Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

It's a good question. But I firmly agree with @Ferrophilly in post #7379 about the ugliness of CPs, and the contaminant effect that they can have.

 

Why not use a new route not following the original route, perhaps alongside the A39, so the railway avoids Paracombe village?. Means not using the halt site?

 

Totally agree. I just think some people on here expect the trustees to have some miracle idea that will solve all issues!

That would cost millions and bury the railway in planning applications/appeals along with the dozens of reports and investigations that would be required.
And you could still end up with a landowner on your 'new' route who would be unwilling to sell.

 

Worse, I think an expectation that the L&B has the right to reopen, and that any procedural issue with reopening is a failure of the trustees rather than a consequence of the planners having to balance all interests. I disagree strongly with much of what opponents have written by of objection, but would never suggest that they don't have the right to their views - or to represent those views to the planning authorities.

 

Option A or B

 

But alongside the A39 it is mostly fields away from housing, so planning and persuading owners to sell the strips of land for the track might be easier?.

 

Which are what?

It seems to me from a distance that the L and B must prove itself to the area. Perhaps a longer railway the doesn’t touch Parracombe might do this? I’ve no clue what is possible on that front.

I think it has to be accepted as @35B said that there is no “right” to exist. It has to be earnt. If the line could show that it can successfully and quietly extend operations elsewhere then it may be able to win round Parracombe, but there are probably some who will never be won round.

 

I can’t see it makes any difference. The original route is no panacea clearly. If the railway cannot be accommodated along the original line, why not examine alternatives? Isn’t that going to happen elsewhere anyway?

 

Two points here:-

1. The original applications simply ran out of time. Why? Was the original concept of Phase 2A perhaps too ambitious? How might it have been done 'better'? Without a full understanding of the underlying causes, IMHO it is risky for the Board simply to 'try again' with any new alternatives.

2. The Sec 73 applications were never actually determined, as the Trust withdrew them. Therefore we will never really know whether or not they might have been approved anyway. I find it a little odd though that the Trust submitted them in the first place apparently as the result of 'legal advice', only to then withdraw them later also on 'legal advice'. I wonder if the first set of advice did, or did not, foresee the situation that led to the second set of advice?

 

1 is a fair question; I have views on why that may have been but those are from afar.

On 2, I'm not sure how far the initial advice to proceed with an S.73 application could have considered the possibility of ENPA's being unable to meet their own timetables. I would certainly have expected that the advice before and after that failure would be different.

 

Parracombe was not very welcoming of the railway in the first place and history seems to be repeating itself. I don't think moving to a new alignment would solve the issue of some people not wanting the railway at all and if you were a farmer, would you really want to sell a strip of land running down the middle of your field leading to access and maintenance problems for you? The planners were very thorough and required the railway to submit a lot of information, I would see that workload being even more onerous for a new route.

 

Option A is south from blackmoor while option B is north from WB towards
Lynton

 

It might demonstrate a willingness to listen and learn. As to the attitude of the farmers, that could depend on many things such as the exact alignment which might minimise the downsides you mention and any benefits that may be able to be created. One thing about a new route though is the possibility that it requires the active support if fewer landowners.

 

The reinstatement on the original alignment of the L and B is in the Local Plan. This also specifies [if I remember correctly] that original structures should be used where available and feasible. This means to me that a totally new route is out of the question. It also means that the original route is protected which means that if a landowner applied to put a building on the route then this would be refused.

 

The post has traveled onwards down the Thames to South London, I'm happy to report!

 

"Feasible" can do a lot of heavy lifting, but given the local topography, there's little room for movement.

 

I am aligned with the trust's preferred option. Following Agile methodology (since we like talking about project methodologies), we should deliver small incremental bundles of realistic and achievable work. That way, the railway will physically grow, demonstrating to the authorities and locals that we are serious, as well as attracting more funding. Over time, with that growth and with good stakeholder management, local .opinion may swing in our favour.

It's not ideal to have two separate sites, but we're not the only ones in the heritage railway world in that situation. At least Woody Bay and the OSHI are not that far apart (and I do think we need to make the most of the amazing asset that we are about to gain, in the OSHI).

Let's see what progress is made in the next 6-12 months.

 

There's something been playing in the back of my mind, and as my memory is not quite what it was, perhaps one if you can assist. Probably Mr Cloutt is my guess, because how is it that the RVR, with Grampian conditions attached, got a successful s73 waiver, with no suggestion (AFAIK) of a legal challenge? They are in the same position as the L&B regarding land ownership, and I seem to recall the reason stated was that P/P would run out before the TWAO was decided. Does it come down to the issue of a temporary terminus at Parracombe being "significant variation", and that had the Trust not overreached themselves, and instead put in for a simple extension of the railhead, without putting it into passenger operation, then this would have been acceptable under the conditions, and that consequently, the permissions would by now be locked in?
Is that what it really comes down to, or have I missed something fundamental here?

 

My sources tell me that the first that the L&BR CIC Directors knew of this News Bulletin was when one of them saw it posted up in the Mess Room at WB ! If correct - and I have no reason to doubt it - it does not say much IMHO for 'internal' railway communications at management level...

 

I've never really understood what this 'significant variation' was meant to be, and the fact that the Trust and the objector got differing 'legal opinions' would suggest to me that it was by no means a clear-cut situation anyway.

The original permission for PE was for a passing-loop with two platforms, a waiting shelter (at least) and a signal-box. The Sec73 application was for just one platform, no signal-box, and a run-round loop (so effectively no different in track terms from the two loop lines). So, if anything, the Sec73 versions was a reduction from the original, not an increase. If the situation had been the reverse, and the Trust had come along asking for more than originally granted, then I could have understood an objection - but not for a request for less, especially from those whose preference seems to be the least amount for railway possible.

>>>...had the Trust not overreached themselves, and instead put in for a simple extension of the railhead, without putting it into passenger operation...
What would have been the point of that? There would have been a stretch of track from WB to PE quietly rusting away with no revenue-earning traffic and the objectors who have been pointing at it as an example of their claims that the L&BR would never be able to complete their expansions plans and the Park would be left with an unused 'eyesore'.