Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

It was meant to be

 

While I agree that the carriages need to have protection from the North Devon weather now, it must also be remembered that this building will only be in position until Blackmoor becomes the operational centre of the project.

Like the locomotive shed, this is an operational necessity for now. The long-term plan that ENPA wish us to have is a station at Woody Bay, just as it was when the full railway was operating up to 1935.

So much of what we have built at Woody Bay will need to go at that time. But that said, a building the size of Pilton Yard is going to be in excess of 1 million pounds to buy and construct at Blackmoor.

While I do get annoyed at the cost of these things, we also need to take into account just how much money has been spent on rebuilding the carriages themselves. I think the average cost was about £200,000 per carriage, so in the long term, it is an investment.

 

I fear you are right, but take issue with the idea that because the cause of the overrun could have been identified, it should have been identified. The elision omits consideration of what that extra analysis would have cost, both financially and in terms of delaying work starting.

When there’s a hanging jury out there for the Trust leadership, fairness can go out of the window. In this case, there was a) tremendous mistrust of the board last spring and b) a firm belief that sheltering the carriages was urgent. If the additional analysis had caused delay, or had pushed the estimate up at that time, we all need to consider whether we would have accepted it at that time.

 

But - realistically - just how far ahead will it be before that happens? In the meantime the carriages need protection.
What if (say) back in the early 2000s it had been decided that a 'temporary' loco shed and workshop was not needed at WB as we would "soon be building at Blackmoor"?

 

Wow…this forum is flaky…this is the 7th time I’ve tried to post something without success

Much of what I wanted to say has now already been said or alluded to.

Surely it doesn’t cost much in time or money to do a visual inspection of the siding and dig some explanatory holes. It isn’t a running line after all, just a siding with a steel framed shed erected over it.

If a carriage restoration costs £200k, the organisation has invested a million quid in 5 carriages, which arguably are not currently needed given the current length of the running track. A delay in the restoration of one carriage would have funded the erection of the carriage shed plus exigency funding. The carriage protection should have been a forethought rather than an afterthought.

This is not to decry the wonderful work of the true craftsmen rebuilding the heritage carriages

 

My impression is that was the basic idea originally - put up a 'temporary' steel structure over an existing siding, which can be removed/relocated at a later date. It would appear to have morphed now - for one reason or another - into a wholesale clearance and reconstruction of the existing infrastructure. Hindsight would suggest that perhaps the project should have been approached in that way from the outset, but I can understand the desire to minimise the upfront cost. Whether the approach was flawed and/or the problem should have been anticipated and dealt with accordingly is outwith my knowledge of such matters.

 

Fair points, but we are where we are, and considering that the new shelter may be in use for the next 20 years, it does need to be built substantially in the first place. Let's just hope that the necessary funds will be forthcoming and in short order.

 

Building such a permanent structure at Woody Bay hardly suggests much confidence in achieving any extension in the foreseeable future. Why would anybody want to donate funds to a project riven by factional infighting and failed and poorly considered initiatives?

 

The impossible, we have already achieved. Miracles take a little longer.

 

My perception is that with all the internal controversy, the miracle has actually been achieving what has been already achieved and the impossibility is moving forward in any meaningful way without a significant coming together of heads…..

 

...with or without significant force ?

 

Only others closer to the action can be the arbiter of that. The stock answer would be “whatever it needs for the good of the L&B and its continued development”

 

That is very likely to be in the eye of the beholder. In other words there is always a tendency to see one’s own point of view as the “right” one. It seems to me that at times the L and B has suffered disproportionately from this pattern of thought. The issue this presents is who is the arbiter of “what is right for the L and B”? That can only really come from the members.

 

I'm not sure in a complex environment things are quite that simple.

Firstly, in financial terms - funds donated or raised for one project may not be transferrable to another. (One reason why charities like unrestricted funds!) So if a donor has given a bequest "for the creation and restoration of replica L&B carriages" you can't automatically transfer that money to a project that helps protect them once created, even if doing so is a sound idea.

The other point is about Human Resources. The people restoring carriages have different skills to those who might understand the intricacies of the sub-base of a railway siding, or the construction techniques of a steel frame building. (Not to mention the fact that AIUI, those restoring carriages are hundreds of miles away from Devon).

So it isn't a simple matter to say "delaying restoring a carriage would have enabled the carriage shed". More likely doing so would simply have delayed the carriage project, while not advancing the carriage shed project.

Tom

 

That all sounds pretty likely.

There is also the point that the context is important. If trying to get a project over the line and secure agreement and funding for it to go ahead, proposers have a huge incentive to quote the lower end of the range of likely costs.

This is surely one reason why so many projects on the big railway end up costing more than the initial estimate. (I don’t know if that is applicable to this particular small project on the L and B, but it’s something that applies to many new construction projects, especially those that need some form of political agreement (like HS2).

It doesn’t apply only in the rarer cases where some body or person steps forward at the start and says “this is what we need to build, there is enough money, now just let us know how much of our money the work will actually need”. A great way to make things happen, which probably lies behind the swift progress on the Rother Valley Railway, for example.

 

[QUOTE="Petra Wilde, post: 2961941, member: 29783”] [/QUOTE]…..This is surely one reason why so many projects on the big railway end up costing more than the initial estimate. (I don’t know if that is applicable to this particular small project on the L and B, but it’s something that applies to many new construction projects, especially those that need some form of political agreement (like HS2)......
Based on the information put into the public domain by the Trust, that is not what has happened. The extra expenditure has been incurred because a problem became apparent only once work was in progress and so the rectification thereof had not formed part of the original contract.

 

I would rather doubt that give the project update, which says:

"This has been a complex project with far more work expected than originally envisaged. As trackwork was removed to enable below ground construction it quickly became evident that not only was the headshunt track life expired but the sub-base and ballast throughout the area was also in need of renewal. The opportunity was also taken to renew sleepers in an around the interconnecting pointwork so that it is fit for a long future.

Given that our volunteer teams were hard pressed with other crtitcial activities over the summer and proceeding the gala it was decided to use our shelter contractor help to renew the ballast at the same time of constructing the carriage shed foundations. In rebuilding the headshunt (which will now be the carriage shelter road) the opportunity was also taken to renew sleepers in an around the interconnecting pointwork so that it is fit for a long and fruitful future.

This means we have a shortfall of around £30,000 in extra materials, contractor machinery and labour over our original target estimate of £60,000 (of which we have 91% to date).”

To an outsider, this can only have arisen because those doing the original cost estimate were either (1) unwilling to accept that a shed on this site was not just a temporary facility, but likely to be in use for decades; OR (2) insufficiently aware of the practicalities to factor in the true costs of doing an acceptable quality of job; OR (3) unwilling to frighten the horses by quoting at the outset the most realistic estimate for doing a high-quality job. Or perhaps (4) they didn’t think raising the extra money part-way through the work would be a problem or cause any unfavourable comment?

Or has this just been a bit of gold-plating? It’s a carriage shed on the narrow gauge, to be used for storing and maintaining some lightweight vehicles which will be cautiously shunted in and out, empty, at very low speeds. Does the trackwork actually need to be all that great? It certainly doesn’t have to be up to mainline standards. Just think of the state of the tracks in the early days of the Tallylyn, for example.

 

"...."This has been a complex project with far more work expected than originally envisaged. ..."
IMHO that is the key factor. A job was planned, a design was produced, an Invitation to Tender was issued (presumably), contractors submitted quotations based on the work defined in the ITT, and in due course the Trust selected their chosen quote and contractor. That was the £60K.

"... As trackwork was removed to enable below ground construction it quickly became evident that not only was the headshunt track life expired but the sub-base and ballast throughout the area was also in need of renewal..." It is clear IMHO that was new work not covered by the original ITT, hence the £30K cost is extra and outwith the scope of the original contract.

IMHO again, having being involved professionally in the Design specification for contracts worth £Bn let alone £Mn (as well as in the scrutiny of the various bids against the ITT), the questions to be asked perhaps are whether (a) the original plan was thought through sufficiently and/or (b) there was a lack of foresight as to possible problems which might arise during construction and how those might be mitigated. But, as a merely 'outsider looking on' member in this matter, I can't make any comment on that.

 

The sub base is about the only item not immediately visible, without a degree of judicious prodding. This is not HS2. It is c.150ft of narrow gauge track, laid this century.
Make of it what you will. I just know I'm not impressed

 

Depends on what type of specification they used. If it was a technical specification detailing work and materials to be used then yes, there would be extra If the railway hadn't specified it in the spec. It was the company that decided agree to the extra. They didn't have to. If they'd used a performance specification that would have stated something like "make this track suitable for carriages with a shed over" then the onus would have been on the contractor to investigate what was necessary and identify those Works in their tender. Coming back for more money simply because they didn't do their initial surveys (and there was nothing here to stop them doing a trial hole to investigate the condition of the sub base) then no, their failure to identify work required when they could have done so does not justify additional payment.
Question: How good does the sub base really have to be on a carriage siding anyway? Seems like overkill to me.