Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Regarding the notion of starting from the Barnstaple end, a couple of points occur. First off, for me, the truly iconic character of the L&B isn't seen until the line climbed onto Exmoor proper. Secondly is the unfortunate fact that traffic in Barnstaple can be an absolute bitch without the added attraction of a railway!

@Meatman's point about the risks involved in running long lines is well made, although there's a very long way to go before even the charmingly well presented station at Chelfham becomes "a live issue". So far as the scenery, likely to be such a strong selling point is concerned, Wistlandpound Reservoir looks set to provide both challenges and benefits in good measure. Even that lies some way south of current developments.

I'm four square behind the notion of a fully reinstated line and reacquisition of the entire formation against the day it's needed. I'm less certain I'll live to see trains at BF (even Blackmoor Gate might prove unduly optimistic!), but have no doubts concerning the viability of that section on the high moor. IMO, The Blackmoor Gate to Lynton section will dovetail very well into the local economy, to the benefit of all. Thence to Barnstaple seems to me more of a question for future generations ... tho' I'd love to be proved wrong on that score!

Apropos something or other, I can't help but think of the Ffestiniog's T-y-B to BF section, which, although seeing some services this year, evidently hasn't produced the same imperative to provide fullest services possible as PM to T-y-B. Vaguely comparable? Honestly, I don't know, but it's been nagging me since reopening, post lockdowns.

 

What’s the relevance of this comment on railway operations?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

On my periodic trips to Barnstaple, my favourite part of the drive is on the section from Narracott down to Collard Bridge. Much as I love the section on the moor, it doesn't compare (for me) with the section of A39 between Porlock Hill and Countisbury Hill, but the descent off the moor through the woods and valleys is what makes it for me, following the L&B as best I can in the car.

For now, I would just like to see the current plans mature into wood, stone and metal, and hopefully grow further from there.

 

... and then started track removal very quickly to discourage legal objections.

... not to mention all its other narrow-gauge lines - the Corris & Welshpool - which survived into BR days.

Martin

 

Wanted to use the concrete post, so it is all there together if we have to change it once a new one is made. I hope this helps.

I was referring to the concrete post, in it's current state it is laying down at Chelfham. After being cut down at base level. It was looked at to reinstate it. However the chaps at Chelfham thought it would look better with a wooden post.

If for some reason the concrete post was to be recast or repaired, the works already done ie cabling, casting of pulley bases would be there and not have to be redone.

 

I assumed it meant something like that.

But, of course, if you change to having a concrete post then for historical accuracy you would need to change the arm and fittings as well, which then puts you into the post-1927 period when Chelfham only had 1 of its original 4 EoD signals left. On the other hand, the original EoD Down Starting was not quite in the same place as the later one, another 'discrepancy'. This is where a 'strategic policy' would provide the necessary guidance to aid the decision-making process

 

The exact siting of a signal and what sort of post it's mounted on certainly deserve consideration, but some other matters seem considerably more serious and more urgent, notably a sudden outbreak of politics and a lack of protection for precious rolling stock.

 

Just as we were doing so well!

 

Save for @Meatman adding information surrounding the ‘red line’ C*** up, its notable nobody has been able to give any further clarity surrounding the AGM and the situation surrounding the lack of time give to members to ask the board questions. Questions of which would have to be recorded in the minutes.

Furthermore no reasons /suggestions have been put as to why there’s no disclosure of the books (financial affairs).

Without causing offence and having this post deleted. Could I simply ask if it would be fair for any on lookers to draw inferences from the silence?

In particular, the silence of those who dismiss any critical examination as some form of treachery.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

i think what the engineer is saying is that EA will be as pro-active as possible in recreating some of the ambience of BFS. Chelfham could have been restored quite a few years ago but the trust/cic only look at Woody Bay as being of importance,greatly overlooking the fact that many peoples first contact with the L&BR is actually curiosity about the viaduct and stumbling on the station,the volunteers at Chelfham have been stifled for many years.incidentally,for those of you that dont know,whether you agree with what the engineer has to say or not,he is one of the men who gave up his own time to give us all the reborn railway

 

the plan in the early 90's was to run from Hole ground on the edge of Barnstaple out to Snapper,outline planning had been granted but alas a golden opportunity was missed

 

I’d suggest that this forum is not an official place for L&B business would be the key interpretation of the silence on here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You are right of course in what you say about the relevant importance of different elements of the railway. At the same time, given that currently there is no 'precious rolling stock' at Chelfham, nor (hopefully) a 'sudden outbreak of politics' there, I would suggest such matters are of little or no relevance to the volunteers who simply want to get on with the restoration of the station and in order to do so need to make decisions (or have them made for them) about items relevant to that task.

 

OK. I guess we can all figure that yourself, conrod and engineer have all given blood, sweat, toil and maybe tears to the project over the preceeding years. However, what we, as (mostly) outsiders struggle to grasp is the dynamics of the preceeding years. I speak as one who came late to the party, so a great deal of what you three refer to, often in arcane terms, goes right over my head.
I try to keep an open mind. I am aware that the continuing silence from the board of trustees has now reached a deafening roar.
But please talk to us as new recruits. Understand that our knowledge of the personalities involved is limited, at the least. That deleted tirade from (I think) Engineer yesterday is an example of how to alienate people, and casts your cause in a poor light. Speak to us as equals, even if not from experience. Don't expect us to understand events from years back, where we were not present.
Tell us the history in a non-ranting manner (this is intended for all three, not just you, Andy).
Then we may listen. God knows, there is a big enough vacuum to fill. But us newbies need to be brought up to speed without being made to feel like idiots. Deal?

 

I'd like to add a minor observation to that - that in discussion, even where there are posters who "belong" to a "faction" participating in the thread, this is not an official communication channel of the organisation but an independent discussion forum. It is therefore especially unwise to interpret any meaning to silence.

 

I don't just mean here, and wouldn't expect it.
I just mean in any form, members page, whatever. Nothing since early September.
It's like they've ceased functioning.

 

Those with feet on the ground will recall the dismissal or outright ban of a volunteer regarding Chelfham Station and the proactive removal of the unsightly extension (after many unanswered calls for its removal). I not that in September s issues of ‘Trackside’ page 41, our chairman takes a U turn saying words to the effect of ‘what a wonderful job’. Can we assume an apology is going to be issued to the volunteers who are currently banned from Chlefham?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Brilliant, I’ll try and bring it up at the next AGM, will be time? Or is that part of the problem.

I love a non sequitur - straw man - argument. It really demonstrates… things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I don't know what you think it demonstrates, given that my only connection with the L&B is as a three time visitor and grandson of someone who travelled on it before 1935.

My observation - and I note the comment from @Mark Thompson about general silence - is that what is or isn't said on here by an organisation is an unreliable guide to the true views of that organisation.

 

So why is there no Independent discussion? Simple questions only need a simple answer if one can be given.

Please try and lighten up people it’s only an observation intended to evoke discussion.

I didn’t know Woodybay was part of Russia


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk