Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

They may not be stored at Woody Bay we have somewhere else in mind.

 

For point one and on another forum we have those people who are professional and they have stated they would volunteer to do this work, yes I agree we will need to employ at least one person even if it is just to pay for the indemnity they need to cover any mistakes. Most of those that have said more than me are the ones which have said they would have helped out in the first place.

Landowners I can't speak for them, but there is a section of the L&BR which already has active planning permission from outside of Blackmoor to Wistlandpound so it would be possible to build a railway on it except they won't have any storage sheds near that part of the railway for now or would we be able to build a platform at the Blackmoor end.

So until you can build the required infrastructure that part of the plan is on hold. The current suggestion is to clear the trackbed from Blackmoor to the reservoir and make it is to a temporary walkway.

There is no reason why the trackbed around the reservoir to North Thorne Farm and a possible new route from there to Exmoor Zoo can not be purchased before the planning is applied for.

But I come back to the point I have been making for a while nothing is going to get done until we have some money in the bank and to do that we need a plan and strategy in place and that is not going to happen until every one is happy that all the lessons have been learned over the current planning issues.

 

Exactly - and it seems to me that that is the existing strategy with EA buying trackbed proactively. It is co-ordinated in a way since EA buys trackbed at the Barnstaple end - and is very effective at doing so. What does concern me is that there does not seem to be proactive purchase at the Lynton end - I could be wrong of course. Maybe a seperate body [EA2?] should be set up to handle this.

 

What’s this about Exmoor Zoo? It’s well off the original L&B route and, if I’m remembering right from driving past en route to follow Narracott Lane, the other side of a reasonably steep little valley.

You’re criticising the leadership for failing to deliver meaningful return of the old railway and suggesting a strategy is required for that - and pushing at an open door. But you’re then also flagging other projects - a diversion here, rolling stock there - which are hard to reconcile with restoring the old route.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

What happens if one or more of these volunteers decide to walk away? What if they're not actually the right person/people for the job?

Yes there is planning for Blackmoor-Wistlandpound, but as I understand it not all of that route is owned by the L&B. Just because planning permission exists doesn't mean you can build on land you don't own.

The deviation route around the reservoir will be a massive undertaking-unless large quantities of money is spent on ground surveys, civil engineers, quantity surveyors etc you won't even know which bits of land you need to buy!

You still haven't addressed Tom's earlier point about fundraising for the whole route and how you would overcome inflation eroding the pot of money

 

EA was originally set up to buy trackbed along the whole route but in 2009 the new trustee's of the L&BR Trust told them to stay south of Blackmoor and then south of Wistlandpound

 

The EA website says "Since 2009, the L&B Trust have asked us to focus more on land for Phase 3 while they focus on the more immediate negotiations required in the north for Phase 2"
Asked rather than told - not the same thing. Anyone would think you had an agenda...

 

Even if there is an agreement to defer any work at the OSHI for two years, there is plenty of work required to prepare the trackbed from bridge 55 to bridge 53 and then onto the new terminus at Wistlandpound. In that two year period it might also be possible to get planning permission for the facilities the other side of the A399.

I would hope that discussions are ongoing with ENPA as to what could be approved in the near future. I don't see why the Blackmoor facilities wouldn't be approved when we own all the land, it doesn't create a terminus in Parracombe and it is part of a plan that had already been approved.

I also agree with the "one bite at a time" approach. Look at GCR Reunification as an example. They "only" have 500m to reconstruct, but that has been broken up into several sections, to be completed one (or two) at a time, as funds and opportunities allow. However, they are making fantastic, visible progress, that we can all see and applaud.

 

Going back to the consultation document, the presentation of "one bite at a time" doesn't address the specific issues that have arisen at Parracombe, or show how those issues might be overcome. By contrast, "Bridging the Gap" is firmly based on engineering logic, where there is no dispute as to the desirability of completing the project.

 

I don't disagree. How do we overcome the issues at Parracombe? I think the likelihood of us getting a TWAO with CPO is zero - we are a 1 mile narrow gauge railway in a remote part of North Devon, not HS2! I'm afraid that in the short term, we have to bide our time until circumstances change (such as the relationship between the railway and the locals is strengthened and objectors have moved on). We also need to have as much of the trackbed as possible in our ownership (if not all of it). However, getting under the A399 (which won't be easy) would be a massive statement of intent. Some might say it would be a waste of money, but we have got to do it eventually.

Having two separate sections of the line open isn't ideal, but it's not unheard of, and it might be a way of gaining publicity and support to close the Parracombe gap. I don't see any other viable alternative plans at this point in time.

I'm also hoping to get to the AGM, so maybe see you there!

 

First establish the plan and ensure that stakeholders feel heard.

Second reduce that plan to manageable and achievable chunks, and mixes planning permission and TWAO efforts in with the physical infrastructure development.

Third create a funding stream and a fundraising “engine” that sustain raising a couple of £millions every year for the next (20?) years. This means donations, legacies, regular giving, grants etc.

Fourth- JFDI

 

Good plan except for point 3. I don't think any heritage railway has ever raised even £1m on a yearly basis.

 

I am unclear why ENPA applied the pre-commencement conditions to the applications around Blackmoor. Maybe its because the application for reinstatement of the line was considered at the same time. With regard to any appliction for a TWAO I would suggest that we wait to see the outcome of RVR's application before doing anything - as I understand it the 'powers that be' have the inspector's report and so a decision can't be long.

 

Pick a number then. All that changes is the rate of progress. But what I will say is that somehow something close to that sort of number in cash, grants, voluntary time, gifts in kind will be needed to make this project move forward.

 

I think we should forgive the planners for being wary of the L&B. Orphaned infrastructure doted about the landscape is not a palatable thought.

A step back for a bit. A recast of the plan and a more vigorous and professional approach to the next development (whatever that is) would possibly start to win friends. People don’t like uncertainty and they don’t like building projects. Get it done is the best approach. That means a lot more up front preparation.

That creation of uncertainty would be another reason in my view for not having two operating sites. “Are they trying to fill the Park with railways now???”

 

I don't think any heritage railway has ever tried to do what the L&B are doing.

RVR is closest (and frequently mentioned on these pages) but every time it is I want to add, 'ok, but now imagine that the RVR land challenge was the entire K&ESR, rather than just a part of it, and the whole K&ESR was nearly doubled in length.'

This could easily take £100m at current prices. Working out if we can raise a million a year ourselves ought to be the bare minimum of ambition, before we get into grant-seeking.

I think I'm probably settling into a weird hybrid opinion where I want the whole thing put back as close to the 1930s as possible (I'd withdraw my support if we started talking Garratts in Devon), but starting to agree with @lynbarn that really a massive priority has to be fundraising on a scale no one has ever done before in heritage.

Of course, that fundraising is step 2, after we've nailed down exactly what we're doing and therefore fundraising for...

 

Agree but starting to think your last point is unavoidable - but I would say definitely no more than two.

What that does mean is it's time for the membership/shareholders of the Trust, EA and YVT to start arm twisting their respective leaders to all get round the same table, otherwise it's a recipe for chaos. Part of me still thinks that YVT is going to end up orphaned (unless it was always little more than an insurance policy) because I'm not sure where it will fit in to the One Railway unification approach that we really need - and ideally need before we kick on again.*

*I'm agnostic about who gets what, and have said before - as a Trust member and EA shareholder, that if that means all parties have to give something up, or individuals on any side don't want the unity and therefore stand down, then so be it. But it's long past time for everyone around one table, then moving forward together.

 

The Bluebell Railway Trust has come pretty close, for something like the last ten years. I suspect there may be one or two others.

Of course, that is not a performance that has come out of nowhere; there's a lot of hard work. A very rough approximation is that around half of the income each year comes from legacies, and about half from donations. (It varies slightly from year to year, primarily because legacies are very uncertain, but that is the general picture).

The other notable point concerns the difference between restricted and unrestricted funds. Again, to a broad brush approximation, legacies tend to go to the unrestricted fund (i.e. the Trustees can use the money on any project they see fit that accords with the charitable aims); donations tend to go to restricted funds (i.e. the money has to be used for the specific purpose for which it was raised). There's no inherent reason why that has to be the case, it just typically seems to be how things pan out. Typically I guess that living donors respond best to a request that has a specific outcome in mind - so they will respond to a "restore this bridge" appeal but not to a "restore the railway" appeal. And echoing a point made earlier by @35B, that response to specific appeals may well be repeated year after year, provided you keep showing demonstrable progress. So someone might chip in £250 to "restore bridge 56" and then a year later, give another £250 to "restore bridge 57" provided they can see progress on bridge 56 and therefore maintain confidence in the whole project - but the same donor who might give £250 a year for ten years is much less likely to donate £2,500 in one hit. Other amounts are available.

(Incidentally - I'd also note, à propos the Bluebell Railway Trust, that it has no paid staff, and its annual costs of operation are typically less than 1% of its income, primarily the annual audit cost. There are no paid fundraisers - it is all volunteer.)

Tom

 

Re fundraising, I think the GCR must be around £1m per year for the "Gap" project as it started properly in 2018 with the MML bridge - £2m, then the Canal bridge refurb £1m, last year was the A 60 bridge £1m, and they will have nearly £2m in the bank now for the Factory Flyover, which will hopefully be started at the end of this year. They have also had three new bridges built on the main railway....
I also think the L & B will progress by having two operating sections, plus open stations, which gradually get longer and linked. This way more people get trained and gain experience, more rolling stock is built and used, more benefit is seen by the local population.
It works in N Wales where several lines exist in close proximity.
To say it cannot be done, that way, would be to deny the raison d'etre of having a line rebuilt from Lynton to Barnstaple.

 

Agreed! Furthermore we can have two separate sections of line but we don't need to run trains between Wistlandpound and Blackmoor immediately everything is ready, but it does give, as you say, a massive statement of intent.
L&BR Trustees should aim to complete purchase of three out of four land parcels not yet owned between Parracombe and Blackmoor so as to add to the statement of intent and build momentum.