Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Yes, I do wholeheartedly approve of the B&YV style of operations. Also, I don't think the pair of Indian Pacifics will be seen in Devon in my lifetime, but as they say, never say never and also be careful for what you wish for.

But since I have a very long wish list, I doubt that I will see any of it happen.

 

The point of my post was not just about their excellent record of land acquisitions but to ask your opinion of B&YVRT's new approach. They're now proposing to rebuild unconnected sections of the railway on the lands they own, gradually linking them together as more sections are obtained. Building the track, and maybe stations, but not running regular trains (except occasional special events) until they have bought and built a length viable enough.

I'm still not optimistic the L&B Trust'll get permission for the latest version of the CFL extension so perhaps they could then adopt the same approach. Apply for planning permission just to relay the track to Parracombe and restore the station. No loop (keep the existing one until no longer required), and run no trains other than an occasional 'members only' special until either the further extension to Blackmoor is built; or the Parracombe residents clamour for it after a year or two of looking over the fence and seeing it's not so bad after all.

As I said before this approach would prove (to potential future supporters & funders, local authorities - and residents) the Trust(s) seriousness about getting as much as possible of the railway rebuilt in the long term and of managing construction projects, and special events, in a neighbourly, professional and environmentally sensitive way.

Never mind about what rolling-stock until the need is actually on the horizon. And if the project is exciting enough who knows what might be offered.

 

As I see it, there are two major problems with that approach:-

1. There will be a length of track and a putative Halt that may stand idle for goodness knows how long, meanwhile needing regular maintenance that will divert resources from elsewhere and risk falling foul of the ENPA's stance of not wanting to be left with incomplete railway construction sites littering the Park .

2, You can not rebuilt the railway and Halt at PE without first demolishing 'The Halt' - the bungalow on the site (owned by the Trust). It would not be very good for relationships with the local population if the railway evicted its tenants for no good reason other than to be able to run "oocasional specials" once every proverbial blue moon :--(

 

One thing to note however is that the length of such an extension, while it would add significantly to the current L&B operable track by proportion... wouldn't be terribly long in terms of actual distance.

If you operated to Cricket Field Lane regularly, with maybe once or twice a weekend stops at Parracombe, the latter stop would be less than 1,000 feet away from Cricket field. That, in my mind, could be a manageable enough section to operate irregularly.

If there's no Cricket Field halt, different story. That's around 7 tenths of a mile or so away from Killington lane, nearly half of the railway from Woody Bay to Parracombe wouldn't be useable.

I think the idea of having irregular services to Parracombe could work... but only if Cricket Field Halt exists.

 

To be frank, the only realistic reason to have a Halt at CFL would be if we could not get to PE - period. But then we would have to solve the problem of stopping a train on a steep gradient 'cos we can't raise the trackbed at CFL (been there, tried that etc).

Being realistic IMHO it is either PE or nothing. How many times can we continue to throw time and money at planning applications before it becomes apparent that we need to try something radically different?

 

I am sorry I misunderstood your point regarding the restoration of the various sections of trackbed. Personally, I think it will all depend on where the section is. I think it will require us (as a whole Railway) to have several different outcomes available.

Realistically, as things stand, I can't see us being allowed to reopen all of the old route. The one section I think that we need to look at again will be the Barnstaple Town to Snapper Halt section. Barnstaple itself has grown since the railway was last in operations there and from what I remember, there may still be various vested interests involved in and around that section of the railway which would make it almost impossible to get reopened. That said, If an alternative route was to become available then of course I would look at that as well.

I like your idea about comparing rebuilding the L&BR to rebuilding a canal, to be honest I don't know enough about the canal scence to make a judgement call on if it would work for the L&BR. there area two things that come to mind:

1) If we own a substantial continuous section of trackbed, then it would make sense to seek planning permission to restore it to and to make it ready for track laying.

2) If it is an isolated section, but it requires some civil engineering work to be carried out to make it fit for use, then again, this has to be another lets get it done.

Where I think it would do more harm is to fence off the land, and for the railway to do nothing with it for years on end.

While we all would love to see more of the railway open, to do the above will cost money and I would rather leave that bit of the discussion for another day.

Finally on this point it is good to see that the land is being managed since we want to be known as good neighbours, so it would be in our own interest to make sure that the trackbed does not become overgrow and look abandoned and create problems for our neighbours themseleves.

The more I look at any extension to Parracombe the worse the nighmare becomes, the first thing we all need to understand is that if we build any railway from Kilington Lane towards Parracombe Halt then we lose the Killington Lane run-round station as that is part of the agreement we had with the landowner, and we can not have both at the same time it is one or the other only.

I am sure we don't own the Killington Lane station site, but we do lease it, we do however own the trackbed.

Should we then decide to build the railway back to Parracombe then the whole line would then become one long siding from Woody Bay to Parracombe Halt to keep the operations simple it may well be that we top and tail the train with the steam engine at the Woody bay end of the train and at the Parracombe end have one of the Diesels.

Also as things stand I can see there would be some local objections to people walking to Parracombe Halt and taking the train to Woody Bay, if that was to be part of a new planning permission, we would lose a place where people could walk into Parracombe from Killington Lane.

For what it is worth I have come to the conclusion that it may be better for the L&BRT to built its railway from Blackmoor to just south of Parracombe which would form a stalingrad pincer movement, what is the old saying? give them enough rope................

If for no other reason than we still find ourseleves in stalemant with Parracombe and there is still a desire to make the Woody Bay operation longer, I would start to seriously look at going all the way back to Lynton. it certainly won't be cheap and we may have to think outside of the box on this extension.

I total agree with you about being good neighbours all round, if the B&YVT can do it, why can't the L&BRT?

I did say I wanted to leave the issue of fundraising for another day but this is going to be a big project and raising the sort of mney it will need is not for the faint hearted.

 

I've followed the trials and tribulations of the L&B restoration for a number of years now. Having visited Woody Bay a few years ago, I was impressed by what I found and would dearly love to see it extended.

Looking at the recent discussions, it seems to this distant observer that a great solution would be a "long siding" to Parracombe Halt that, just like the Llangollen's extension to Corwen (before it was completed, of course), is operated top-and-tail on special occasions, but otherwise operations are limited to Killington Lane as per the current arrangement. It worked extremely well for the LR and look what they now have...

An argument is made that it would be lightly used track that would need maintaining, but without wishing to be rude, the existing mile of track is not exactly a huge running line to keep maintained, so surely it could be done? I also understand there is a question about lifting the run-round loop at Killington Lane once the line is extended, but would it not be possible to approach the landowner to see if the agreement could be altered?

It just seems to me that there is no perfect solution here because of the disjointed ownership of the trackbed and local opposition in some places, but this scheme would get the line extended (albeit only for occasional use), and other railways have shown that demonstrating the ability to extend, even if in small increments, can lead to bigger and better things.

Just a thought!