Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Once the line extends to CFL it will by-pass KL station. Even if the latter is not abolished at that stage, it will not be accessible as a station without reversals.

I get the impression that residents' objections are not so much about people leaving the train to visit the village (nice pub etc), but rather those they imagine will clog up the very narrow lanes driving to watch the run-around etc. Even without a platform, that may happen.

 

I understood the principle of these applications is that objections raised on a previous application and answered (which presumably they were satisfactorily) could not be raised again. In that case maybe that only leaves the objection that the temporary terminus will be raised above the sloping ground in order to be level ?

 

I don't see why that would apply when a previous application was refused or withdrawn. In any event, the applicant has the opportunity to respond to any objections received.

 

Maybe, but...the previous (amended) application was to rebuild the station at PE in Churchtown, with complaints about traffic on the road to it. CFL is a different location and somewhere where the access is only a track with disputed access rights.

Also, if residents feel their objections are worthy of consideration, then surely they will feel it acceptable to raise them again if they felt the original responses did not meet their concerns?

 

We have had the same thing in Suffolk - but many railways just run up to a run-round loop (or even push-pull, with nothing but a buffer stop at the end) with no station or platform, and have done for many years. Objectors seem to be still living in the 1950s and expecting hordes of trainspotters to swamp them - it's never like that! It not really that interesting for the public (or even enthusiasts) to photograph a run-round in what is effectively the middle of nowhere (very few will be willing to walk there to do that after the first day or two, and those few that still wish to can take photos from the train) - it's the L&B, not the Scotsman!

OK - if they are still unconvinced - get rid of the run-round, and propel (or top and tail) one way (again, other railways do it - such as the Middy, locally to me) - and hey presto - "nothing to see here".... Agreed it's a retrograde step from the current more "railway-like" operation - but if needs must.....

It may actually be an advantage that foot access is iffy - strong enough advisory deterrence by the L&B will doubtless mean that only a VERY small minority are likely to breach rules and by thus doing, help to make trouble for the railway.
James

 

As others have said, Killington Lane wouldn’t be on the extended line so couldn’t practically be used. I’m not too certain how things would stand with vat on tickets if you could only get on and off at Woody Bay. My view on this is that you are not providing transport in such a case but I’m no vat inspector. It certainly used to be the case when it was considered to be necessary to sell single tickets as evidence of providing transport but this was back in the 70’s and things could well have changed. This is obviously quite different from the Bluebell extensions when there was clearly a transport provision between stations.

 

But there wasn't in the period before the extension reached Kingscote, for that element of the fare at least.

 

Mine arrived in deepest darkest Sussex this morning. Not looked yet since my RVR magazine also arrived.

 

But you could travel Sheffield Park to Horsted Keynes via the extension. There’s no requirement for it to be the shortest journey. In the case of the LBR there would need to be a second station. I guess shunting back into Killington Lane could be done and fulfil the need, if it still exists. We need the opinion of a vat expert.

 

I think the Horsted House Farm shuttles and the Imberhorne Lane shuttles were done as high-days and holidays things essentially as a free add-on to the core timetabled-service, a bit like how we sometimes run brake van rides now - it's not part of your ticket, donations accepted. I suspect there was a fare increase when things went to West Hoathly and the same train ran throughout, but you could argue it was a Sheffield Park - Horsted Keynes trip, but via West Hoathly.

I'd agree with @Steve that you certainly need more of a clear financial analysis than some random bloke commenting on an internet forum can provide. But I guess my point about raising it was to float the idea that an extension doesn't inevitably have to end at an station (and, for that matter, nor does a train inevitably have to have a loco at the front - see the Mid Suffolk example). A lot of the discussion seems to have been about the difficulty of building a station at Cricket Field Lane and / or the undesirability of doing so - partly from the point of view of the local residents, partly because it essentially represents built infrastructure that may only have a short lifespan. Well, in that case, one answer is to make the extension as simple as possible (i.e. only building the parts that will ultimately be part of the final scheme, i.e. a single track extension with no platforms or station building etc) and operate it as simply as possible. That might mean a train running Woody Bay - Killington Lane - propel back out - continue to Cricket Field Lane and return; draw into Killington Lane, run round and return to Woody Pay. That gets you an extension for not much more than one ultimately superfluous set of points and devising a safe operating procedure for the propelling moves (or maybe a second engine to top and tail).

But the real point is to think a bit laterally, and also, I'd suggest, do as little expensive stuff as possible unless it will form part of the final scheme.

Tom

 

Personally, I'd do as suggested above, not bother with a station or even a loop at the far end, but terminate at a set of buffers - on the gradient if you can get away. Run it top & tail (no uncoupling, less risk if you're on a gradient - I think the restrictions are specifically about stations anyway). Ideally I'd put a temporary platform at Killington Lane on the new line, lock the train in there all day (so next to no signalling required) and allow people to cross from Killington Lane (current) platform to hop onto the short extension shuttle. Run it only at galas, job done. It might not be what the L&B wants to do but it would be the cheapest, simplest option and the one which has least impact on the locals whilst also enabling any future extension without having to undo loads of stuff.

...But that isn't what they've applied to do, so what I think is of course irrelevant.

 

The possibility of simply terminating before a buffer stop and then reversing is something to discuss with the ORR. RSP5 states: "Stations should be constructed with straight platforms and on the level or on a gradient not steeper than 1 in 500. Minor stations at which trains do not terminate or reverse may be constructed on steeper gradients where suitable arrangements can be made to ensure safety, subject to the agreement of HMRI" but I think that is more to do with locos being uncoupled and running round than simply reversing. It's all down to the inevitable risk assessment. As long a the train stops well clear of the buffer stop I can't really see a problem but this is very much a subjective argument.

I've also gone and looked at the current government vat guidance, which now states: "The zero-rated domestic passenger transport will also include:......excursions by coach or train (including steam railways)...." which no longer appears to require an element of going from A to B. (It was a long time ago when I last looked at the subject.) The important thing is that there mustn't be an admission charge, whether separate or inclusive.

 

Many of the ideas which have been suggested in the previous few posts have been floated before, examined at some length and dismissed for various reasons. As for top&tail, you are talking 2 locos and 2 crews rather than one every operational day and it may well be neither financially viable nor sustainable with current resources.

 

It is indeed expensive - which is why push-pull is the better option. However, if it were to be that opening the extension was dependent on it - well, I guess the resources would have to be found...... as they have been on other railways in various circumstances. Good news BTW, above, about the VAT - that might not be generally known (I also thought that it had to be A to B to be ex-VAT).
I think the best thing to do is to rule absolutely nothing out - get another bit (almost however short) of railway open and operate it by some method or other - even if that's pro tem. KL has been a terminus for much too long already....and there's not only passenger wishes for a better experience - there's the equally important matter of volunteer and member morale.
James

 

I think that not having a run-round at CFL if that is a terminus (with or without public access) is a complete nonstarter. Because KL is not on the line of the railway to CFL it isn’t possible to use that as a passing place or run-round without a reversing move that would itself present some risk and operational complexity. The junction between the extension and existing line will I think be north of the current KL loop. It thus follows that a push-pull or T&T operation would have to be over the whole line if the service was running to CFL.

CFL site is too steeply graded for a terminus. Whether the HMRI would permit such a terminus if the operation did not include detaching of the motive power is a moot point I would suggest as the railway lacks suitable equipment to run a push pull, and probably has insufficient resources to run T and T all the time.

My logic says there has to be a loop at CFL and as a result the site will have to be re-engineered to create a
1:500 or less base.

How the trust deals with any objections that may come depends on those objections of course, but Kingscote faced a similar set of objections which were mitigated. It has to be said that the concern that the village will be overrun by the cars of people wanting to watch trains at CFL are probably pretty unfounded even if they are understandable from villagers perspective. It is a case of needing to explain why they are unfounded with respect and clarity.

 

I thought a triangle of land had been bought at CFL, presumably in order to divert from the trackbed and create a level (or near level) terminus.

 

AIUI the easing, rather than actual levelling off, of the gradient will be done by not (yet) excavating the cutting infill all the way down to the original trackbed level. There will still be a gradient, just not that steep as before. Hence the objections - valid or otherwise - that the railway will be 'raised up' and more visible than before. Quite by whom, and from how far away, they don't say....

 

I would agree that the railway probably has insufficient resources to practically propel at the present time but that is not insurmountable. Propelling is not a non starter. the Pontypool & Blaenavon seem to do it quite successfully. It's a while since I visited but, from memory, trains start from Furnace sidings, and haul down the short branch to Big Pit before propelling back to Furnace sidings and onwards to Whistle Inn (where there is no loop). The train is then hauled back to Furnace sidings and onwards to Blaenavon and Coed Avon before propelling back to Blaenavon where the loco runs round for the return to Furnace sidings. According to Google Earth's ruler thats about 1¼ miles of propelling in what is a 6.2 mile round trip.

 

To give a narrow gauge example - at Hollycombe, the train ride has a propelling move back into the station. Accessed over a spring point. To a dead stop against buffers. Down a 1 in 35 gradient. With curves ...

See this video, from about 3m 45s.



One assumes that they have a properly risk assessed mode of working. The actual braking is controlled by the guard in the leading carriage. (i.e. rearmost when travelling normally)

Tom

 

All of which examples relate to propelling movements over part of the line, and which mitigate other risks; so are presumably justified on grounds of necessity. They are not full push-pull operation.

As I recall, the illustrations for CFL show a loop, while I would be surprised given the history of L&B preservation if such a non-prototypical method of working were to be willingly adopted.