Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Another example - admittedly 30 years ago - was that when the GCR's "Birstall extension" opened there was no station at the far end, the train ran as a push-pull 2-coach shuttle from Rothley with a temporary panel on the corridor end of a BSK, this gave the guard a forward view, a brake valve and a rudimentary horn and not much else. The Loughborough-Rothley service continued much as before and people crossed to the opposite platform for a ride on the 'new bit'. This persisted until the line was eventually extended further to the new Leicester North station and a loop provided there - and was pretty much the type of operation I had in mind in my earlier post.

I don't think anybody is suggesting something like this should be the 'end game'. But if the extension is a prequel to another extension in future, it would seem the simplest way to achieve something.

Of course, they will be hoping that the planning gets approved and a temporary station built, I get that. But it does seem like a waste of money to me, unless they are going to be happy to stop at that (and never reach the station a little further along the line, which they already own) (which seems unlikely to me... but I'm a mere outsider).

 

AIUI passengers must get off the train at Furnace Sidings (PBR) as the loco runs around due to the gradient, hence the railway wishes to extend north to avoid this.

 

That’s quite possible. I was on the loco on my visit so didn’t notice that happening.

 

I didn’t say propelling was a non-starter. I said not having a loop was a non-starter. I concur with @35B that the resulting operation would be unacceptable to the railway even if technically feasible. Yes they could build a driving trailer, but I don’t think they will want half of every trip to be a propelling move, and T&T of everything is a big ask for the volunteers. Probably too much. I think either option is a reduction in the customer experience too. If I want to see a double ended train I can go anywhere on the national network. Steam trains were different. Is the kind of reaction I would expect.

 

I think you are over-stating the concern.
With a non-aircon, hand-opening window-provided smaller carriage made of wood, I think you've got enough points of difference from a national network train to be ok, and that's before you get to the fact it's pulled by a steam engine.
And that's assuming your customer has travelled on a train before at all.

 

One issue that gets mentioned occasionally in the CFL saga is the actual status of the lane itself.

I think it is generally accepted that there is no definitive Public Right of Way along any part of the lane . The ownership of the actual land which forms the Lane appears to be 'uncertain'. If there is no PRoW, then those members of the public whom the objectors foresee as flocking to the new station/halt can only gain legitimate access by consent of the relevant landowner(s), something which will be impossible to do until such time as ownership is established formally. Admittedly, of course, that will not stop them walking that way anyway.

However....IIRC it has been stated recently that the Trust itself, as part of its ownership of the trackbed from KL to PE, owns that small stretch of trackbed over which the Lane passes. So in fact those who claim to have walked the Lane for many years could be considered to be trespassing on Trust land when they cross the old track-bed!

 

This is confirmed by the map attached to the conveyance by the Southern Railway to J Gammon of 9th February 1939, where the trackbed is marked in red the from the southern (or south western) end of CFL up to the south western end of Bridge 63. The trackbed across the lane is listed in the Book of Reference of 1894 as being owned by the Rev J F Chanter (along with the trackbed either side of the lane), probably as part of the Glebe as at Bratton Fleming, as No 90 of the authorisations with the Parish of Parracombe. But for some reason No 90 is not included amongst the other bits of Chanter's land in the Tithe Apportionment Schedule for Parracombe.

 

Michael, you are correct, full details are in magazine number 81, Winter 2006/7 on page 33 under the tile of Heddon Hall Halt

 

This should be a relatively easy issue to solve, post a volunteer down at the layby near Killington Lane on random days to monitor how many enthusiasts park up to watch run-around movements and the figures can be produced as a hard fact

 

Well, if the locals are objecting to raised-up trains at the CFL site, is there any possibility of achieving the desired 1 in 500 station gradient in the opposite way?

That is, by excavating down to the original trackbed, then further excavating the uphill end till the station section is at 1/500.

Obviously having done that one then needs to go back up the hill, lowering the trackbed, creating a ramp with a steeper gradient until the level of the original formation is reached.

I believe the existing trackbed is at 1 in 50 or thereabouts here (can’f find a gradient plan though). So to reach something acceptable for the new ramp (1 in 40? given this is narrow gauge) a substantial length of excavation would be required.

Disadvantages would be cost, plus more loco fuel for operations. Advantages would be CFL being ready whenever it becomes possible to build the next downhill stretch, with no further re-modelling. Plus something for the enthusiasts - a good uphill thrash going up towards Woody Bay.

Not ideal, but then nothing is, it seems.

 

From a supportive posting on FB:-

"What would be interesting, is to hear accounts of usage of the Lane from anyone who has used it, whether for access to the Field......... or just for walking up. This could support the L&B in their quest for slightly higher usage of this ancient track and worthwhile cause; please consider including it in any support letter to ENPA....."

Quite understandable IMHO, but... given the apparent level of opposition from PE residents (which in practice may only be a relatively small number of people from a much larger population, but clearly not to be ignored), might it not be more appropriate for the railway to discourage usage of CFL as much as possible? For example, promising to fence right across that railway's boundary the KL side of the Lane to ensure that there is no pedestrian access to the station at all (just a padlocked gate for emergency use by train staff)? Admittedly that will not stop people walking up the Lane and taking photos etc over the fence, but it might have an impact.

It would be interesting to see how the objectors could try to claim that residents have walked the Lane for many years - and in doing so have trespassed on trackbed land owned by the Trust without permission - and want to be able to continue to do so, yet would then have to argue that it is not discriminatory to try to bar visitors from doing the same simply on the basis of not being 'locals'

 

Sorry, but I can't see anyone wanting to deliberately make the line steeper than it currently is and also then keep it like that afterwards.

 

The gradient at CFL was 1 in 50. According to the chained survey conducted by the LSWR in August 1922 recording the gradient posts inserted by the L & B Co. it was rising at 1 in 100 through the halt, changing to 1 in 50 20 yards north of Bridge 61 at the halt (the gradient post can be seen in the British Transport Film video), stays at 1 in 50 through CFL 280 yards further on until it reduces to 1 in 110 170 yards beyond that, about 90 yards before Bridge 63 under the head of Parracombe Lane.

 

I agree, a solution like that is far from ideal, especially given the extra expense. However:

It might be worth considering if it was the only way to win over the locals and get things built;
Something a bit steeper than 1 in 5o is surely not ruled out completely, for a narrow-gauge train with no more than 3 or so light carriages;
There would be no need to keep it like that absolutely for ever - if the line was extended further and the CFL station removed, the gradient could be put back to the original profile; and
A precedent exists. When needs must (in their case, having to get the cutting re-excavation finished to a stringent cost and time deadline) the Bluebell opted to have a steeper than original gradient at Imberhorne. In their case, the new gradient was increased to 1 in 55 (from an original 1 in 75 I believe). Again, not ideal; but so far they seem inclined to live with the operating constraints and extra expense this gives.

 

I don't think the Bluebell example is necessarily a good precedent.

The first point is that the change of gradient from the original was not really through choice. It arose because time was running out to remove all the spoil from the tip before prices increased by getting on for £100/ton due to an impending change in taxation status of landfill. The cost of removing the last 10,000 tons or so of spoil was about £300k, but within months would increase by about another million - with the initial money not available, an engineering decision was taken to leave the last of the waste in situ, reprofile a bit and change the gradients. I think the centre of the cutting is about 4m higher than it originally was, which required steepening the approach gradients to 1 in 60 on one side and 1 in 55 on the other. Operationally it probably cut about one coach off what a medium loco could manage: it's manageable but wouldn't be the choice except for the looming financial deadline.

The second point though is that, having accepted the compromise, that is now the final profile - there is no thought of revisiting the gradients.

The situation at CFL seems somewhat different to me. The first is that there is no looming pressure to do something. There is no "now or never" scenario (such as the impending change to landfill tax credits) that is forcing the railway to choose a sub-optimal decision over the optimal one. The second point is that lots of what is being discussed in regards CFL seems to be about putting in place temporary works that don't necessarily form part of the final scheme (by which I mean an extended railway that goes beyond Parracombe). In that context, it feels to me that it is worth spending money on things that will ultimately form part of the final scheme (such as bridge repairs), but expenditure should be limited on proposals that will in their turn need to be reworked as part of the final scheme (such as extensive - and expensive - remodelling of gradients).

Tom

 

Thanks Tom for your well considered reply. Certainly at Imberhorne there is a strong disincentive to ever re-excavating the Bluebell’s cutting to go down to the original gradients. The problem is that would mean removing the last of the domestic waste that remains buried on the bottom (and I believe one side) of the present cutting. A very much more expensive and disruptive proposition than simple excavating natural soils. A pity that the Bluebell is stuck with this situation which increases costs (larger engines, more fuel consumption, more wear and tear on brakes etc) and restricts train lengths handled by the smaller locos.

I agree that CFL is different and my comments were only about an option that might possibly be considered in the event that local pressure prevented the L and B from going with its preferred solution of a raised temporary station.

 

I’m not entirely sure that it is an option though. Without the benefit of intimate knowledge of the site all I would observe is that a steeper gradient than what is there already is undesirable and that restoration of the original gradient afterwards more involved. It seems unlikely that such a steepening would achieve the aim of a level station either.

 

What concerns me about this situation is that there appears to have been a lot of assumptions and speculation about what might - or might not - be regarded by the ORR as a suitable arrangement for a terminus on a 1-in-50 (or even 1-in-1oo) gradient. However, unless I've missed it somewhere, no-one from the Trust appears to have come out yet and said (in effect) "we have asked the ORR about this and their view is....".

Rather like the "do we need a TWAO or not" conundrum, IMHO there appears to be a shortage of actual factual information. Maybe it does indeed exist and that is why the Trust has adopted the plan now submitted, but if that is the case then why has it not provided those facts as supporting information?

 

On the exmoor-ng forum a trustee has stated “We are not planning to pursue a TWA order at this time.”
That could mean that the trustees don’t believe that they need one, or that they will apply for one at a later date.

 

They have published guidance on the matter. This states 1 in 500 max and straight (nearly) platforms unless there are exceptional circumstances. No need to ask the ORR.

A TWAO is required to provide the authority to operate any railway which crosses a public right of way. Light Railway Orders are no longer available. A TWAO will absolutely be required.

There is a an option to apply for deemed planning permission if you apply for a TWAO. There is a further option to obtain compulsory purchase powers. Both the planning permission and compulsory purchase powers are optional though. You can apply for either, both or neither. The TWAO though is unavoidable.