Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I would be tempted also to ask vistors which view they prefer - that from the platform at WB looking out across Exmoor, or that from the proposed new platform at CFL looking out at a what - a cutting wall? OK, difficult to judge the latter until such time as the cutting is cleared and the trackbed level finalised, but I think we can all form our own view of its likely outlook.

On another note, good to see all favourable comments so far on the application

 

I think the biggest issue people have with the current running line is that there is *a* view. A very good view, but it's mostly the same from WB to KL. The extension to CFL would not only introduce a new perspective to passengers but also a new experience, passing under two bridges and into the trees. While this doesn't necessarily sound like a big change it creates a journey for people to take, the only way to see the view is to ride the train. As others have said, it may not increase the tourist trade a significant amount to the railway on its own, but I imagine it'll greatly increase the number of returning passengers and the number of positive reviews, all of which are great for the railway.

 

Its a good point. When CFL is opened, for the first time, the rail journey will begin to introduce the phenomenal changes in mood and vista that the historical railway famously offered, and at Killington Lane, that mood does change, very suddenly, from wide open to enclosed and sequestered.
Last weekend, I stayed in Parracombe, and for the first time, I got to experience what an oddly mystical place this is, particularly walking the lanes around St Petrocks at dusk. So different from Wildner Top, just a couple of miles away.

 

It is not which view I prefer, but how the views contrast. At the moment, the line lacks contrast, and is little different to the view from the A39. Get some of the variety of the original line (and if anyone wants a sense of that, I suggest a drive from Exmoor Zoo to Bratton Fleming village), and that will change.

A musical comparison, if I may. One of my favourite pieces of music is the transition between 3rd and 4th movements of Beethoven's 5th. At the moment, all we have is the tail end of the 3rd movement - glorious but limited - and not yet the transition that give the railway its full context and glory. I'm still unconvinced about the value of just CFL, but...

 

....will the first train across Chelfham Viaduct be accompanied by Tschaikowsky's '1812 Overture' ??

 

I think something by Elgar might be more appropriate. Or perhaps the Hallelujah Chorus?

 

Alternatively, if we extended northwards, then perhaps Vaughan Williams 'Toward the Unknown Region", followed by his "Sea Symphony" as we approach Lynton

 

Ah yes- aerial view. The camera, looking downward, follows the line of rails, and as the end of the line is reached, and the land drops away precipitously, you get "Behold - the SEA!"

 

Definitely! The final movement of his 2nd symphony, as a suggestion.

 

It blames previous Trustees no longer in Office for unacceptable acts with regard to planning matters including use of a T+WO. Is that true ?

 

No-one could have used a TWA Order because there isn't one and the Trust has not applied for one. The relevant quote from the 'Q&A' document is:
(from: Cricket Field Lane Proposal, Engagement Summary Document (lynton-rail.co.uk) )

Question: Actions of previous trustees with regards to planning matters including use of Transport and Works Act Order powers
Answer: The current Trustees can only apologise for the unacceptable actions of previous Trustees who are no longer in office.

As you can see, the 'question' isn't actually a question and the 'answer' just adds to the mystery. I suppose you had to be there.

 

That puzzled me too because AFAIK no TWAO has yet been obtained, let alone 'used'. I did wonder if this was related in some way to the idea that a TWAO might give powers for a CPO which could be used as one way to resolve land ownership issues.

Funny though...AIUI one 'previous Trustee' was tasked by the Board to pursue the submission of a a TWAO, so if there was a problem with that then should not those still on the Board from the time when that decision was made not also take part of any blame?

 

There is on one planning application from a few years ago a letter of objection from the legal representative of certain property owners at the time which did state that X was present at a meeting with their clients along with another representative of the Trust, it would seem this 'other representative' mentioned that CP powers could be used if they couldn't agree a sensible price, X still holds a position on the trust, the 'other representative' does not, as a heads up that person wasn't removed by a shambolic EGM and obviously held a certain position of standing within the trust to be 'present' at such a meeting

 

There is a shop in Lynton that sells some very nice fudge. I suspect their inspiration in the drafting and presentation of this, and suspect that inspecting too closely may cause indigestion.

 

The point is though that the board has collective responsibility and that includes for actions of previous members.

 

Supposedly the collective board now regrets its earlier actions when its membership was slightly(?) different. It is unclear to external spectators whether the alleged change of heart is genuine and whether that reflects which individuals have left and joined.

 

They have made a clear statement - they now need to live up to that in their engagement with their neighbours.

I find the discussion interesting, however. The statement was made, and was obviously deeply provocative. Yet, in the face of absolute intransigence, it was also the only option potentially available to break an impasse - and it was that old board that shied away from pressing the red button.

I come back to the comparison with East Sussex, where the RVR's use of TWAO and CPO powers was the logical conclusion of a clear plan, following what I understand to be open and transparent engagement with landowners. It suggests to me that the kernel of the issue lies not in whether CPO powers are considered, but in the overall approach being taken to achieving the railway's objectives.

 

I would suggest (and I'm sure you'd agree) that before even considering anything like CPO powers, we need to own all the remaining trackbed between Parracombe Bank and Blackmoor Gate and have as much as an operation as possible on the Wistlandpound to Blackmoor (and beyond) section, as well as the Woody Bay to CFL section, leaving a "gap" (in a similar way to the K&ESR and RVR), as well as robust plans for funding and construction.

We're a long way off from that, but there's plenty to be getting on with over the next few years - and who knows what might happen? I hope that agreements can be reached amenably, when the time is right.

 

I agree with the logic of your position - part of the justification has to lie with credibility as an operation. I'm splitting hairs now, but I wouldn't care to be drawn on the length for which a TWAO application should be involved, or associated CPO powers - other than they have to be proportionate.