Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Financially and engineering, quite likely. Politically, potentially more challenging given the local sensitivities.

 

... and it will be subject to new planning applications being approved, so definitely do-able, but also a non-trivial project.

 

Just politely Dave, as I mentioned before, there is no whistle in Wistlandpound (and not likely to be for at best seven or eight years, methinks)!

 

Hmm, depends, if we can get Bridge 65 done and we can obtain a successful outcome for the application to CFL, in the meantime also be laying track say to the Calvert Trust area (not for every day running but certainly say weekends) which highlights another section being worked on, YVT have the Chelfham Mill project which will take a while to bring round to rights plus the Engine Shed at Bratton, all these are major movements forward, which although are not extensions, they are all significant steps forward.
Unlike most other railways where trackbed ownership is in rather large chunks, or even all owned by one landowner, the L&B is very much like piecing together a large jigsaw of a railway layout in your living room, but the pieces are scattered around the room, under the sofa, behind the bookcase, on top of the curtain rail etc and you don't know when you will find a piece or which piece it will be. Your jigsaw will look quite messy for quite some time with some bits coming together nicely but others with huge gaps in.
The engineering around the southern end of the reservoir is problem that will have to be solved at some point and may well be a gap in that jigsaw for some time, but doesn't in my view need to hold back the many things we can be getting on with now and which in themselves are going to take a while to do.
Each bit we can do enlarges and enhances that visitor experience, even non operational sections (look at Chelfham and Snapper), and more for them to explore and learn and heighten interest.

 

The political aspect mentioned, yes, that is a big challenge, but really what needs to happen there is for everyone to back off who are not local. Allow local L&B members with a high level L&B representative (preferably living in the area), along with the legal and planning professionals to negotiate and work together to find solutions. I am very much in the belief that debates and comments by those from afar on social media do not help at all for any of the parties involved.

 

That’s fair. But it depends on there being an effective strategy to follow, and a means to deal with the challenges that are then thrown up.

It also needs to consider two factors. One is that the local authorities (ENPA, DCC, NDDC) are less partners than decision makers. The other is that each application is associated with a risk of rejection or unachievable conditions, not to mention preparation and application costs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I know all this! My reply was a humorous attempt at reminding you that Wistlandpound is not spelled with an 'h'!!
As far as any extensions go, is there any reason why trackbed cannot be cleared of vegetation, ballasted and track laid without any PP provided no trains are actually run?

 

The reinstatement of the Railway is in the local plan - so the starting point is that planning will be approved - but the devil is in the detail - which is how workable the conditions are.

 

Lol, oh deary me, I see now, yes, that's what you get for replying early morning sat on the patio but not yet drunk your coffee! Hehe

 

I should imagine the strategy is to gain a successful approval, that's it. The rest very much depends what happens around the negotiating table. And yes, as with any planning application there is a risk of rejection or conditions, there is no guarantee no matter what your strategy is etc, we only have to look at Bala Lake to see how things can turn out, especially when the application is in a National Park area.
NDDC application are probably easier to get being outside the NP.
My main point is what doesn't help is comments and debate by those who live outside the area. The issues are very much local, and maybe I should rather say it's better to let the legal teams of the parties involved negotiate without that external hindrance.

 

I'm not actually sure, as far as I know you can do land husbandry, eg vegetation control, fencing, hedging, etc, but what else I don't know.

 

surely then the trust must make up its mind what it is aiming to do, if it has no intention of extending the line because of its financial viability then it must be open and honest with its members and take the chance that many will not renew otherwise it could be seen as misleading the members that want to see the railway extend

 

Possibly in some cases, but I'd point out that the Bluebell's northern extension involved I believe somewhere over 40 separate land purchases in just six miles; and, since BR had seen fit to divide the trackbed down the centre when parcelling up the land, in some cases there were separate land owners to be negotiated with on the east and west sides of the line. So reassembling fragmented land ownership is far from unique to the L&B.

Tom

 

As @H Cloutt says, the issue is in the conditions. A lot needs to happen quietly, discreetly and with a level of confidentiality. But that needs to be in the context of a plan and a strategy for how to obtain useful results and engage effectively to avoid blockages. Including but not limited to having an approach to overcoming outright refusal to engage.

As it happens, I see a pattern for this in the land purchases by EA, which seem to have achieved a great deal, working in precisely the fashion you describe. One conspicuous feature has been the lack of any disobliging comments when people or organisations don’t act as supportively as hoped.

That’s a pattern that the Trust could well do with learning from, given some of the communications of the past year or so.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Judging the progress made since 2006 and a conversation that was had yesterday it looks like there's a good chance Bideford Rail will achieve their goal first

 

Now imagine the Bluebell had had to do it for 20 miles, starting still pretty much within sight of Sheffield Park, and wouldn't be running trains for any sort of distance until most of it was owned, because the council in Sussex said 'you're not building any more track until you're in a position to build from the railhead to Kingscote in one go.'.....

 

Let us not lose sight of the fact that the section from BR station itself (the OSHI) to WD - which is in the NDC area and NOT the ENPA - already HAS confirmed planning permission for which the deadline to start construction work was met when the two bridges were done. I would imagine that the actual running of public trains might require a TWAO given that there are public rights-of-way involved IIRC.

 

I can. And we see from a little east of Sheffield Park how that can be successfully addressed. Specifically, with careful planning, a lot of hard work, a willingness to allow matters to take their time, and the judicious use of the legal mechanisms that exist.

The RVR’s likely success is the result of that combination.

I forget who it was said to carry a big stick lightly. Agreement is always more desirable, but if unachievable, then the law provides other remedies. They should not be ruled out.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Well indeed ...

FWIW, the northern extension opened in about six distinct phases, each one operating as soon as possible up to the next engineering obstacle, but generally only with just sufficient infrastructure to make operation possible.

1. 1990 - 1992: Horsted Keynes to Horsted House Farm, about 1 mile. Operated in "push pull" mode over a single track with no run round etc; passengers couldn't alight at the northern railhead.
2. 1992 - 1994: Up to West Hoathly (about 3 miles from Horsted Keynes). A run round loop was in place operated by the loco crew using the token to unlock ground frames. Passengers couldn't alight. Further progress blocked by the missing New Combe Bridge.
3. 1994 - 2012: Opening through to Kingscote, about 4 miles from Horsted Keynes. Station opened, so passengers could alight (but couldn't commence a journey there, except under very tight conditions of access - notably no parking and no drop offs by private car). Fully signalled southern end of the station from a. temporary signal box; hand point at the northern end for run round.
4. ca. 2005 onwards: Kingscote - Imberhorne Lane Bridge, about a mile north of Kingscote. Operated in push-pull shuttle mode for occasional specials on high days and holidays; core operation remained going as far as Kingscote.
5. ca. 2010 onwards: A disconnected operation at East Grinstead station as far as Hill Place Farm, again run very occasionally. The station had had to be built earlier than strictly needed for operational reasons, so was used to keep it in the mind's eye.
6. 2013 onwards: Full re-opening through to East Grinstead; full signalling at both ends of Kingscote from a permanent signal box. (But parking and access restrictions still remain). Operation at East Grinstead still essentially manual with ground frames unlocked by teh token and "one engine in steam".
7. (To come: full signalling at East Grinstead).

Prior to actual opening (in phases) there had been about 20 years of land purchase and legal activity to gain planning permission. Then about 25 years of construction, of which the major obstacles were a 1/2 mile tunnel; a long 8 arch viaduct and a missing under bridge (sound familiar?); 100,000 tons of municipal waste to be removed from a cutting; restoring one extant station and building another completely new one ...

Tom

 

But my point - and to be honest it goes for the RVR too - is that it's much easier to do an extension project of the sort that both the BR and RVR have/are, when it's on the back of successful operation of a larger whole. I.e., the Bluebell had 40 years (off the top of my head) of successful Sheffield Park to Horsted Keynes, a large body of supporters, a track record of actually running a place to place railway, etc. Ditto the K&ESR.

The L&B is totally constrained - it's all a paper dream for the future really. There's a lot of painstaking land acquisition, but over decades now - and with instances of exactly the sort of fallings out that happen on all sides when no one is in a position to JFDI.

The membership and wider supporters (and potentially also agents provocateurs) creating a squabbling, bickering, deeply unpleasant atmosphere especially online which is now fast approaching the realms of toxic.

Finally, we're now up to three facebook groups with broadly the same name, and there are too many organisations, and too many factions, increasingly sniping at and overlapping with each other. Some of the 'why don't we' posts on the facebook groups are bordering on delusional - my favourite recent one is why don't we set up a bank...

IMO it's because it's taking so long that people are able to nurse their own pet visions of the future, because the actual future isn't coming fast enough. When spades are actually in the ground the fur is going to really fly because at the moment everyone's painting a different picture.

As I see it, there are voices (lone or multiple) calling for:

- extending from Woody Bay to Lynton as a priority
- extending from Woody Bay south as a priority
- extending from Woody Bay to the reservoir and calling it a day there, forever
- running Woody Bay to Killington Lane but then opening another length somewhere else (either to eventually join up or to run two railways indefinitely)
- abandon Woody Bay and concentrate on the South
- focus on Barnstaple to Chelfham
- focus on Chelfham to Blackmore
- buy the land under Chelfham viaduct and don't buy the land at the end of Bratton's platforms
- buy the land at the end of Bratton's platforms and don't buy the land under Chelfham viaduct
- buy both bits of land
- assimilate all the other organisations into the Trust
- ignore the Trust and use YVT as the vehicle for getting on with things in the south despite them
- use YVT to eventually turn the Trust into the WHHR to YVT's F&WHR
- build everything back how it was as a heritage experience
- build Pullman carriages, buy in diesels and Garratts and be the Devon Highland Railway
- build railcars to go after commuter traffic
- keep everything as it is and think the current set up is the best we'll ever manage
- build 4 Manning Wardles
- focus on hydrogen technology, go renewable, and slowly accept that steam's not the future
- putting all our faith in the Trust
- watching the Trust like hawks
- replacing the Trust

And that's before we get onto the railway owned bank...

But all of this can be typed anywhere on the internet, and (aside from the bank) how is anyone supposed to sort the sensible from the mad? More to the point, how on earth does anyone lead across so many contradictory hopes, aspirations and dreams?


*and the problem is that with the best will in the world most of the supporters aren't in North Devon most of the time, so however much the reality on the ground may be lovely and positive, that's not how it looks.