Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Chelfham Viaduct open days are now on the L&B website: https://www.lynton-rail.co.uk/news/view/chelfham-viaduct-open-weekend-17-18th-may

 

As it is almost Eurovision, L&B Trust nu points

 

Bu**er, I thought it was going all the way to Torrington on a mixed gauge bridge for the reinstated Ilfracombe line. My bad.

 

It should. It also gives a great deal to think about in terms of how ENPA consider applications, and what they may or may not give support to.

I also found the comments of opponents interesting. What struck me was the depth of knowledge and experience they brought to discussions, and hence the quality of evidence required to successfully rebut their concerns - and where the application clearly failed to hit the mark.

Unlike some, I don’t conclude that Parracombe is unachievable. There were clear steers as to what might successfully thread the eye of the needle. But that requires absolute rigour in the submissions, and in the supporting information. It also requires credibility, and opponents will challenge that credibility - as we saw. That means dealing with economic analysis properly, dealing with drainage questions properly, and seriously engaging with the precise meaning of the National Park’s policy on reinstatement.

A period of reflection is absolutely required, to allow proper consideration of what might be possible, and what not. A rapid turnaround based on one more heave will not work.

As an aside, I root my views in the law as it is, and planning policies as they are. Not as I might wish them to be. I actually share the views of @RailWest on some of the specifics - but they are the rules as laid out.

 

How achievable while some landowners currently refuse to sell required trackbed?

 

Mark, it runs from the boundary of land around the historical Blackmoor site so just north of bridge 55 right down to bridge 53, the land in question runs to bridge 54 which is level ground to embankment and is open farmland. bridge 54 to 53 is cutting but im not sure if the top sides are fenced either although i guess it would be

 

To be honest, I am disappointed to see this sort of post.
While that sort of terminology is used, it will be a long time. As per the previous post, when we accept that these are well educated, serious people with well thought out arguments, then we might begin to change minds.

 

By agreement, almost impossible - though unkind nicknames can’t help. But other legal means exist.

The point about the video is that it highlights how weak the railway case really was against the fine detail of determined and well briefed opponents.

Get the prep right, thinking in terms of the planning law, and it’s amazing what might be possible

 

While we are on the subject of reinstating things as they were and avoiding deviations, can someone remind me why we cannot just rebuild Blackmoor station as it was? I have read that they will be new platforms on a different alignment and new station buildings.
I see that as a great betrayal. We are going to be spending millions and Blackmoor will become the flagship due to its size, we really must now restore it as it was, not carve out a new railway on a different alignment.

 

The reason for that is/was quite simple, Ian.

The OSI in its current (extended) form occupies the site of the original platforms and passing-loop. To recreate the station on its original alignment would mean demolishing a lot of the current pub, hence reducing - or maybe even eliminating - its ability to function. Also, there was much opposition at the time against the alleged, but misunderstood intention to "close down the pub", viewed as a popular local attraction and business. So the decision was made to promise to keep the pub as it is and rebuild the station just to the west. AIUI the land is also a bit lower and that will help to ease the alignment under the required new road bridge.

However, I gather the intention that the old station building itself will be brought back into railway use (but I may be wrong there), even if waiting rooms etc will be new ones on the new platforms.

 

The lack of certain sections of the trackbed does impact the ability to construct the line all the way through from WB to BR.

However it does not prevent the extension of the line from KL to the actual PE station site. As was demonstrated with the Sec 73 application, it would be theoretically possible (just) to have a platform and run-round loop at PE, admittedly probably with a reduced length of train. There is no doubt of course that it would have been a lot better if the next section of trackbed immediately south of PE could be acquired as well, as that would make the site a lot less restricted.

It should be noted also that AIUI the Sec 73 plans were submitted without there having been an in-depth survey of the current station site to establish a more accurate plan of the original alignment and clearances by the bridge etc

 

With all deference to @35B and @RailWest who I know well and whose judgement I respect, I really think we need to leave Parracombe alone at this point as a horse flogged to death. It is impractical - and arguably impossible - to adequately police the road to ensure that railway passengers/enthusiats/the curious don't get in the way on a *very* narrow road whilst operating Parracombe as a terminus. Go back to the Parracombe School's Headteacher's submission during the s73 debacle and you will find an eloquent description of the community's concerns about the impact upon it.

From my perspective, the best (and indeed, probably the only way) to get back through Parracombe to link Woody Bay with BG/OSHI is to:

(i) open a respectful dialogue with the Parracombe community and the remaining landowners

(ii) buy all of the other land between BG/OSHI and Parracombe -- something that the Trust has never prioritised;

(iii) operate a longer railway somewhere else along the L&B, to demonstrate the economic and community case for the reinstatement, so that when the balancing comes to be done, it favours the railway;

(iv) with (ii) complete and with (iii) providing compelling evidence in favour of reinstatement, make it clear that if there is *only* one land owner who refuses to sell at any price, and that this blocks the reinstatement through Parracombe, we will pursue compulsory purchase powers via a TWAO - with the CP powers limited to the single piece of land required - making a recalcitrant owner seem unreasonable, not us;

(v) to support the above, I'd advocate a self-denying ordinance to provide certainty for the community. Here's a starter for 10:

"The L&B has heard the people of Parracombe and wants to be a good neighbour and to provide certainty to the community.

To provide this, we will only apply for permission to extend through Parracombe when all of the land is in our possession or where negotiations have shown that it is only going to be possible to acquire it via compulsory purchase powers.

Irrespective, under no circumstances will open Parracombe Halt until the whole extension to Woody Bay is operational, so there will be no period where services terminated at Parracombe Halt from either direction.

We therefore do not anticipate that we will be making such a planning application until after 2030."

 

I think that the above needs to be rephrased to clarify exactly what is meant by "the whole extension to Woody Bay" - starting from where? Might I suggest something on the lines of "Irrespective, there will be no intention to open Parracombe Halt for public use until the whole section of line between Woody Bay and Blackmoor is operational, so in the meantime there will be no period where passenger services are terminated at Parracombe Halt from either direction...."

This will allow a certain amount of leeway to cover for emergency situations eg WB to BR is operational, but a SVR-like problem with an embankment necessitates temporary use as a terminus. Also, we might want to use PE occasionally for engineering purposes during construction work.

 

That basically sums it up Toby. There's a reason that the process is called 'planning' - applications are measured against the adopted local plan. That's very clear from this determination.

Unfortunately this ill conceived fiasco has done further damage & wasted *another* two years. To give credibility to the L&BRT it would be essential to see a willingness to cooperate with other bodies such as EA & YVT to develop a decent length of line elsewhere with clear community benefits built in. This could be substantially differentiated from the landlocked Woody Bay museum-with-demo-line operation, emphasising access to exceptional landscape outwith the National Park, skills training etc. Modern traction and coaching stock would be employed, with the provision for cycle carriage. Circular walking & cycling routes would thus be opened up. In due course heritage trains would operate at selected times.

Initiating such a course of action would be infinitely preferable to either a highly inadvisable appeal (given the rigour of ENPA's response) or to one or more knee jerk schemes designed to dilute embarrassment at the L&B AGM.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

Like Tobbes, I do respect those who have done this all before or have the experience to show us the way how it needs to be done in the future, banging our head up against a brick wall is not going to help right now. The question now is how do you tell the membership that there will be no extension for say five years at least? While we undertake a full review of the group, which I have to say is urgently needed.

What we need is to have an open meeting with the folk in Parracombe village, and just listen to what they have to say, then deal with every concern they have professionally.

My overall feeling is that the trust needs to stop trying to build the railway and concentrate on just fundraising and buying the land we need for now. as for the rest of it that will happen.

As for Blackmoor, I feel that we are hamstrung as we don't own everything that we need to make Blackmoor a success. There are still two properties that we need to own and other bits of land that we need to either buy or lease for, say, ten years, to erect a temporary restaurant while a complete rebuild of the station building is undertaken due to the amount of structural work that it needs. While it is just outside of the National Park, we need to be aware of those planning issues that the ENPA have placed on us at Parracombe, and I am sure that NDC will want to agree with those issues as well.

By rebuilding the Station building at Blackmoor, it also means that new bridge clearances can be incorporated at the same time, and the railway would then be able to be put back on the original alignment but at a lower level which I think everyone would agree is a best way forward from a planning and Heritage point of view.

I know people have derided my concept about a new (in the style of) Pub/Restaurant at Blackmoor in the past. But I think we all know by now that it is the only long-term option we have for Blackmoor. Anything else is going to be a waste of time, money and effort. ENPA/NDC has made sure of that.

One final thought about this issue is that this opens up the Midhants way to extend the station at Blackmoor, ie find a redundant Station building and move it lock, stock and barrel to Blackmoor or look around in North Devon for a closed pub and move that instead. Somewhere, ENPA have issued a planning brief as to the acceptable styles permitted within the NP, so it should be good practice for the L&BR family to follow those guidelines.

I don't know how much this will cost, but the L&BR family are very good at finding unique ways to get something done that other railways haven't used in the past. As the prime example, how many other railways have set up a time share scheme so we can obtain the trackbed? We've done it twice, and I would suspect that we might need to do it again.

 

That's helpful @RailWest , thank you.

The main point is that there will never be a permanent terminus at Parracombe - which there would be a risk of without building the whole BG/OSHI - KL section as a single jump. Given the ENPA focus on what was previously there, do we need a loop at Parracombe? If there's no operational reason to build it, then we should say so.

In haste...

 

I have not yet had the time to watch the report of the meeting but I take two issues mentioned in the recent posts on here,one is that of the points on which the planning was refused and the second on the lack of PR with the inhabitants of Parracombe, we were assured by the Trust that before the planning application was to be applied for that pre planning dialogue would take place with ENPA to 'get it correct' and also that a PR company would be employed to engage with the people of Parracombe, if both did actually happen then questions need to be asked why both failed miserably,if they didn't happen then we should be told honestly why they weren't implemented, we do know of course that a PR company was employed to help because a subsidiary company of that company was used as the so called 'independent' group to oversee Anne Belsey's trial of missue of data, so what did they actually achieve if the people of Parracombe are still not placated to some point

 

Apologies that this isn't entirely relevant to the immediate discussion, but one thing I noticed when traveling along the A399/A39 road past Blackmoor en route to Combe Martin, the L&B is appallingly signposted. As of my last visit in 2024 there didn't appear to be anything, even the ubiquitous brown sign, to indicate to passing motorists on the busiest road in the area that there is a heritage railway station and potentially even just a very nice cafe 10 minutes down the road. Is this deliberate or a stipulation to keep traffic down? Seemed to me like the line could be missing vital passing trade.

 

To be honest, I think *everyone* needs to sit down, quietly, and have a think.

An equally plausible way forward, would be to go full heritage on a longer stretch - not to kill Woody Bay but if you make enough money from the new stretch then the incentive to connect up with Woody Bay will grow. *If* Woody Bay became a sleepy backwater for a few years because there was a much bigger version a few miles away done to the same quality, then IMHO it wouldn't be the end of the world. It wouldn't be a waste of anyone's efforts up to now, it wouldn't threaten its existence.

The single biggest case I can see *against* your idea is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that that's what the L&B is now going to be - heritage trains at selected times. Unless you're proposing that when the line is all joined up your way of operating the longer bit would be consigned to history?

I'm not sure that the tea leaves of the decision last week make an unanswerable case for your proposal tbh. It's a possible way forward, but is it what enough people want?

This is why people need to sit down and think - I can feel the battle lines being drawn between WHR Devon and 1935.

We need to get to a consensus of what the membership actually wants - I feel like I keep saying this - there are too many visions, from what you describe above through to obsessive total recreation of 1935, via all points in between.

Bluntly we need to emerge from this process with a majority decision so that everyone knows what the vision is for the line, and they are free to get behind it or walk away. The range of 'now's the time to do xyz' at the moment - and the extent to which propositions are mutually incompatible - a) can't go on, and b) probably explains partly how we are where we are.

 

EXACTLY this. We tried the knee-jerk "we must do something" last time, and it got us nowhere - literally.