Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

It might also depend on how bad the sub base was to start with?

 

... or how far into the future they are projecting? A state that will be fine for 3-5 years won't necessarily be fit for 10-20.
Regardless, what is done is done. We need to move on from where we are, not worry about where we should be.

 

This has all the shade of L&BR Co V Nuttells about it

 

I am trying to understand what is going on here. Yes, we have needed carriage protection for some time, and also yes, just how long will this shed be on site? Should the Trust change direction and level Woody Bay to the operation for now, while it looks long and hard at the rest of the railway?

We all know that this is going to become a very expensive railway to rebuild, and yes may be it is time to give up on waiting for trackbed to become available and go all out to buy the trackbed that we need now. Fundamentally, the trust needs to change from what it is now to more of a governance and trackbed ownership model. Only then will we be taken more seriously by some of the locals.

 

One thing that I would query....

AIUI at the moment we normally run a rake of 4 coaches, with a 5th in the workshop for maintenance. In the longer term is there not an intention to rebuilt the 'new' railway with a view to accommodating trains of 5 coaches as a regular feature? Also, no doubt, the output from our excellent EAST group will continue to produce more stock that will need to be stored somewhere. Might it not therefore have been prudent future-proofing to have taken the opportunity to extend the 'headshunt' siding further towards KL by another carriage length (appreciating that more earthworks would be required) and make the shelter long enough to take 5 coaches?

Just a thought....

 

Havent you got that farm at Blackmoor?

Couldn’t “spare” carriages could be stored there under cover in mothballs until required. Given the cost of the carriage shed as it currently stands (and God knows what more problems will be miraculously discovered) judicious use of hired in transport for a planned rotation might be a more cost effective alternative.

With 3 steamers, two more on the way, and an ever growing number of carriages and bogie vans, it’s hard to contemplate how Woody Bay can be stuffed full of any more stock, especially given the constrained length of the running line

 

Rowley Moor farm

It is certainly the case that questions have been raised about RMF in the past about its current (non) use as a storage outpost. A bit inefficient in the case of 'active' locos and coaches, if the idea were to be merely to transfer them to RMF for winter storage and then bring them back again. But future 'surplus' stock might be another matter.

It has been pointed out before by others on here that not long ago the Trust spent a lot of £££ on improving the site access, which admittedly was deemed a prerequisite to using it to bring large low-loaders etc in or out. So why exactly is the site not being used more extensively for storage, given that the Trust seems to be short in many areas? I get the impression this is a 'delicate issue' for reasons probably not clear to most members, so maybe best not to get into too much detail here.

 

A carriage shed is a funny thing to build- it needs a lot of narrow portal frames to house a string of carriages. In most comparable applications, you'd want vehicles side by side, you don't want to have to lift out the spud lifter, then the baler and sledge, then the rake, then the tedder, to get to the fert spinner- you'd want them mostly side by side. The industry could build you a 3 track, 70' long shed at the drop of a reasonably priced hat- simply because they get built every day.
It might have been a better notion to build such a mundane shed as an overall roof at Killington Lane and use that as the carriage store. Not in keeping with the old L&B I admit, but there's narrow gauge precedent at Corris and Lhen Coan, and there isn't an L&B precedent for what has been built.
Such a generic could be easily moved, repurposed or sold if the railway does extend. The new long narrow shed that has been built would be difficult to adapt.

 

As regards KL, do not forget that the station site there only has (or at least used to only have) temporary planning permission - once the railway extends beyond there the site has to be returned to its original use. In any case, I doubt that the ENPA would countenance such a large structure - however temporary - at that location, as clearly 'non heritage'. There is also - sadly - the potential for serious vandalism as such a remote location remote from 'watching eyes'.

 

So…..

why did the Trust (a) buy Rowley Hall Farm and (b) spend good money on improving access, if they then don't, or can’t, use it for its intended purpose. Shouldn't the “delicate” issues have been resolved, or at least addressed, before spending the money?

Does anybody actually hold the Trust to account for their actions?

 

I think you will find that they bought it for the simple reason that it was going to provide the land for the new 'Pilton Mk2' Depot under Phase 2A, for which they had secured the planning permission which then sadly ran out of time. Maybe one day that will happen after all.

 

I think I can confidently say that I am probably classed as a trouble maker/sh1t stirrer because Im not afraid to question or challenge some decisions all in the name of 'accountability' although some like to call it something else so that it fits their narrative better

 

Here is the Christmas Question, so you can all mull it over for a while before you answer.

Given that the Trust indirectly owns Blackmoor and the OSHI, what would you like to see at Blackmoor if this were to be turned into the Hub Station for the whole project?

I have deliberately removed the published trust outline plan for Blackmoor since this question is about getting your views (the members of National Preservation) a chance to be constructive for a change.

Also, to encourage debate, there is no financial limit for your ideas; they may not be accepted, but I would like to hear what your dream steam railway destination would look like.

Happy Christmas to you all

 

Well, if money no object: It would have a heliport with frequent shuttles to all parts of the UK, so members/other enthusiasts could visit whenever they liked. Built about two miles away, with an underground train connection to the railway (so all those noisy whirly things don’t detract from the period atmophere, of course).

Also a secure storage vault for all the gold bricks that would have to be collected as the first stage of building and running this excellent facility.

Sorry, facetious comment. And your post is just a bit of Christmas jollification, inviting flights of imagination. But the above does show how a “no financial limit” rule tends to obscure what is practicable; and useful; and sensible ; and might even be worth a proper discussion!

 

Even with a no money limit, I would not close the pub. It's an important community hub now and the railway can sit alongside it quite comfortably and blend in well together.

I also would not to over develop the area. It is the gateway to the Exmoor National Park and needs to be done sensitively. Certainly no huge collections, and as much as possible in keeping with the charm and uniqueness of the L&B, drifting too far from that I think would be a huge mistake.

 

With money no limit: a complete facsimile of the L&B as it was, extending over the full 20 miles; but with two of every loco and carriage produced so that the railway could choose to run in either SR olive or L&B liveries, as the mood took me each morning. (Others to be stored when not in use in an off-scene fiddle yard, 12" to the foot scale). Barnstaple Town station re-instated along with the river bridge to run a shuttle service hauled by the T3 and T9 back to Barnstaple Junction to act as a convenient way for visitors to reach the railway.

I suspect you might get a more sensible discussion if you change the ground rules to "financial limit set to what is a viable rate of fundraising for a project like this".

Tom