Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Well, I have asked Tony Nicholson - as the Company Secretary - who the relevant person(s) is/are, but he has yet to respond on that point.

 

Yes, @Meatman - sorry, what I meant is that this only works if you can get the train from somewhere outside of the park (Blackmoor Gate) to Lynton - and not Caffyns.

 

Extending the point of the management of these items. If the report I read was correct the doors which were donated to the Trust still with Southern Railway paint and transfers have all been stripped for incorporation in replica carriages. If this is true should not one have been left as it was with this historical information left intact. I look forward to being informed I am mistaken.

 

I agree - it would need a bigger car park at WB, and the purchase of the land, but it would build on what already exists, rather than the prospect of two isolated bits of railway, and would provide a more worthwhile round trip around a headquarters in the middle - along the lines of the Glouc & Warwicks who have a middle main station Toddington. It needs a new bridge at Ranscombe which had the deck removed for furniture removal reasons after the 1952 flood, I believe, and of course under the A39 - Martinhoe Cross Bridge No 69, and there is the matter of a Bluebell type problem of round 30,000 cubic yards of fill in the cutting there, but on a smaller scale - let's hope it is not toxic. If the site of Dean Steep bank could be acquired the contents could be put there in anticipation of eventually going on to Lynton. In fact a jumping-off point towards the ultimate goal. What to do about an engine shed and carriage accommodation are two further problems. But whatever is decided face such problems. goal.

 

There is an authentic (ah, that word!) unrestored L&BR coach in the Railway Museum at York, is there not?

 

If this is true someone somewhere needs their backside kicked,the carriage heater i found at Snapper was taken to Chelfham but nothing had been done to it for 10 years so i bought it home to clean it up and to get it out of the way when they had the big clear out of the container over a couple of working weekends, with Nigel not being around on the Fridays or Saturdays it could easily have been put aside as scrap

 

Very true, on display, altho it may be behind a screen while refurbishment is going on. It is authentic, so still original, although repainted many times, although I did have their expert, Mr Filby, do some colour matching of what's underneath. When rescued in 1982 the idea was to restore it, but having been outside for 40 years the underframe wont carry passengers and would have to be replaced. And the same applies to the fabric. Would that be a travesty for future generations ? Especially as replicas are being made for the present L & B ? People will have different views.

The original carriages were always tucked up in a carriage shed - in my opinion getting the rebuilt and replica carriages under cover should be a high priority. The carriage now at York was getting to the point of no return by the mid 70s - hence the effort to persuade them to take it while it was still saveable - it took 5 years but luckily the Director, John Coiley (whose name lives on in an award) came on board and supported the idea.

 

My understanding is that the fill came from the breach of the Parracombe embankment as did the A39 crossing just north of Caffyns.

 

Out of interest, how do the volumes of fill compare with those removed from Imberhorne cutting?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Imberhorne was c. 90,000 tons, so a third, but without rail access to a disposal point, considerable.

 

I am also reminded that there was also a lot of spoil they had to find a home for from Lynmouth after the floods of 1952

 

It is a shame that the Parracombe impasse exists as the cutting fill could’ve have been moved by rail back to the breach in Parracombe bank.
Having looked at online aerial photos of the former trackbed in Parracombe, there appears to be a fair amount of hedgerow along the alignment. Does the section that is owned by the principal objectors bisect their land or does it just follow their boundary?

 

I thought it was slightly more than that, but about that order. There was about 10,000 tons of clay that was dispersed around the railway itself, and ~ 100k tons of waste removed.

The first 10,000 tons or so of waste was removed by road, in 20 ton lots, at about £34/ton (ca. 2010 prices). The scheme then changed to removal by rail, and the price came down to £24/ton, taken at around 900 - 1000 tons per train. That change alone took about £900k off the final price, but clearly would not be viable for the narrow gauge L&BR. So you’d be back to lorries - conceivably 30k tons would be 1500 round trip lorry movements, which would have its own planning implications. (In the Bluebell’s case, using rail transport not only saved £900k, but also of the order of 4,500 double lorry movements on the local roads, spread over about three years).

That is before the consideration of the landfill tax credit scheme, which is no longer available. I seem to recall at the time that that would have added about £90/ton and would have killed the project stone dead had it not been completed by 31 March 2013. I don’t know what the current situation is but presumably something similar would still be in place.

Tom

 

With regard to the merits (or otherwise!) of a potential revised planning application for an interim terminus at Cricket Field Lane, I'm trying to figure out what route passengers might take into Parracombe (assuming of course they are permitted to disembark!)

This seems relevant because many s73 objections were related to concerns about traffic (both vehicles and pedestrians) on Church Lane. I'd feel more confident in supporting the CFL proposal if the new location helps address these concerns.

I've been following a very informative thread on the L&B Facebook group. Does anyone know if the railway owns all the land traversed by CFL, from where it intersects with the trackbed southwards to the public footpath by Heddon Hall? This would seem like the simplest route for disembarking passengers heading for the pub, but as I understand it, this isn't currently a right of way.

 

The simple answer is yes the railway owns all the trackbed from Killington Lane all the way to Parracombe halt which just so happen to lead on to Church Lane.

The biggest issue will be if we can squeeze a loop and a platform on the width of trackbed we own.

 

Thanks for the speedy reply! I'm aware that the tracked is owned all the way down to Parracombe Halt. But does that include the land south of the trackbed which is crossed by Cricket Field Lane? Your comment about squeezing in a loop suggests not.

My query was really about how passengers disembarking at CFL might travel onwards on foot to the Fox and Goose (possibly revealing my priorities here!)
If passengers can turn immediately South down CFL (currently not a public right of way) and then turn West on the existing public footpath to Parracombe Lane, that would avoid Church Lane completely, which might address some concerns expressed in the s73 process.
But if the answer is that passengers walk down a path on the trackbed towards the site of the former Halt, that is likely to incur the same objections.

 

A loop, no. But the additional triangle of land aquired would enable a holding road for a second engine to back down onto the train, and return north, turn and turn about, so obviating the need for a loop. As for space for a temporary platform, not sure, but I would say possible.

 

But then, of course, you would need a second engine in steam (unless you alternate between steam and diesel) and a second crew - equally the same if you did top&tail. I'm not really sure that the extra running costs will justify the expenditure on Bridge 65 and track just to get to CFL for who knows how long?

 

Aaarggh not this AGAIN!!!!! Yes you need a diesel. No you don’t need a second crew. And you can use the steam engine for the return. It’s simple and safe and has been done before many times. It is called a shunt release, and about 10,000 post ago we went through it in great detail

 

Tom, why would rail-based infill removal not be viable? The L&B was largely built by rail (Parracombe Bank, for example was a rare example of the rail gauge for construction being wider (3ft, IIRC) than the finished railway) Obviously, 1000 tons per train would be a bit of a challenge, and new wagons would be required, but a working construction railway could actually be a visitor attraction - especially if partly steam-hauled.