Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

My copy of the Trackmaps diagrams for the Western area suggests the following distances (all measured from Barnstaple Town):
Killington Lane end of Line: 15m 09c
Killington Lane platform: 15m 10c
Woody Bay: 16m00c
Woody Bay end of line: 16m 08c

That equates to a running line of 70 chains (0.875 miles).

 

By coincidence, I was involved in a similar discussion elsewhere not long ago where a claim had been made that an extension at a heritage site would increase the 'ride' by X%. Given that the length of new track was not much different from the total length of existing track at the station, the only way to have achieved the claimed increase would have been by a passenger in the cab of a light engine starting from right up next to the buffer stop at the terminus and proceeding all the way to the buffer stop at the extended end - hardly a 'typical' ride IMHO. To give a L&BR example, if you were in the first compartment immediately behind the engine at the Barnstaple end of a train in the Down platform, would you consider your 'ride' up the line to include the track behind you all the way to the buffer-stop in the cutting beyond the shed?

 

Depends if it's a Branch Line Society Event!

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

In what may be a welcome sign of changing attitudes at the L&BRT, the following has appeared on the L&BRT website, at https://www.lynton-rail.co.uk/trust-notices :

Seeking Artists and Graphic Designers
Can you bring your creative skills to help the railway?

The Trust is preparing a briefing pack on the proposed extension to Cricket Field Lane, for the benefit of members and the local community – please see our announcement on 16 May.

The extension team have produced planning and layout drawings. We would like to supplement these with accurate artistic renderings of the proposals, and to produce visually appealing briefing materials for display, print, and web purposes. We hope to be able to finalise this material in the next 3-4 weeks, so time is of the essence.

We would love to hear from any members who may be able to help with this. In particular we interested in “artists impressions”, 3d renders, and illustrations of the plans. Offers of graphic design / layout skills would also be appreciated.

If you think you may be able to help, please email enquiries@lynton-rail.co.uk
​

Whilst the article refers to (L&BRT) members, it may also be that others with appropriate skills in this area would also be able to assist, so please do consider getting in touch with the Trust.

 

It appears that they are still resolved to proceed with the short extension to Cricket Field Lane, despite the arguments that have been advanced on here as to why that is a bad idea.

 

I agree, and as things stand, I feel that the chances of getting suitable, unfettered, planning permission will be slim, but who knows, it could happen, and at least they are engaging with their stakeholders, so the plans may yet develop in the right direction.

 

The request is for everyone but I belive its just half expected that someone who puts thier help forward us likely to be a member

It is however , all very positive.

 

Perhaps they don't read NP

 

They do. Quite closely I think.

The extension is popular with the volunteers at Woody Bay. It is also believed that the CIC cannot operate more than one site as it lacks sufficient volunteers. I hear that visitor feedback is that the ride is lovely but a bit short. Any extension that went beyond CFL would be prohibitively expensive because of land ownership and the need to rebuild Parracombe bank. If you build at another site then you must replicate the WB facilities there to some extent.

The above facts have driven the board to conclude that the extension to CFL is the only viable strategy. Other strategies are available, but most certainly require more vision and more convincing of WB volunteers .

I think there is a gap between this expressed viewpoint of the volunteers and I think (based on voting patterns) upto half of the membership who want to see a longer railway soon and aren’t sure that CFL is the best approach. The board may need to pay attention to this gap and narrow it or they risk one or other group walking away.

It will be interesting to see if the planning authority will allow the CFL plan.

 

Indeed. Reports from the Board in recent Newsletters imply that the initial responses from ENPA have been favourable, but of course many of us remember that an analysis of the situation with the Sec 72 applications (or is it Sec 73? - can't recall now!) varied between what the Board claimed and what the ENPA actually wrote.

I am still minded to ask two questions:-
1. What is the essential difference - if any exists - between going to CFL and going to PE which makes it likely that the former will be viewed more favourably (if at all) by the local objectors than the latter?
2. If the outcome has little or no difference, then why not just try PE again anyway?

 

Those are good questions

 

I was one of 3 i think who voted against the extension to CFL when J.B asked his backwards set of questions at the AGM, quite simply because before any decision is made feasibility studies should be made as to the pro's and con's of extending to CFL and also of a line from OSI to Wistlandpound. I can see that extending to CFL will not really need any extra volunteers but there is a very expensive bridge to build and a lot of fill and work required to create a Halt at CFL which would, if the railway ever extended beyond there require removal and of course planning approval, also and ultimately would operations at Woody Bay actually benefit financially from such an extension after an initial 12-18 months. The other thought is, given the apparent investment by the Trust (and its relevant exposure) in OSI, should a study be done here too, as to whether a line to Wistlandpound and back would be of more benefit as a whole both to the railway and OSI as it would have a 'destination' at either end, both with its own set of visitors, planning is secured, 2 new bridges have been built but lay redundant and the line would probably be simpler to reinstate. It has already been discussed on here about the type of locomotive power being a simple push/pull railcar affair so operation could be simpler too and minimal staff required. the thing is neither options have been properly studied or thoroughly discussed by the Trust to its members, what we have had is J.B saying at last years AGM that any option chosen apart from CFL he wont be part of and again at this years AGM he stated before asking his 'questions' that he needed to know if he should be putting more time to this, yet he didn't actually ask if people were in favour of going to CFL, yes he may have spent a lot of time working on this but a lot of it was for the S73 and at the end of the day it should be what is best for the railway

 

It was a Section 73 application which sought to phase the development. There was a difference between the legal opinions obtained by the Trestees and one of the objectors. ENPA were in the position of having different legal opinions and would have had to decide which one to accept.

I understand that the Trustees have discussed the proposed application with the planning authority and it seems that the extension to to CFL will be looked on favourably. The majority of the objections to the Section 73 application were related to terminating in Parricombe. Don't forget that the Local Plan [on which planning decisions are based] includes the reinstatement of the line.

 

"...the thing is neither options have been properly studied or thoroughly discussed by the Trust to its members..."

IMHO therein lies the crux of the current problem in a nutshell.

 

>>>Don't forget that the Local Plan [on which planning decisions are based] includes the reinstatement of the line...

Indeed it does, but that did not seem to do us much favours with the Sec 73 applications. Given that the Local Plan ought to be the key driver, I would prefer to see a situation where - if the railway proposes an extension that complies with the Local Plan - then there should be a presumption in favour unless there are exceptional circumstances not to grant permission.

>>>The majority of the objections to the Section 73 application were related to terminating in Parracombe...

Also true, but.... exactly how is a terminus CFL (apparently) so fundamentally different from one at PE??? I've yet to see any substantive answers to that question.
After all, given that the latter would enable an original heritage station to be re-opened (albeit nothing original remains other than the shelter), whereas CFL would be (like KL) an all-new station at a new location, ought not PE to be viewed more favourably than CFL from the 'heritage' perspective'? IIRC one of the objections to the original Phase 2A application was that a station at PE would not be 'heritage' as there had never been one there previously - clearly an historically ill-informed/mis-guided objection , but one that certainly would be more accurate for CFL.

 

I was one of the two or three that indicated they weren’t sure.

I think the way the question was posed by Mr Barton did not invite honest answer. That’s always a difficult thing to do (get honest responses).

I remain unconvinced by the CFL plan. It seems to me that there is an excess of tactical thought over strategic

 

In fairness the issue with the s73 was that the changes required were deemed sufficiently significant as to change the fundamental nature of the original application and that was unlawful.

 

Simply put , CFL falls outside of paracombe village and therefore alot of the arguements / issues and concerns are null and void

Go any closer to paracombe without the ability to go stright through it and all the arguments, issues and concerns become valid again.

 

Please remind me, what exactly are the 'arguments, issues and concerns'? I imagine that they relate to (some) Parracombians being worried about hordes of railway buffs and others descending upon their unspoilt village... Though I would have thought that The Fox and Goose would actually benefit from an extension to Parracombe Halt. It could be a good idea in that it might show the nay-saying Parracombians that they actually have nothing to fear (so many people have such stilted imaginations that they have real difficulty in imagining how significant or otherwise a change in their local environment might be). It would also bring more pressure to bear upon the Grobs to re-consider their opposition to the extension continuing across their land.

I seem to remember too that there were concerns about a run-round loop at Parracombe. If this is so, then why not top-and-tail locomotives until such time as the further extension to Blackmoor can proceed. Alternatively, what about exploring a push-pull operation? (I've no idea how plausible (or costly) this might be, but has it ever been explored?)

OK, I know that opposition from some Parracombians must be considered and respectfully responded to. This presents a good opportunity for the new L&BR Trust Board to show its negotiating acumen: something it must undertake eventually in any case. Furthermore, a deal of new funding must be sought: again an opportunity. Please let us see a broader approach than a difficult to understand proposed extension to Cricket Field Lane. It may take some time but would be better than this diversionary tactic of Cricket Field Lane.

 

If you go to the site of Parracombe station it will be obvious the main problem and why people objected to a station there. The road is narrow and twisty, it's difficult to pass when there are two small cars. Imagine two Range Rover sized cars trying to pass. They would be stuck, imagine that happening outside your house on a 30 minute basis. You can say lots of things but human nature will make people want to drive as close as possible to the station