Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

My understanding, from what has been said elsewhere by those with the relevant experience, is that mere top-soil, or excavations from housing developments etc, is not a suitable material for railway substructures. However it is possible, I suppose, that what might not do for long-term use at (say) Parracombe bank could perhaps do for short-term use at CFL. But what then if a 'temporary' solution at CFL ends up having to work for a much longer period if an extension south from CFL proves much more difficult and time-consuming than anyone imagines? Also, you would probably not be able, after removing it from CFL, simply to take it along to PE bank and dump it there.

I agree with @Jamessquared - this sort of proposal for CFL will be really disruptive, cause a lot of even more bad feeling at PE, and really needs to
be avoided at all costs.

 

And where's the harm in that? If the trustees had been genuinely exploring the pros and cons of all possible options as is being done on here, the L&B would be in much less of a mess.

 

That's before we consider any ecological implications of moving material from (say) Barnstaple to CFL, with different geology and local conditions.

I've no problem with the idea of extending in chunks, but we're already seeing the issues of a "temporary" terminus at Killington Lane coexisting with an extension project. And KL is off the original solum - CFL would be on it.

I need a lot more convincing that a temporary terminus at CFL is a viable option before I could consider giving it my support.

 

@Steve is right. Until there are people involved who know what they are doing, and can create credible plans because they talk to and listen to people, this project is without hope.

If @DaveE is right that people cannot stomach the idea of coming together to achieve a collective aim, then that is something which needs to be healed.

Some new faces needed perhaps.

 

You are forgetting:
Labour costs
Statement of method costs
Design and planning
Heath and safety planning costs
Environmental survey costs
Drainage survey costs
Traffic surveys
Planning permission costs
Etc

 

All things you would have to do anyway? And as far as I understand it most of the non-wildlife surveys are re-usable?

 

I don't believe YVT complicates the dynamic - YVT and EA work closely together, as do L&BRT and the CIC. With just a bit of co-operation on all sides, and an adjustment of attitudes, we can bring those two parts closer together, build on them, and generate the impetus to rebuild the Lynton and Barnstaple Railway to the best it can be rebuilt - which is what we all signed up for in the first place.

 

So why do I get the impression from various recent issues that no-one seems to know who is in charge of what?

 

The cat is still bouncing. Some of the material might be reusable if an application is made for extension to CFL, but unless you want to go to CFL (as a railway) that’s irrelevant.

It’s a bit like being told that all the trains to London are sold out but you can get a discount on one to Milton Keynes because you’d paid a deposit for a London ticket. But I didn’t want to go to MK!

I sense that their is a school of thought that goes:
What’s the minimum extension that we can get away with so that we see something that looks like progress in our lifetime. CFL is easy.

Well, there are no easy extensions, they all cost time and money. They’re all going to need a really robust business plan and great relationships. If we fixed the relationships we might find that considerably more than CFL is achievable.

 

That is, I'm sure, a temporary issue that can be sorted out internally between the CIC and L&BRT boards. The point I was trying to make was that the recent development of YVT doesn't make the equation any more complex - Whilst L&BRT and CIC are dogfighting, YVT and EA are flying in close formation.

 

And so would the planning authorities. All these aspects were covered in the original planning applications and will need to be reviewed, revised and resubmitted in light of the changed situation and scope.

 

It was mentioned by John Barton at the members forum that the meeting 'was unfortunately a month early as he was awaiting some news from ENPA', nothing has been mentioned since so we are all still in the dark, it has been noted that apparently he's not a fan of volunteers doing significant work and that such work should be left to contractors

 

funny you should mention that, they have been upgrading the A361 North Devon Link Road for the last god knows how many months

 

I can see advantages and disadvantages in using volunteers for some types of work, and I guess it also depends on the volunteer too, what they are capable of, are they ticket holders of plant, how long have they been retired and maybe out of date since they retired etc. Are they up on HSE, and all that jazz.

Any new volunteer I watch closely for some time and assess in my mind what they can and cannot do, if they struggle I find something else for them to do. And also being as I've now been doing the carriages for 10 years with volunteers I've also seen them sadly lose their abilities as they get older and have had to change what they do. I've always got some jobs that can be done sat down for if anyone comes and are not as mobile as the rest of us.

I absolutely love it, hardly ever have I had upset volunteers, but that deterioration as they get older is kinda hard to handle as I like to see them achieve things they never thought they would.

Damn, anywhere we can stockpile some? Any of the quarries we can fill up with some good subsoil etc? Lol

 

Well funnily you should say that but I am following up a lead right now, more news about this at the AGM weekend I hope.

 

My understanding from a proper civil engineer is that basically we will need to remove all of the Parracombe bank period. This is because it is made up of the wrong material so not only disruptive but dammed expensive as well.

 

I have to say @DaveE on one of your previous comments, the YVT has been around since about 2009 I believe but as an unregistered charity because its income was below £5k but that has since changed so its had to be upgraded to a fully fledged charity, even so i cant see why it would cause confusion , secondly from what i have read and heard ( and i stand to be corrected) the upset with the regular volunteers at WB seems to be that they are of the impression that if an extension happens elsewhere then WB could be moth balled (hence why i get the impression they only want an extension to CFL, which as others have said would be very costly but not profitable,) why that should happen i don't know, the operations at WB are well established and should, with the correct management be self supporting and be keeping steam within the NP, extending from BG to WP already has planning approval, will supply an actual service between the pub and reservoir and will give the members and supporters the kind of 'lift' they all need at the moment, it will give visiting volunteers something to get stuck in to and would very likely entice some more, with sensible planning and thought there is no reason why a simple dmu style vehicle couldn't be built with modern motive power driving a period styled auto-coach or something of the like.
On the subject of volunteers, specifically visiting ones, from those i have spoken with they want to be away from WB, working on land that will hopefully be part of an extension, a couple i spoke to today thoroughly enjoyed the last working weekend, fencing and clearing up, another couple a few months ago wanted to be pushing forward elsewhere too, but interestingly not clearing what they had done a few years ago because once the hard work had been done why wasn't it kept on top of! and they were losing interest. I wonder are these visiting volunteers given a Q&A style session to gauge how they feel about the working weekends, as one of these couples said to me ' it costs us nearly £500 for the long weekend' so if they are spending that kind of money they need to be engaged with to make their cost worthwhile. The other thing to bare in mind is that volunteers don't have to be physically hands on, many have office based skills or the like who could deal with the more technical side of things which should also be embraced

 

Hmmm, the drawing board calls....

 

have a look at 'county gate 009', in particular photos taken by Chris Nervard and the 'Glenthorne railcar'

 

As demonstrated in the article about it slipping when 3/4 built in Magazine No 126.