Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

We need to understand what is possible at CFL (in terms of run-round, etc.). However, if we did apply for planning as far as CFL, there doesn't have to be any kind of station there, does there? KL is not really a "destination", CFL just extends the "ride", making it more interesting and getting us that bit closer to Blackmoor. Where would anyone consider that the border of Parracombe is?

However, my personal preference would not be to immediately start on an extension to CFL, but to start work on the Blackmoor to Wistlandpound section, as we already have planning permission and we have the asset of the OSHI that would benefit from the addition of a railway. Opening that section (even if only on a very limited number of days) would show the authorities and locals that we are making tangible progress. In parallel, we continue discussions with ENPA over how we could get permission for a phased reconstruction approach between KL and Blackmoor.

 

I guess we do have precedence of such a site, KL has had no vehicular access and down a lane and we have seen very few problems if at all with that set up. In reality how many have we really seen alight at KL and walk on from there, perhaps a few each week. Most stay for the return journey. Being as CFL is somewhat further out from Parracombe it would I imagine not be much different to KL?

Providing it's clearly stated that CFL is not accessible by road, there is no parking, and pedestrian access limited as it's still a fair walk from Parracombe it should allay some of the fears of the locals in Parracombe, some of the fears of which I can fully understand. It would seem to me to be a fair compromise to get things moving forward.

 

But surely exactly the same things were stated for PE itself - even to the extent of a suggestion of not selling tickets at PE anyway - yet the objectors were still not convinced.

 

I am not a member, but I once was, so I haven't seen the options and I don't get a "vote". But it seems to me that it's important to keep some kind of progress going and to do what is possible.
You now own the OSHI and all the trackbed to Whistlandpound. It seems pretty obvious to me that if you can't work elsewhere, then clearing this bit of trackbed, rebuilding the station and then running something on this stretch is the way to go. You then have two short operational lengths, the new one being quite an attraction with the pub/station attached. You then work hard to gain the permissions to join them up. You are then not proposing any kind of terminus at Paracombe which should neutralise some opposition. Gaining permission to join the two sections has to be easier than any other approach.
What am I missing here?
Ian

 

The best way to prove the objectors wrong is to seek and gain permission for this mini-extension; to then operate it and so take the wind out of the objectors' sails, as it were. It would make a great demonstration project for the proper extension. (Assuming that this is how it might all play out.)

 

But...if the Trust can not "prove the objectors wrong" before it submits any application to the ENPA, then surely the objectors will simply reiterate what they have said before and why should the ENPA ignore them this time around?

 

I am sure no-one on the L&BR 'wants' a terminus at PE. But the simple fact remains that, until such time as the Trust is able (hopefully) to buy the necessary stretches of trackbed still not in their ownership between PE and Blackmoor, then it can not be anything other than a terminus. This is the 'elephant in the room' that simply will not go away that easily.....

 

The use of CFL (in a slightly different context) was examined some while ago. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to provide any sort of useful run-round loop there. That leaves the option of (a) a short siding for 'shunt/release' type working, (b) top&tail working or (c) push-pull working.

Option C is ruled out until such time as suitable rolling stock might be available. Option B would require an extra loco and crew, hence more expense. That leaves Option A, which then has two problems:- (1) how to handle the uncoupling/coupling of loaded passengers trains on a steep gradient and (2) if you need to detrain all the passengers first, then you would need a platform anyway.

 

Chris, that's not what I was suggesting. My proposal was:
1. Develop OSHI to Whistlandpound. Having the pub with a railway attached would be an attraction. Apart from the necessary permissions (!), I don't think there are any obstacles to doing this.
2. Then it would be possible to build straight through Paracombe, you are just building the link between the two separate railways.
3. That gives no need for a terminus (or indeed any station at all) in Paracombe. That should neutralise at least some of the opposition.
4. While the OSHI railway is being built, the concurrent work is planning the missing link, acquiring land and permissions. It won't be easy or quick, but it is easier than trying to build a terminus at CFL.
Ian

 

Ian
I agree with point 1.
I would agree with point 4.
However...points 2 and 3 are predicated on the success of point 4. Based on experience with the ENPA to date and the nature of the objections, without all the missing land the railway is unlikely to get permission, and even if it did it would still leave PE as a terminus.

To use a WSR analogy, think of PE as Watchet and the 'missing link' land as the track-bed past Splash Point etc. If the latter fell into the sea, then no amount of wishful thinking, support, good will, volunteer efforts, loads of cash etc etc will re-connect BL to MD unless the cliff is rebuilt

 

Hi Chris yes. I agree. It's just the way I laid out my post. I did use the word "concurrently"...
So...
1. Publish the plan as I have outlined, ie develop OSHI then build the missing link.
2. Start work at OSHI
3. Concurrently, reopen negotiations with all the interested parties to gain the land and permissions to build the missing link.
This will be easier as you would then not be proposing a station on the link. It still won't be easy, though.
But it does get rid of the elephant
Ian

 

You appear not to know about the owners of one missing stretch in Parracombe who have sworn never to sell to the railway ...

 

Yes I do know all about that.
But for me that's not a reason to give up. The railway will need that stretch at some point and biology (if nothing else) will mean that things will change. We just don't know when that will be. And if we have a strong enough case, then the opposition will fade. But we only get that strong case by building at OSHI. The pincer movement from both sides will overcome the issues.
Ian

 

According to @Old Kent Biker (message 7983) "Apparently, Anne submitted her nomination papers, but she was excluded by the chair."
And I asked (#7985) For what reason and by what authority ?
Can anybody confirm that this information is correct ? According to the Articles (Clause 40.2) nominations can only be refused if they are not lodged in time. Was this the reason ?

 

That situation can only ever be temporary as none of us individually have the benefit of controlling events for ever.

 

No @The Dainton Banker , I understand that Anne's nomination was correctly completed and filed on time, both electronically and in-person.

Which means, as you rightly say, that under Article 40.2, her name should be on the ballot.

As it is not, Members are due an urgent explanation from Tony Nicholson as Company Secretary.

If Mr. Nicholson cannot provide a good reason within the Articles (and I cannot see one), then the Trustee Elections will be invalid and will have to be re-run.

We should then ask those responsible for this to fund the re-run themselves - accountability demands nothing else.

 

Ian I don't think for one moment any one of us wants to stop. But stop we must, so we can all get our joint heads around the issues which I hope everyone is now aware of.

I for one would like to see Blackmoor get a railway, but there are more challenges to this.

1 We need to reapply for planning permission to both ENPA and the NDC, I did suggest that the Blackmoor end of the project should be a separate application other wise we only be going around in circles again if it is linked to the CFL proposal.

2 There is a small section of trackbed towards Wistlandpound we don't currently own, so there is a missing link between Blackmoor and the trackbed which has planning permission.

3 The previous owners of the OSHI have said that they will be there for at least two years and my understanding is that they own a vital bit of trackbed which we need to build a railway south of Blackmoor.

4 Then there is the issue of the A39/A399 Road Bridge again I understand that there may be issues that the ORR don't like about it, but again it would be pure speculation as to exactly what they are right now.

My understanding is that the long term plan requires us to build the workshop inside of the ENP and so there is no point in building a railway outside of the park until we have some covered accommodation for the rolling stock.

5 We have been told that the ORR has approved a number of level crossings around the Blackmoor area / this I find hard to believe, since the ORR have been making noises to get most crossings closed due to the high number of incidents that happen on them. Just how that is to be worked out I don't know.

6 I did suggest to the trust that they need to look to buy all the remaining trackbed from Blackmoor to Wistlandpound (which we don't at the moment) and that as we now have the time, to make a deal to own the land and a new route around the reservior to North Thorne Farm Park. At this point, I also suggested that they also look at building a new line to end up by Exmoor Zoo, since this will be an open commercial opportunity we can't miss, it will also put us in the right spot to enable the railway to design and come up with a new civil engineering solution to be able to drop the required trackbed which is high above the reservior down to a level where it might be possible to pick up the old trackbed again going towards Bratton Fleming.

Anyone who has looked at this is the past has always said that getting around the reservior is going to be a major headache, I am waiting to see what others have suggested. I really would like to see what the other 51 alternative suggestions where as I am sure there will be some good ideas in there.

I hope you can see that rebuilding the railway at Blackmoor may take five plus years to just get a start and it will not be straight forward either.

 

I don't think that Tony Nicholson is going to respond to a question posted on this forum. Could I suggest that as a member you email him and ask.

 

I think these are occupation crossings - I know that ORR have concerns about crossings - but if it can be demonstrated that there is no alternative - then they may consider it. Bear in mind that RVR have agreements with ORR for the reinstatement of 2 level crossings, a number of occupation crossings and a new level crossing over the A21 - so working it out is possible.

 

I've just emailed Tony Nicholson, @H Cloutt , but given the broader interest, it would be sensible for the Hon Secretary to explain the position. Based on an apparently valid nomination somehow not making its way onto the ballot, there is some considerable explaining to do. I can only hope it is easily explained (e.g., an adminisitrative error or that Anne's nomination was somehow invalid): in either case, an explanation needs to be urgently forthcoming.