Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Firstly, you may want to consider where @Jamessquared volunteers...

Second, you may want to consider how documents like that come into being - and it's not as tablets of stone from on high. I've been an armchair member there for ~25 years, and seen some of the discussions work out in semi-public that have crystallised in that document.

Third, and specifically to the policy, that draft was clearly based on what would be required for the Woody Bay operation if it extends further - not as a template for all purposes. A longer line would need different comments, if we end up with the L&B restored in two parts, care will be need to ensure that they are both sustainable in their own rights, and also don't develop in ways that make it impossible to rejoin (e.g. rebuild S to support WHR type Garretts, leaving N to be "original").

However, these are observations from a distant armchair, reflecting both my personal preferences ("authenticity" being high on the list) and also the need for focus if the railway is to develop - one major reason why I fundamentally disagree with some of the ideas floated about which locomotives may be used. With or without a written policy, there needs to be a clear consensus over what the railway needs locomotives to do - and then that needs to be acted upon.

 

You seem to forget an NG16 is 7ft wide... and the 91 diesels in South Africa were 8ft 5" wide on 2ft gauge! So never say never...

 

I'm sure you could nuance the numbers if you spent a sensible amount of time considering a policy rather than 10 minutes off the top of my head like I did! But that doesn't change the overall thrust of the argument, and I doubt the numbers are going to be very far away given that it would, with any realistic set of extensions, be unlikely to need more than two operational locos on any given day. So you might decide you need 6 rather than 5, but the point is you don't need 20.

Tom

 

I was explicitly writing in the context of a "one railway" solution, i.e. what you might need to operate the current railway, or any extension of that railway that is feasible within the lifetime of such a policy. If a "two railway" operation was a realistic prospect, you'd need to update your requirement, though as @35B notes, you would absolutely want to keep policies on the two halves aligned if the ultimate aim was to join up: no point building one line to fit Manning Wardles and the second to cope with Garretts - or, more prosaically, one line being vac braked and one being air braked.

But accepting that, there are three core points:

• Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good - in other words, it's important to think about what the impact of a "two railway" solution might be, but don't let what is probably a low likelihood outcome tie you in knots about doing what is right in the context of the current "one railway" solution.
• A loco policy needs to work in combination with others, notably your rolling stock and infrastructure policies. No point specifying locos that can haul 9 coach trains if the infrastructure only fits five; and no point putting in a loco requirement that envisages running four trains simultaneously if the C&W plan can only realistically provision 2.
• A policy is valuable at least as much for what it rules out as what it rules in.

Tom

 

My preference would be for the NYMR to only use types that were appropriate to it in the BR era, but pragmatism has to prevail, and such types were, for the most part, underpowered for today's needs - and for the most part do not exist. For the most part, the NYMR now mostly uses types that could be found in the NorthEastern area, with the obvious exception of the ex-SR types (and, perhaps eventually, the GWR 2-8-0.).

In some ways, the L&B faces the same dilemma, and I think pragmatism has to be accepted, but I agree with the view that an "Exmoor Statfold" is neither needed or desiable, and would certainly not add to the charm of the L&B atmosphere.

 

I think we're aligned - the key point for me being that the policy needs to define the preferred outcome, rather than leave the question open "because pragmatism"

 

I agree we are aligned, but I disagree with the "because pragmatism" comment. Pragmatism is about accepting less than desirable outcomes, when there is no sensible realistic alternative. I think my point is that there is a preferred outcome, but that policies should not be phrased to exclude other alternatives if they are not outrageous! I have mentioned "Sotillos", for example, which I think would sit reasonably comfortably on the L&B; an SAR NG15 nor NG16 would not imho.

 

The whole NGG16 argument was played out a long time ago; it was suggested by others (not me this time, I would add) that the L&BR should go and buy two or three redundant Garratts and then rebuild the power bogies into standalone 2-6-2T's, if I recall correctly, the power bogies have a width of around 7 ft 6 in which are well outside the L&BR loading gauge and I am not certain if you could even get one to cross Chelfham Viaduct without it hitting a parapit wall somewhere.

Then you have the height issue: a Class 91 is around 13ft tail, and the L&BR has around a 12ft clearance under bridges, I think. So again, finding suitable large 350hp-plus diesels has not been easy. Again, it might come down to building one or two diesel locos for our own use at some stage.

 

And my point is that the suggested policy permits pragmatic outcomes but requires a logic for them to apply. If the policy is silent on the subject, it doesn't force the discussion about "is this a pragmatic workaround or a fundamental change"; stating the intent creates the space for the conversation. A policy needs to define the desired outcome, and create the constraints within which decisions, even ones that breach policy, are made

I tread carefully here, but I'd suggest a loose parallel is with ecclesiastical faculty jurisdiction - which can be surprisingly permissive, but requires proper thought to be applied so that heritage factors are properly assessed (and, no, I am not suggesting that HRA set up an equivalent of DAC and consistory courts!).

 

IMHO one of the key problems with the L&BRT for a long time has been the lack of formal, agreed policies on many aspects of the restoration and operation. Even the current 'business strategy' to some extent is very high-level and does not get down to the nitty-gritty of actual future requirements etc. For example, and meaning no criticism of those involved with any work so far, where for example is any 'heritage strategy'which defines which issues such as which locations/stock etc will be restored in pre-1923 condition and which in port-1923 condition, let alone what you do about 'new builds' for any theoretical "if the railway had carried on beyond 1935" proposals?

 

Regarding the so-called Exmoor Statfold, there are two things which need to be considered. 1. There will be people who will at some stage want to donate their equipment to a railway. I am aware of at least two people who may want to do that to the L&BR project as a whole, and just like Jean, when she arrives, should you reject those advances out of hand or accept them gracefully?

The second point is that you need to have a balanced fleet like the FR with a mixture of small, medium, and large steam locomotives to be used at different times during the year's operation period; the other just as important factor is having the volunteers to drive them. There is no point in retaining a Midland Railway policy of small engines when you can't get enough volunteers to run the service that might call for a three- or four-train service each day during the summer period; far better to have some bigger locos that can haul, say, a 6- or 7-coach train that will have six of those coaches full rather than two 4-coach trains with only two of those 4 coaches being full at any one time.

A third point is: will it be needed in the current climate? I would suggest maybe not unless there is something that comes along and is a bit special. I do have a love-hate relationship with collection X in that, like most enthusiasts, we all wanted to know what was in there. Now that we know, it appears that the Vof R won't be able to restore everything, and a proviso has been made that if the business case is made from an individual or a group to take on and restore to working order any one of the collection's locomotives, then they would consider it and lets not forget that about half of the collection is still being stored out of sight of the public.

Maybe at some stage one or two of them could come to Devon and be put on display with the intention that the L&BR can restore them to full working use in North Devon.

I don't think we should rule out a museum collection since most railways try to put them together anyway. I do find it Ironic that the Vof R has a 2ft gauge Pacific No 762; now where have I seen that number before?

 

Why stop at 10,000hp? How about 9600kw worth of off the shelf loco? (admittedly it is the wrong gauge and needs an electric supply)

 

All of that is where policies are required, to determine what the railway wishes to do. But the important point is that it is the railway, and its members, who should make those decisions based on what they need. That leads to a second point - charity trustees have a positive duty to decline gifts if they do not support the objects of the charity. The generosity of a donor's legacy should and must not be allowed to override their judgment about what is best for the charity.

But, for some time to come, I suggest that no mentions of Collection X, rolling stock museums, or Statfold should be made in the context of the L&B.

 

Would it be worth repeating (again?) the potential for anyone with internet access to view the statements in this forum and use them against the railway, without any context of the surrounding discussion? Especially at a time when the railway is actively seeking planning permission to extend into a community that needs to be convinced of its benefit?

Someone who doesn't want a railway of any type in Parracombe may well use something like 'There's an unwritten rule that all locos must be able to haul 7 coach trains" as evidence that there is a will within the management structure of the railway to create something akin to the Welsh Highland and fundementally different to the recreation of the L&B that's being promoted. Add to that the continued suggestion that a Statfold type museum needs to be created to house any and all vagrant curiosities, and the campain against the Parracomb extension could become a campain against this imaginary, hypothetical version of the L&B that noone is actually trying to achieve.

 

Nothing wrong with that, but you have just given 99% of NP members apoplexy

 

I would suggest for the most part, you should politely reject such requests. Just because a heritage site exists doesn't mean that it is duty-bound to accept anything that is offered.

That is, incidentally, the context of my point about a "policy is valuable at least as much for what it rules out as what it rules in." To give a Bluebell example, we have a diesel policy that talks about allowing locos of class 09, 24, 33 and 73. Now, at one level you could read that and think "where are they going to get a class 24 from?" But I think it is more constructive to look at it the other way and note that if, hypothetically, someone wanted to dump a rusting class 47 on the railway (or even an operational one) we have a policy that allows us to politely say "thanks - but no thanks".

"Balanced" fleets in the way you describe are something of a luxury. Every loco you have available for traffic costs you money whether you run it or not. So if you have a mix of large and small trains, three locos that can pull the largest will overall be cheaper to run than, say, 2 locos suited to the larger ones and 2 suited to the smaller - even though in daily cost, you might make some small coal saving balancing load to size of loco. You more than lose out by needing to keep additional locos running (Essentially with a "balanced fleet" you spread the available traffic - and therefore income - over a larger fleet and therefore get less revenue per loco).

The more substantive point though is that you are still missing the relationship between train length, loco requirement and infrastructure. If your platforms and loops are 5 coaches long, you can't run 6-7 coach trains. The ORR are quite hot at the moment on "train / platform interface" and even in the L&B case where platforms are very low, I doubt they would be keen on people boarding / alighting away from a recognised platform. If you have corridor coaches, you can mitigate that risk to some extent by locking any doors that are off the platform out of use, and making people walk through the inside of the train - but last time I checked, the L&B had only compartment and saloon carriages, with no corridors.

So right now, the infrastructure is built around train lengths of five coaches max, and I think suggesting anything else is for the birds. So you need locos no larger than is necessary to move a five coach train.

I'm sure Collection X is very interesting - but it has nothing to do with Devon. Sometimes you need to realise that less is more.

Tom

 

If that's right, then I suspect that locking both points for the platform road and running top & tail would end up being the better method, at least on high-demand days.
Using the run-round (and running shorter trains) on low-demand days allows the option of running the railway with one less train crew, though.
It is what it is, I suppose. The platform is clearly longer, and presumably that's how it always was / designed for through running (should the possibility ever materialise in the future).
I do wonder, though, to what extent the track layout is 'fixed' by the planning permission, should it be granted. I'd have thought a degree of flexibility was desirable.

 

If this is the case, and the fact that we are being told this sort of weather will be the new normal then maybe the 762 Club should seriously consider making one of the 2 MWs oil fired

 

Nothing should be carved in stone but several years ago the L&B announced they'd bought Rowley Moor Farm, near Blackmoor Gate, with (quoting from their website) "land and buildings that are a vital site for the future sheds and engineering works for the rebuilt railway. This site complements the land we already own at Blackmoor Gate which will provide the space for future car parking there."

L&B obtained planning permission for sheds and engineering works at the farm. I don't know if the permission's still valid though it's outside the National Park.
IIRC part of the thinking was to provide facilities near Blackmoor Gate to enable relocation of such activities from Woody Bay for the sake of authenticity there. Authenticity in the Blackmoor Gate area is permanently sacrificed since the station has been a pub/restaurant far longer than it was a station and it would be a shame to lose that.

However, in order to get from Parracombe to Blackmoor L&B'd need a TWAO and resolution of the land acquisition issues in that area.

 

My understanding is that we still have the planning outside of the park due to having rebuilt two bridges along the trackbed towards Westlandpound, but as for Blackmoor itself I don't think there are any current plans, so it will have to be a fresh approach.

As for Rowley Farm, with the exception of the new access road which has been built, I have a feeling the rest of it fell since it was all part of the original Woody Bay to Blackmoor scheme.