Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Sadly, not much hope of that in the case of those who want only (a) no railway at all and/or (b) no terminus, just a through line with the briefest of stops by any passing train :-(

More likely really, noting the comments in Newsletter 78, a pragmatic view that the closer the proposal is to the original, the less scope given for (dare I say spurious?) legal challenges. Sadly what we may now be faced with is a situation where no run-round facility will exist at PE, so the operational options will be either (a) push-pull working (no suitable stock), (b) top-and-tail working (two engines, two crews), (c) a stand-by engine kept at PE (two engines, maybe a joint crew) or (d) gravity shunting of ECS (hmm...).

 

Well, quite. Which is why "Iterate. Then iterate again" is so crucial. Many organisations tend to think of a new website as a project (i.e. "identify the need. Build it. Move on") whereas really it is a product (i.e. something that requires constant attention).

We could go into a lot more depth, but this isn't probably the place.

Tom

 

Iteration is vital, but one would hope that even the first iteration would have eliminated "Barnstable" from the Lynton and Barnstaple site...

 

Why does "We do not operate trains to either Lynton or Barnstaple. The rail service to these two destinations is currently suspended pending further reconstruction of the railway..." remind me of the Manchester & Milford Railway ?

 

Nobody in all honesty likes change, but we all go along with it, hoping that it is better than what we had before, I said it before and I will say it again, I never had a problem with the old website, period. To me it was what we needed, the new version I am not so sure about, for me it is like going from windows Xp to Win10 in one go so I have not yet figured it all out, what I can say is that all the videos and photos are the same ones that where on the old site so if you didn't see them before what site was you looking at? So there is at present no new videos and photos yet.

I can agree to the fact that there will be teething problems with this, you get them in most things when they are new and when people don't quite know how to operate the machinery. I am also not a web designer and I have never been one nor do I want to be one either. But I hope we can all agree that half the battle with a good web design is that if it makes you want to go back to it time and time again half the batter is won and for me at present the new site does not have that appeal.

Good websites are also a key battle ground area for fundraising and again it is early days I grant you, but I can think of at least four railway projects that we need money for now and there is nothing about them on the new site them:-

Blackmoor PLC. It is still not clear as to the state of the planning application at Blackmoor with NDDC

Trackbed funding and the S73 at Parracombe

Rowley Moor Workshop access point needs to be built before this September or again we loose the planning.

Two Manning Wardles.

Also where is the members page and how do I get to it? There appears to be no way of asking for it and the whole thing feels a bit clunky right now.

I do something wonder if we have too many projects on the go at the same time for our own good?

The Lynton and Barnstaple Railway Group has always set itself high standards in its own presentation to the public, it might not have alway achieved it, but we have tried.

Of course there are things that aren't going to be right from day one I get that, but knowing just how important it is to get them right from then I wonder why the likes of Stuart for instance could not have set up a focus group at Woody Bay or send the link to a few people in the group to try it out before its launch? That would be one way to get the feed back, Oh but then I forgot the management don't engage with the membership now do they.

Some one above asked why do we want to know how much this has cost, thats simple really, the more money we spend on a website or we lose to it means less to spend (or more likely that much more we shall need to raise) on the railway project itself.

I realise that we all have running costs and I am sure NP has it own, it needs to cover, but at some point all businesses need to undertake a stock check of what its outgoings are and how it can reduce them. Buying a product which is not suitable for the need of the group is sure hell of a way to waste money just ask any one who had anything to do with the old NHS national computer system which got scrapped after millions had been spent on it.

So, I am not going to chuck the baby out with the bathwater for now, but I will reserve judgement for now. May be at the next AGM we can get some answers to all those questions that have been raised on here.

One bit of feed back I can give, can something be done about the colour scheme, or at least if you are going to try to use Southern colours, then please try to get them a bit closer in matching them and ther same goes with the font thanks

 

>>> Blackmoor PLC. It is still not clear as to the state of the planning application at Blackmoor with NDDC...

Agreed. Certainly I've lost track of (a) what that was for and (b) what the problem(s) are/were. Is there not scope for the Newsletter to have a 'check list' in each Issue with the latest update on each of the ongoing projects/issues (apart from just flora and fauna), even it there may be many 'no change' entries?

>>>Trackbed funding and the S73 at Parracombe......

I'm still confused on how it is hoped to have a decision on the latter in Feb, when AIUI the ENPA will be meeting before the end of the 30-day consultation period for the latest changes?

>>>Also where is the members page and how do I get to it? There appears to be no way of asking for it and the whole thing feels a bit clunky right now.

If you are 'in the know', then you would click the 'L&BR Archive Site' link at the bottom of the page and go from there! Mind you, IMHO a link to the 'members only' page should feature more prominently on the 'Membership' page anyway, even if only to tempt people to join for such a facility (not that there is much to see there at the moment :-( )

>>>......I wonder why ......could not have set up a focus group at Woody Bay or send the link to a few people in the group to try it out before its launch? That would be one way to get the feed back....

Indeed. But why restrict it to a few? Why not provide a beta test site access for ALL Trust members and try to get as much feedback as possible. Again I would argue that many 'armchair members with time on their hands' (no offence meant to anyone, please!) are probably more likely to spot little niggly things buried in the depths of rarely-visited pages than those closer to the action who may not be able to give it more than an overview?

I still recall being involved with one IT project where it was not until the actual launch date that we discovered an previously unknown group of intended users within the customer's organisation who had never been consulted, not were the system designers aware of them and their needs, so the whole thing had to be halted and modified to cater for their specific needs !

 

If you bothered to read my post correctly you would see i stated the gala day tickets were cheap, in my post this morning i stated it wasnt possible to buy tickets online when i tried, i didnt say they were then too expensive, i actually stated the prices of the online shop had gone up, why do i need to know the website cost or in fact how much each online transaction will make the web company, thats simple, the new website was an expense that really didn't need to be made at this time , there was nothing wrong with keeping it in-house instead of farming it out to a web company who will make money from every online transaction especially when every newsletter is full of articles wanting people to donate donate donate , as far as im aware the TWAO is on hold, the planning is about to run out with less than 2 months to go and everything from all of us has to be crossed for good luck and their still hell bent on buying a pub thats way overpriced in a time of financial concern, some people really do need a big dose of reality put in front of them

 

Just to clarify, the current state that the website is in is intended to act as a starting block which we can work on. Due to various things getting in the way, we have not been able to add anything new to the website before its launch (when I say "we", I mean "we", not "they").


And LynBarn (and the rest of you), please don't make stupid unfounded comments like (Stuart should've set up a focus group at woody bay". How do you know he didn't? Because, believe it or not, that is exactly what happened!


It has been proven on Facebook that, to an outsider, the rubbish that is put online by people who act as though they are an authority on the railway is very believable. They think that this is being said by some reputable source involved with the railway. Which, normally, it isn't. When the fate of the extension is currently outstanding, WHY on earth would you think it is a good idea to come on to a public forum, act like authorities on the railway, and then say rubbish like "tHe raILwAyS nEW pLAnS fOR paRrAComBe aRE sTuPId aND wOn't wORk, hErES wHY". There is no problem with Parracombe!!!!!!! Just let the railway get there in the first place, THEN you can come here and wibble about how you think it should've been done!


Unbelievable!!

 

Pardon?

• No hope of complying with the original planning consent given the Grampian conditions and the associated well-known issues which do not need to be repeated here.
• A Sec 73 application for which the decision date is constantly being put back and which is by no means a 'dead cert' anyway.
• Vocal opposition from (admittedly maybe not too many) local residents to any form of terminus there.
• A track layout which does not allow for run-round movements, necessitating other less desirable methods of operation.
• A fund-raising effort which is yielding less than stellar results so far.

What I have missed please?

Pedantic note: maybe there is no problem at the moment, but IMHO there is a high risk that there will be one come March 9th :-(

 

Lynbarn, i could comment on your whole post but i wont.
Saying " the likes of Stuart" and ' management dont engage with members" i find offensive

I work incredible hard to talk to everyone. I listen to all ideas and action what i can. I personally answer all communications to me and often the railway at all times of day and night. I always encourage anyone from customers to members to volunteers to staff to come and ask and discuss rather than get the wrong idea or worse post online!
Please dont judge me when you dont know me.

I simply posted before to add some balance and truth into the mis understood comments and offer some feedback. Silly idea perhaps

Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk

 

It seems you've obviously got the wrong end of the stick. I meant that there was no problem with Parracombe regarding the ammended track layout. You keep banging on about signals this shunt release that but you yourself have admitted that there are a NUMBER of different solutions to that problem that are perfectly plausible. A slight inconvenience? Absolutely. But nothing that can't be overcome. And for your other points, then you should go back and READ my comment.

 

Those of us who know Stuart will certainly agree that he does work incredibly hard for the L&B, including talking with and listening to everyone and anyone. L&B members are extremely fortunate that Stuart took that step into the unknown when he applied for the post of General Manager. Stuart has now discovered the hard way why many people don't post on Nat Pres.
Colin / Lynbarn claims to be such a staunch supporter of the L&B. Just think what a mess we would we be in now had the L&B followed his advice to 'buy Chelfham School' or to buy the various locomotives he has referred to in the past. I will leave it at that...
Mike

 

Stuart, thank you for posting a balanced and well thought out comment. Like you I find Lynbarns (Colin's) comments, not just offensive, but also an affront to the efforts of all those who give up their time to volunteer in whatever area of the railway. His use of 'we' suggests he is a pivotal part of the railway but his comments and posts on this forum and other elements of social media suggest otherwise. If he claims to support the railway then he certainly has a strange way of showing it. Perhaps he could join 'us' and spend a day changing sleepers (I'm sure we can conjure up some typical Exmoor weather for him). I would also like to throw that invite open to a few others who post on this forum........

 

>>>>It seems you've obviously got the wrong end of the stick. I meant that there was no problem with Parracombe regarding the amended track layout. ....

That was not clear IMHO from the context in which you wrote that. More to the point perhaps then, in your original post you wrote immediately thereafter "Just let the railway get there in the first place..." - now that, I would suggest , really IS the problem, and one to which the first three of my bullet points still apply.

>>>You keep banging on about signals this shunt release that but you yourself have admitted that there are a NUMBER of different solutions to that problem that are perfectly plausible.

So far we have had the original plan for PE, as set out in the original planning application. Then came the original 'turntable' plan for the Sec 73 application, now we have the revised 'two dead ends' plan. It is reported by fellow members who were at the Nov forum that, when asked how this would be operated, the response was to the effect that this had not yet been considered/decided. If that is not correct, then I am more than happy to be corrected. But - assuming that is correct - is it really a good idea to pursue a matter so important (and contentious) as the temporary extension to PE without having worked out the viability and operational impact of the proposal beforehand? Look at the problems with the 'red lines' changes and imagine then how it would look if it proved necessary to go back to ENPA at some later date and try to get yet another retrospective change agreed.

You call it 'banging on' (tho' I don't recall mentioning any signals in the context of PE), I call it basic planning analysis and design. Maybe we should just agree to disagree...

 

Ok yes I admit that my original post was a bit vague, mainly due to the red mist that had descended over my eyes.
I suppose my response (and to an extent what I have been trying to say) is why fuss over how to crack an egg when you don't have any eggs. Does that make sense? (That's not meant to be passive aggressive) Figuring out how to run the railway once we get to Parracombe is one thing, getting there is another. Don't forget that the railway has been put in a situation like this before. When Lyn first arrived at Woody Bay it couldn't use the points at Killington Lane and as such the engine was operated on select days with shunt release being implemented, this ofc being decided last minute and with haste. I can't say for sure whether the railway has got a concrete plan for how to operate a railway to Parracombe given the revised plans, but once they have figured out how to get us there in the first place (and I think at this stage we just have to trust that they will), there are plenty of operational procedures at their disposal for them to decide on. The decision to remove the turntable was made to allow the railway to reach Parracombe in the first place, with its operation being something that can be (easily) figured out retroactively.

 

There is a whole railway to build and operate. Right now the minutiae of how Parracombe might operated is irrelevant. Interesting perhaps, but irrelevant. As has been said there are a number of viable methods. It is fun to discuss them here (once anyway) and share different ways. We might even learn something.

However, it is unrealistic in my view to expect public answers to such detail as how Parracombe will be operated, certainly not now (when it is more important to try to build the railway, which means overcoming far bigger obstacles) and perhaps not ever. How many railways do you know that publish their operating instructions and rule books? I can think of one and it was in the USA and only an abridged version.

 

I can think of at least two UK based railway that will give that information if you ask for it, but my understanding is that the rules are or were mainly based on those from BR and subject to updates as published by the relevant government departments.

Operating instruction are a completely different matter as these are subject to local operating conditions and in some cases subject to the locos owners wishes as well. Some but not all railways issue day time working condition sheets, such as be aware of damage to bridges or watch out for overhanging branches from trees etc.

Regarding railwest's concerns about how Parracombe is to be operated I think it will be in the rule book, at some point. That said it will also be required for the safety case of the railway before we can start to operate the extension when it happens so it needs to be in place as we speak.

 

Don't worry Colin, you probably won't want to turn up when it finally opens , let alone worry about the rule book ...

You'll be too busy deciding which of the 7 bars at blackmoor your not want to drink in.

 

Interestingly Thomas the railway could have pushed to get to Heddon Hall at least back in 2009, plans were being put in place, Killington Lane Bridge had been designed and costed and then the new group of management decided not to follow it through but instead go for a longer run through to Blackmoor, when asked why they didn't go to HH at a previous members forum the reply given was that they didn't have the money, fast forward 14 years and here we are, waiting for the decision on a S73 to allow the railway to extend to Parracombe and if you look at the appeal they still haven't got the funds so it's taken 14 wasted years to get back to what they could have achieved in the first place and had a foothold right on the edge of Parracombe , maybe this is the reason why so many are frustrated with the lack of track on the ground but the saddest point to be made is that many staunch and generous £££ supporters have sadly passed away over those years without seeing an extra panel of track laid when they could have