Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

That is very important information, crucial to the future of the whole project. It may have needed to be confidential while the purchase was negotiated, but what possible justification is there for keeping it secret now?

FWIW I seriously considered subscribing for shares in the pub but decided against it.

 

I think what the L and B at its best offers is a great adventure. Perhaps the last great railway adventure in the UK. The recreation of a railway dead for close to a century, reborn and revitalised, showing the way to create a sustainable and relevant visitor attraction and community asset.

 

I do wonder if some of the angst about Old Station House Inn does relate to this issue? Speaking as a businessman, a limited company or PLC for that matter can go into administration and this does not ordinarily impact on other related businesses, unless a collateral warranty is in place (which would be listed on companies house if it were). So IF OSHI were to go into administration, the shareholders (including myself) would lose their money (all or part), but this wouldn't ordinarily impact upon other related businesses (other than loss of shares or unsecured loans).

 

You have a very good point - it’s similar motivations (and some of the same people) that powered the WHR revival, the current RVR project and the GCR unification.

However, in order to attract enough of these kind of supporters (together with their professionalism and their money) L&B first needs to resolve the differences, both actual and perceived, between the Woody Bay and the Exmoor factions. Perhaps development of a joint ‘vision’ for the next 20 years might be a first step, which might well include operating railways at more than one site (as both WHR/FfR and GCR’ve done) until they can join up.

One of the problems with the recent CFL/Parracombe proposals was, perhaps, they just weren’t ambitious enough to generate much excitement outside the L&B inner circle.

Unity & clarity is the first step. Merging the organisations is not essential but they all need to subscribe to a common set of medium-term objectives (the existing long-term shared objective isn’t good enough) and to be clear about their respective roles.

It may yet take a while and involve some painful decisions. GCR unification now seems to be back on track with a new sense of unity following resolution of a few years of internal strife. K&ESR/RVR seemed to make little progress for a long time, with only lukewarm support from the KESR until there was a significant change in RVR focus and suddenly it all started to happen with everybody on board. And probably the best thing to happen to the WHR was the FfR’s decision to take over the project after a few years of seeming to oppose it and at a time when the ‘64 Co. was perceived, whether fairly or not, to have achieved little towards the reconstruction after so many years. Any parallels with the L&B?

 

Perhaps in this day an age adventures dont need to last more than 20mins.

 

You’re thinking about the wrong stakeholders.

Job #1 is to have a vision of what we want to achieve that is compelling enough to interest enough people. Then that vision has to expand to address the needs of other stakeholders (community etc). Right now though we (those interested enough to even attempt to build the thing) have to be enthusiastic about the challenges.

Job#2 is about ensuring that our vision will deliver something of tangible and lasting value to the local area. ( part of that is knowing what the public services might look like - loosely ). And knowing what it would cost to deliver.

Job#3 is having a package of funding, which only comes when 1 and 2 are compelling.

I think Adventure has to be a challenge. The trick is to make sure that it looks achievable in a realistic timescale.

 

I see, i am coming at this from the 'punters' perspective, but your replay clarifies your original post which is from an Enthusiast/potential Stakeholder point of view. Yes it would be a very brave or 'adventurous' group who decide to re locate the whole operation to another stretch of trackbed where it is more feasible to reinstate several miles of track, with potential 'destination's.

 

Why does the operation need to relocate? The execution of any significant and realistic plan will take some years to commence and longer to complete. There certainly isn’t an immediate impact on Woody Bay. Indeed it I think possible that two centres of operation might co-exist for some while. The creation and operation of a successful “southerly” railway would also strengthen the argument for the eventual reinstatement of the line that might connect them.

It all depends really on having a vision more actionable than “let’s eventually build the whole railway”. Of course you would want to keep that possibility open, but it isn’t what is going to drive forwards the L and B in the next 5, 10 and, 15 years I think.

We have to value what exists, change what no longer works, and look for a more creative way to advance. We should be seeking to heal division too, and move away from the idea that there are “senior” organisations and “junior” organisations. There must be a unified approach (which is not to suggest that we should be merging the organisations at this stage), but a longer railway requires the active cooperation of LBRT, CIC, LBBC, EA and YVT.

 

Woody Bay is a pretty perfect set-up but for the short length of running line. I wouldn’t favour a split operation though.

If Parracombe is beyond reach due to planning issues, what are the obstacles to going towards Lynton? I realise there are two road crossings to be built (has anyone designed & costed these?) but are there major planning and ownership issues too?

 

Looking at the Exmoor Associates map, there appears to be quite a lot owned around Chelfham. There is one stretch of 23m in private ownership, can this be resolved favourably? Also, will the Highways Agency allow trains over the viaduct? Is all this a potential second operating site?

 

pretty massive geological obstacles to the north, never mind land ownership. Putting to one side for a moment misty-eyed fantasies of being able to go through/round the Valley of Rocks (see pages passim), north has only ever made sense (IMO) as part of the inexorable logic of having done everything else. That might bring in the donations and grants to sort it out. Woody Bay to Lynton without the rest of the line to Barnstaple feels doomed to (financial) impossibility.

 

Whisper it quietly, but I suspect (if something can be done about parking) it might end up the potential *third* operating site… not that I’m advocating it, but give it ten years and I reckon that’s what might be.

 

This was a problem years ago. Going to Lynton may look simple, but several issues will need to be dealt with. The first is trackbed ownership, the second one will be planning, and the third is cost. Best estimate is about 1 million for the bridge just north of Woody Bay and about 3 million for the road bridge by Caffyns, now, while it would be a great extension, it is very costly and I would suspect it will need to be done in one hit I would allow about 20 million much of it will need to be done on a professional civil engineering basis.

 

Much though my thoughts drift south, I really hope that Chelfham doesn't become that. The site is a gem, and could so easily be ruined.

 

I mean more as a northern terminus from wherever to the south, but agree.

 

When you say, best estimate is about £1 million for the Woody Bay bridge, £3 million for the Caffyns bridge, and £20 million for the whole thing, are these actual estimates from professional companies for the Trust, or are they “Colin’s estimates“ ?

 

North is highly problematic compared to the line between Barnstaple and Blackmoor Gate.

I think Chelfham is unsuitable other than as a temporary rail head, it cannot really offer a long term start/finish point. A degree of creativity in approach is needed to miss the trap @35B mentions, but that’s achievable I think. The principal task is avoiding getting “stuck” anywhere.

 

In fairness the bridge at Killington Lane was costed at £500k+ and that’s a minnow in comparison.

 

Its just another Colin comment, same as fundraising to clear debt and a different loco to restore each week

 

Hi Keith, I have based those figures on the Witney Oxford Transport Group's report on building a new railway.