Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Your doctor analogy makes no sense.
You previously said "we have those people who are professional and they have stated they would volunteer to do this work" so if they were willing to 'do this work' why havent they volunteered already? If they are not suitable to do the job, why are you suggesting them?

You previously described a museum with a collection policy. Now you've changed that to a storage shed for rolling stock.

 

I know of a handful of professionals who have offered but have never received any response

 

...or are being used only intermittently in a manner which appears rather random.

 

CP powers were included in private acts for railways from the earliest days. I suspect that the concept had already been developed for canal legislation. The powers for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway (1826) for instance are set out in section III of the Act thereof. The difficulties for the promoters were having to treat with major landowners before the Act was obtained, to avoid or buy-off their opposition to the parliamentary process, and the actual compensation process, which was not favourable to the railway company (in the case of the L&M Act section XLVI) as failure to agree terms meant that a local "jury" would adjudicate, which would inevitably come down on the side of the local landowner. The railway companies seem to have been resigned to having to pay well over the odds for their land, partly just to avoid the delay. "Law and English Railway Capitalism 1825-1875" has a section on the subject in case you are interested.

 

CP powers are an irrelevant consideration right now surely? The critical two questions are what is going to be built NEXT and how is that to be funded. In fact the really pertinent question is only how to create a fundraising engine that can support the overall objective. To do that probably (in my view) means much greater coordination and collaboration between the groups “one railway” if you like. Get the plan right. Get the money making sorted. Deliver what can be delivered. Build the credibility to be worthy of CP being granted.

 

I would suggest that first question should be "what is the railway going to DO next?" Building something, whilst having merit as a tangible physical example of progress, may not be the best course of action at this time. But who knows?

 

If only they were that irrelevant. The problem with any approach that tries to get through the contested land near Parracombe is what happens if landowners continue to refuse to sell. Regardless of whether anything could be done now, the strategy for extension needs to address the reality of such opposition, and present a viable approach to defeating such opposition. While I agree with the Trustees morally and practically on Option D, I note that the effect of that approach appears to be to grant refusing landowners a veto power.

 

Surely this is a very important point, that the longest established preserved line in England which already had 30 year’s experience running a 5 mile railway still needed a further 23 years to extend a further 6 miles.

Doesn’t the L&B need to identify a small, achievable section (4-5 miles, wherever it is?) on which it can give a decent ride for a significant number of years, gaining experience and hopefully more volunteers and local interest, before any dreams of opening the full line are even contemplated? This is more likely to be a successful outcome (even if it never gets to Lynton or Barnstaple) than the Everything Everywhere All at Once approach some seem to prefer.

 

To be fair, I think that's basically what the plan was anyway - except it was supposed to be Woody Bay to Wistlandpound...

It goes right back to buying Woody Bay because it was available, rather than because it made most sense. I wouldn't have not bought Woody Bay, but arguably that very action painted us slightly into a corner. If a few other decisions had subsequently been taken differently (and they've been mentioned on here) then we'd probably have a longer line by now, but not *massively* longer - a few hundred yards more probably. Parracombe would still be the obstacle that Parracombe has long been.

I'll keep paying my Trust subscription, and buying CIC and EA shares. We'll get there. I strongly suspect (in my early 40s) that there are decades of twists and turns yet....

 

If the ultimate aim is to reopen the entire L&B route another lesson perhaps to be learned from the RVR experience might be consideration of how many TWA Orders the L&B might eventually need in order to complete the whole project. Based on the RVR experience I doubt many heritage organisations would have the professional capacity (let alone the money) to proceed with more than one contested* TWAO application in any ten-year period. If anyone wants a flavour just take a browse, at the link below, of the sheer volume of documentation submitted by the railway & advisors; supporters and objectors both preceding the Public Inquiry and during the Inquiry hearings. It dwarfs the submissions required for the planning permissions.
Inquiry Documents - Gateley (gateleyhamer-pi.com)

*And it should be noted there are objections on many grounds - not just to Compulsory Purchase.

 

The reason I feel that the fundraising “engine” is so important is that the scale of ambition is so great with this project.

As @Miff points out the TWAO is extremely complex and there is a lot of room for objection. The strategy needs to recognise that this means that a lot of work has to go into building confidence and community support, and because it seems some people might never be won over, sufficient funding to support the army of professional support that will be needed when and if it is needed.

 

How challenging would it be for the Lynton and Barnstaple to extend north to Caffyns?

 

Just so. If you wish to eat an elephant it must be done one bite at a time... If anyone had not realised that this project is huge and will consume the time, energy, money and patience, and then more, of its proponents, then they do now. It will require the skills and deft manoeuvring of nimble actors to gradually achieve further and significant progress. I cannot help but wonder from where these actors might emerge but I think that Chris Duffell is surely one of these. A period of reflection and careful thought concerning the way forward is now essential.

 

Very - see Option B. We own virtually none of the land (yet) with no designs etc for the new bridges etc.

And why go there anyway?? - unlike PE there is nothing there , so it would just be another version of KL. Some people talk about having a P&R to Lynton, but where would you put the parking at WB? And if you built a big car-park at KL would the ENPA allow it anyway and where would all the passengers wait when it was raining?

 

Might not be a popular view but extending north is, in my opinion, more appealing then an endless deadlock heading south or worse (again in my opinion) bits of disconnected railway. At least some light touch land enquiries

 

Extending north is a perfectly sensible question to ask, especially as Parracombe will take some solving. Does anyone know (rather than conjecture/assume/assert) what the landowners to Caffyns think? If they're amenable, and if there is a sensible solution to the bridges required under the A39 and at Martinhoe Cross, then there's a serious conversation to be had.

Personally, I think @RailWest makes an excellent point that KL-Caffyns is the classic 'nowhere to nowhere' route, begging the questions of (i) why would you want to do it without a serious plan of getting into Lynton and (ii) would ENPA even allow it, as it would create more traffic in the Park rather than being a method of reducing traffic.

What this really highlights to me is that we should have an informed discussion based on actual propositions with data - rather than the cursory nonsense in the 'Consultation' - and then take time to work with the full range of stakeholder (critically, including our opponents) to chart the best way forward. If it takes time, then it takes time - we need to avoid a repetition of this current debacle at all costs.

 

This is the key phrase. And it's one that both the current leadership and many of their opponents seem reluctant to acknowledge

 

Yes, I have a commitment, trying to get a history ready for publishers while I am still on this mortal coil, so cannot take this on at the moment. In the past I have pressed our leaders for a register to be created and maintained of relics owned by the Association (now, of course the Trust), especially after exhibitions were put on in the past - I am thinking of those at the time of the centenary at the exhibition at former Athenaeum in Barnstaple and at the one at Lynton Town Hall when Newnes was celebrated. And there was the museum for some years in the former signal box at Barnstaple Town Station. But no enthusiasm expressed, at least not to me, for doing so. It was obvious that many of these relics were given to or bought by the Association or Trust, and therefore belong to the Trust. Some of Trickey's possessions connected with the railway came to the Trust after Margaret Parkhouses passing, for example and Fred Kidwell's after his death. I have one or two of his pictures. In the way of things people move on to different interests, and even die, and the danger is that it will forgotten not remembered who has them. It seemed essential to me that a record of custodians of these things so that the knowledge didn't just disappear into the ether. I have not heard that these suggestions have ever been acted upon, so I have no idea if there is such a record. Perhaps a current Trustee can respond on here on whether such a register is maintained.

Whether the idea could be extended to items privately held would have to be considered. The problem is that such knowledge can lead to theft as Ray Shapland, the Barnstaple auctioneer found 30 years ago when his house was broken into. Therefore the record could only include these with the owners permission.

 

If I recall both Keith Vingoe and David Tooke had a handle on all the artefacts that have been donated to the Trust

 

i thought the park and ride idea was to ease traffic and parking issues in Lynton