems to have evolved from 'there were technical mistakes with the vote, let's correct that' to 'there is a massive conspiracy and I want to air all of my dirty laundry in public', which I have to say is a bad look. It's just odd that an individual would join a public form at the time of an organisations AGM and then exclusively only post about that event - it's TheEngineer all over again

 

I wonder whether there might be a 'Donald Trump' type reaction if the vote doesn't go the way they want.

 

Do you mean turning orange and getting ridiculous bouffant hairdos?

 

True, but....either there has to be second crew who would spend most of their day idling at Parracombe, or the train engine crew would have to take extra time during the lay-over to walk to/from the 2nd engine, and would it be wise to leave an engine unattended in between trains? Also any such siding would have to be some distance north of the bridge, which leads to problems in dealing with the shunt movements over the curved stretch thru' the cutting with poor siting. And shunting trains on the gradient in that area....hmmm....