Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

>>>I felt the place really needed a museum of smaller artefacts....

I would agree - it's one of those 'little things' which has the potential to add a lot to the 'visitor experience'. Of course, the old Assoication did once have just such a thing in the former L&SWR signal-box at Barnstaple Town, but they had to vacate there many years ago.

AIUI the Trust is starting to exhibit a few items at WB, but to a large extent I suspect it all comes down to (a) lack of space and (b) manpower willing and available to do it. There is talk of a 'proper' Museum at Blackmoor in due course, but when how and where on site are all very vague. Sadly I think it is a case - perhaps quite understandable - that most interest and effort is directed to actually running the railway and 'ancillary stuff' such as a Museum comes lower down the list of priorities.

Another factor at the moment is that - apparently - the Trust does not (yet - it is supposed to be a matter getting attention now) have a comprehensice list of all the 'relics' in its possession and where they all are. It is difficult to plan a Museum if you don't know how much stuff you have and how much space will be required to exhibit it !

 

Tom

I also called at Woody Bay for a lunchtime pasty and a train ride on my way home from holiday yesterday - I was on the 1.30 train.

Thanks for your feedback, be it complimentary or constructive criticism.

Did you see the glass display cabinet in the tearooms which contains a small collection of L&B artifacts? The Trustee who currently has responsibility for such things does change the items from time to time.

We all look forward to having a longer journey. We very much hope the current Planning Application will be approved by ENPA so that we can almost double the length of the ride. The train would then dive under two road bridges and pass through trees adding variety to the trip.

In time we would love to be able to extend all the way to the Old Station Inn at Blackmoor and down to the reservoir - that would give an 11 mile round trip.

I understand the trains are running slightly slower at the moment in order to minimise the risk of any lineside fires. The return journey from Killington Lane to Woody Bay is usually much more exciting sound-wise! Do please pay another visit once the rains have returned and reduced the risk of fire. Your ticket allows you to ride on every train on that day.

Mike

 

What are the plans for reinstating Paracoombe bank?

 

The plans which were approved in 2018 showed a big concrete 'tunnel' built over the river with masses of suitable material over the top. I guess those documents can still be found on the ENPA website.

 

That sounds appropriate. It's only a stream at that stage, isn't it?

 

You might find this link useful: https://www.lynton-rail.org.uk/page/killington-lane-blackmoor-gate-and-wistlandpound-maps-photos

My understanding from way back when was that the bank itself would become a major civil engineering project by itself, since the material used in its original construction was not very good. A survey that was carried out some time ago suggested that the whole embankment should be dug out and replaced (not an easy access task at the best of times) and better material brought in to replace it all; the other suggestion was to replace it with some sort of viaduct. Both options will be expensive, but one of them will be necessary.

My general understanding is that the old embankment is in very poor condition and the original material has become waterlogged; the least that needs to be done will be to introduce better drainage and rebuild the culvert to modern-day standards. I am also told that we may have the perennial problem with Rabbit holes in the embankment. I don't know for sure, but as it is almost 100 years since a train travelled over it and no maintenance has been done to it since then, we should expect the worst and a very expensive future project in front of us.

 

There's an interesting article in the L&B magazine 126.
The fill looks to be fairly rocky.
The main issue would be the capacity of the culvert, a pair 3ft wide each. As the embankment fill progressed the embankment shifted and the culverts failed.
The river (stream here?) was redirected a few yards and two new similar culverts built.
The 3ft culverts were insufficient for the great flood, which would be more regular these days.
So a really big capacity replacement culvert would be essential here.

I've seen a blocked small diameter culvert quickly turn an embankment into a dam with a big lake

 

I agree; it is a good article by Michael Bishop. So until we can carry out a full civil engineering survey on the embankment, we won't know for certain what condition it really is in.

The article mentions that there was some movement in the embankment itself; now whether that was down to water getting in between the spoil or even water being in a state that it could have produced a hydraulic effect inside the embankment itself, I really don't know. What we do know is that whatever the cause and effect was, it played its part in the Lynmouth Floods at a later date.

You are right to point out the change in the weather pattern and just how wet it can get in North Devon (you might not think that right now). But 44,000 Cu yards of material could very well easily move under the right conditions.

 

Thanks. We took a couple of trips either side of lunch, and - having spent the previous week in Cornwall - my wife and I split the difference on the correct sequence of scone / cream / jam for lunch in between!

I think what really struck me was that Woody Bay oozes charm. If the railway could extend, and if the extended line could retain that same sense of charm and historical fidelity elsewhere in its built environment, it could be absolutely breathtaking. But that does mean, quite apart from just the sheer planning battle for an extension, having a really robust heritage / interpretation plan for the rebuilt line. That means no "Statfold of the South West", or half the journey going past lines of unrestored stock. The beauty of Woody Bay was that within pretty much 100 yards of the platform, you were into open countryside; that is the feeling to be preserved.

Tom

 

I quite agree, though - to be honest - the L&BR does not (yet) have very much by way of unrestored stock anyway

There is certainly a tendency on some heritage railways for remote termini and other intermediate locations to be used for sidings to 'hide' rusting relics awaiting some long-term restorationaway from public view. I recall that during the design work for Phase 2A we identified one or two possible places which such sidings could be provided if required and my understanding is that the Board (or at least some members thereof) - to their credit - were very firmly against any such idea that might result in pockets of 'hidden scrap yards' anyway on the railway.

Once - hopefully! - we get running to PE, careful thought will have to be given as to what to do with the KL site if anything other than reverting to its previous ownership becomes a possibility.

 

No, although I suspect there are a few who would not be averse to acquiring some - if only as "proof we are in the big league now, we've got a siding of rusty future projects".

I'm sure we've all been to lines where, had the "guide to the line" had been written truthfully, it would go along the lines:

"As your train leaves the platform, look out on the left for the row of six shipping containers. These were acquired in the early preservation era and no-one can quite remember what they contain, but they form a colourful start to your journey. The fifth container is a particularly rare example of the double-length type. Turning your gaze now to the right, you see the aptly named "cripples siding", containing the Little Snoring's much-prized collection of carriage under frames, notice how as you go along the siding, the rusty metal almost magically transforms to young trees before your eyes, a portent of the wooded sections of the line to come. There is a brief gap in the trees through which - if you are quick - a fleeting glance of the Much Meddling sewage treatment works can be obtained, before the lines swings round once more to the left, opening up the unparalleled vista of the overflow car park, home to two ancient Massey Ferguson tractors used to pull visitors out of the mud after heavy rainfall. On the horizon, the spire of St Barnabas' Church can just be seen behind the new housing estate that has recently sprung up, before the line rises to pass over the St Barnabas bypass ... [continues as nauseam]"
​

That is the feeling to be avoided!

Tom

 

There are a few unwritten rules when it comes to rolling stock acquisition for the L&B railway.

1. It needs to earn its keep from day one; it has to be in a certain power band (around the 10,000+ HP range); It will also be required to haul a seven-coach train up a continuous 7 miles of 1 in 50; many 2ft gauge steam locos in the UK just don't come anywhere near the railway's requirement. It is one of the reasons why Woody Bay does not have loads of locos awaiting restoration on a siding.

2. Woody Bay also simply does not have the capacity to house a load of non-working locos. It is also another reason why the new-build Manning Wardles will not be built at Woody Bay; I don't think a location has been agreed yet by the 762 club, but Paul Lewin has suggested that he wouldn't mind if they were built at Boston Lodge.

3. One of the long-term problems is finding any suitable locos to restore; the consensus is that there are very few still out in the wild and it is looking more likely that the working fleet will be made up mainly of new-build locos.

4. That said, with a second section of the railway becoming operational at some stage, then some consideration as to what could come to North Devon will need to be given. As I see it, the most likely outcome will be bigger, more powerful diesel locos (due to climate change, drier summers, but most importantly, a need to provide for a possible lack of steam engine crew).

As I have said, these are unwritten rules and have been around since almost day one. As far as I know, the L&BR Trust still does not have a written policy on what locos it wants in Devon*, since what operates at Woody Bay is down to the CIC and what it can afford.

* Even the Trust's M&As are open to having anything of a different and educational engineering nature at Woody Bay.

My feeling is that it will come down to the locomotive and rolling stock owners' groups based on the L&BR that will decide what locos end up in North Devon; I see the Bluebell model (four or five groups) could be used in this case. One thing which has been in the background for some time has been the idea to have separate storage and workshops facilities away from the railway itself to keep the tat out of the sight of the passengers.

 

I'm looking forward to the triple deltic loco required for the L&B's operations (a class 55 is 3300 HP, so a 10,000 HP, 2' gauge loco would be a sight to see!)

For equivalence, the Funkey diesels on the WHR are 350 HP, the SAR class 91s, considered amongst the most powerful 2' gauge locos in the world, are about 640-700 HP.

John

 

I'd like to see the 10,000hp narrow gauge loco!

Being serious, I'd say having "unwritten rules" does not cut it: that is the gap through which all sorts of unsuitable ideas can germinate. So if it doesn't exist, sooner or later you are going to need a policy, covering size, quantity and where things will be overhauled.

That in turn is both influenced by, and will influence, other objectives particularly around the built environment. For example, the original platforms were I believe for trains up to 5 coaches, which helps frame the "size" part of the policy. If the reinstatement puts in similar platforms, then you have an upper limit on how powerful locos need to be: you don't need anything larger than the original locos. Or you could put ten coach platforms in to justify your Beyer-Garrett, but now you are no longer recreating the original line, you are building a new Welsh Highland. The point is, loco policy is not independent of the infrastructure policy, and I suspect only one of those options would be acceptable to the National Park Authority.

On the quantity part: right now you can only operate a single loco for routine services. So a loco requirement of about three is probably sufficient, of which one is working, one available and one being overhauled. If you open to Blackmoor Gate, without an intermediate passing spot, it is still not obvious that you need more than one loco operational on any given day, though that loco will be working harder and accruing more miles, so the costs go up. If you went to Wistlandpound, with a crossing point at Blackmoor Gate, then there would probably be some days when you could employ two locos, but even so a fleet of 4 or 5 is more than sufficient. Anything beyond that is decades away.

On the overhaul point: that again influences your overall policy, since the railway has to settle the question "will we do heavy overhauls on site or contract them out?" - the answer to that question influences the facilities that have to be built. A workshop suitable for heavy overhauls is an expensive building to kit out, without considering how you would staff it with skilled people willing to work in the middle of nowhere. So I think there is a lot of sense in limiting facilities at the railway to do "shed maintenance" type tasks, and just accept that heavy overhauls will be contracted out.

So I think you could change the unwritten rules to a formal written policy something like this:

Locomotive policy
We anticipate that the L&BR will have a core requirement for around 3 steam locomotives, of which a maximum of two shall be available for traffic at any one point and one will be undergoing a heavy overhaul. If future expansion occurs as planned, including provision of a second set of carriages allowing a two-train operation, that requirement will expand to around 5 steam locomotives, of which a maximum of three shall be available for traffic at any one time.

In addition, the railway requires one diesel locomotive available for traffic at any one time for p/way, thunderbird and steam-ban duties; and a second such locomotive for contingency purposes.

Each locomotive needs to be of sufficient size with regard power, fuel and water capacity to be able to reliably operate a five coach train against the ruling gradient over an eleven mile round trip. There is no requirement for larger or more powerful locomotives.

Heavy overhauls (i.e. tasks likely to require cranes sufficient to conduct a boiler lift or remove a locomotive from is wheels) will be carried out by external contractors away from the railway. The railway requires on-site facilities sufficient to carry out routine running maintenance tasks, and will require workshop machinery and skilled staff sufficient for those tasks.

Given the overall aspiration of the railway to recreate the original L&BR, within those constraints preference will be given to locomotives that are representative of types that ran on the railway during the 1898 - 1935 time frame.
​

Tom

 

Sorry, a slip of the fingers: the L&BR Manning Wardles had a Tractive Effort of 7269 lb, give or take , so my answer should have been in lbs and not HP. I am sure that our LYN is much more powerful than that, with a 240lb boiler pressure.

Fag packet time, it works out around 9900 lb TE

 

Which takes us to the age old question of whether it's hp or TE that matters for running a railway. I'd tend to go with hp as a better measure of operational performance rather than outright pulling power.

All of which is taken care of in @Jamessquared's excellent simple draft of a potential policy - no numbers in the policy, just a stipulated requirement which can then be assessed either as a desk exercise or in the field.

I do however suggest that the policy should include an additional item - "All locomotives shall comply with the existing L&BR loading gauge and weight limits. The railway has been restored to pre-closure dimensions, and will be maintained to those standards. In the event of marginal non-compliance, preference will be given to adjustments to the locomotive. Minor structural adjustments may be made provided that they are not visible."

 

This would be a reasonable stance to take, but there are some other realities to consider. By NG standards, the L&B Manning-Wardles are relatively large, powerful engines. Outside of FR/WHR virtually everything else that is available are industrial 0-4-0Ts - even 0-6-0Ts are relatively rare. "Sotillos" in the Rampton collection might be a possible candidate, and there are a few "Feldbahn" 0-8-0Ts and likely to be at least one Luttermoller 0-10-0 but those are all "foreign" locos that would not be authentic whatever the time frame. Even the Bagnall 4-4-0 tank that's there now doesn't fit that policy.

So, is the railway to be frozen exactly as it was, or should there be some latitude to meet reality? Personally, I think there probably needs to be, and that some variety in the loco fleet is desirable. Apart from any other considerations, what you have suggested is a very minimalistic set of criteria that more or less assumes perfection in loco maintenance. As the railway grows longer I think it would be rash to assume perfection in all areas. Even contracted-out overhauls do not always run to timetable and having only two locos available at any one time is fraught with risk - and that's just the steam locos!

 

In choice terms, the policy proposed is consistent with the sort of approach you've advocated for NYMR, in which preference is given to "authentic" locomotives rather than requiring strict local heritage compliance.

As an ordinary member, I fully accept that the railway is not and never will be fully MW operated. Industrials have been an important part of heritage operation, and I've no particular issue with any of those you've suggested. What many of us struggle with is the elision between "The M&As permit having anything of a different and educational engineering nature at Woody Bay" and proposals that fundamentally change the character of the railway, sometimes likened to building a Statfold like collection, or restoring the L&B on a fundamentally different basis to the original, as with the WHR.

For me, and this is really a matter of preservation standards rather than specifically motive power, I've no issue with my local SG branch line hosting an A4 or 9F. But I do have an issue if, having gone to a lot of effort to authentically preserve a line that only had 0-6-0s and 2-6-0s, everything was changed to fit that A4 or 9F. That may well constrain what is possible - but it is within those constraints that the real value of restoration will be delivered.

 

Hi Tom

I don't disagree with what you say about having a loco policy; it is something that should have been in place a very long time ago, but we are where we are on that.

It is not an ideal situation to be in, but then you only have to look back to the past 10 years to see that some people have been more than happy with what we have at Woody Bay and have not wanted to expand the railway.

Regarding the number of locos required, one thing I would like to point out is that you have assumed that there is only one joined-up railway, but what if the second railway was not connected to Woody Bay at all, such as a Snapper to Chelfham section? That would throw a spanner in anyone's works.

I think the whole idea of having two railways has several issues which need to be looked at and agreed at this stage; not only would we need to be looking at locos, but rolling stock as well, then you have the big issues of the second railway: do you rely on having enough volunteers to operate the second railway, or what has been suggested is to employ enough full time staff to make it a fully commercial operation, thankfully this one is above my pay grade.

While I would love to see a bigger and longer L&BR, I can see that any expansion will bring with it its own set of problems that need to be resolved as we move forward.

For those who haven't seen it, this bit from the Bluebell is something I think could be used as a basis for the L&BR, suitably modified. It is a zip file, so it is a big file:-

https://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/soc/ps_manual/

It is the sort of thing which floats my boat

 

I can agree with that; the only thing is that my understanding of the current situation is that there is an insistence that any new-build structures need to comply with current H&S legislation, which may have an adverse effect on the project and would be hard to remove once the principle has been adopted.

As a rule of thumb it used to be a thing that rolling stock should never be more that three times the width of the railway gauge so in our case 2ft gauge with a max of 6ft width when moving and a max of 11ft when in a station (with doors being open at a platform)