Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

First off, oil-burning locomotives do not remove the risk of lineside fire- as has been found in Colorado. Oil burners can, and regularly do, chuck lumps of unburnt carbon out the chimney, hot enough that they ignite on meeting oxygen.
Oil firing expensive in Britain, it is not legal to burn used motor-car engine oil as locomotive fuel, and we do not have domestic oil production. Oil costs around £830/1000l
which at 33,000Mj is about the same energy as a tonne of coal costing £450. Used efficiently, oil burning will be less than double the cost of coal burning-if the operators are able to. Eventually you will find a burner that is suited to your locomotive- but it will probably be on the 5th or 6th attempt. The various unsuccessful burner efforts will keep the locomotive out of traffic for quite a lot of its first ticket. All that then means the oil-burning locomotive would be less well used, so both drivers and firemen will be less skilled in the firing of the oil-burner, further harming the abilities to fire efficiently and economically.
On an oil burning locomotive, the fireman is controlling the dampers, airflow, oil flow valve and the atomizer valve constantly in response to the throttle opening, whereas on a coal burner he is controlling a large burning mass where nothing changes quite so very fast. It is the heat of the brick-arch which keeps the oil igniting- there isn't a spark plug ticking away. Quickly closing the regulator without reducing oil feed can suffocate the fire, which requires a quick, skilful response. Suddenly opening the regulator can draw so much draught that the burner is extinguished, and the brick arch the cools very quickly so that the oil will not re-light.
Obviously, if the fireman had 10 years on oil burners on the southern pacific he's going to take it in his stride, and the driver, with 25 years, is going to be 'driving for oil firing', but for a less experienced crew, the lack of skill and familiarity can lead to problems.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1036002835694563
I understand this (film event) is not that uncommon, and 'not the worst I've seen' in the words of D&RGW crew.

 

Whilst this is the case, there is a large experience base of what oil firing works well on 2' gauge locomotives in the UK - for many years the Ffestiniog, Welsh Highland, Vale of Rheidol and Brecon Mountain railways were near exclusively oil fired, and that knowledge was won. This even, for a short while, included an L&B Manning Wardle, though Lyd was converted to coal for the economic reasons you suggest not long after completion.

John

 

[QUOTE="Miff, post: 2991949, member: 3225".....

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.
......[/QUOTE]

Two points here:-

1. Blackmoor station itself is outside of the ENPA area. However the Rowley Farm fuure depot site is firmly within the ENPA. The dividing line between the ENPA and NDC areas essentially is the (missing) road overbridge. Planning permission for RF was part of the original Phase 2A PP and therefore lapsed once the Trust failed to meet the Grampian conditions within the required tinescale.

2. If you read all the statements made about the OSI, it seems clear to me that the Trust - through the LBBC - intends to keep the pub/restaurant as a going business whilst reopening the actual station on the adjacent new site.

 

@RailWest - thanks for the correction about the farm within the national park. I agree with the Trust that it would be daft to close down the OSI, so long as the business remains viable (which is a completely different argument ).

 

There has been much talk recently about possible 7-coach trains, with comments about the length of the platforms. No-one has mentioned also the length of the actual passing-loops. There was some discussion about this during the design phase of Phase 2A and IIRC - I would have to check back through rather a lot of old correspondence :-( - the general opinion was that the current limit was about 5 coaches.

Apart from the actual length of X number of coaches, you then need to allow for two engines and the necessary clearance at each end to ensure that you do not foul the clearance envelope for passing trains. It all adds up. Why two engines, you may ask? Well, what if an engine fails and the train has to be rescued by a second engine? Admittedly there are ways to arrange the passing of an overlength train (quite common on the North Devon line with its long trains headed to Ilfracombe), but its always best to plan for such eventualities rather than have to 'fudge' them when they actually occur.

@pmh_74 asked "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."

I would agree. The original plans for Phase 2A not only omitted one vital feature, but included other features which were soon altered/omitted once detailed design for operational purposes got underway. I don't see why any planning authority should be interested in the minutiae of exactly what track-layout you propose to build etc provided that it is within the general 'envelope' of a station with a passing-loop.

Given the issues which have arisen already with previous planning applications in terms of anything that is deemed - however apparently rather zealously it may seem - about building anything outside of the original heritage 'footprint', IMHO any suggestion about extending the lengths of platforms and passing-loops needs to be approached with great caution. In all honestly, will we ever need 6 or 7-coach trains on anything other than the occasional 'peak' days?

 

In general, I agree - and I wish OSI (like any rural pub) well.

However, there is a scenario in which OSI could be "viable" when viewed as a standalone business, but not generating enough surplus to justify the capital tied up, or the time and effort to run it. Like any station shop or cafe, OSI is not an end in itself but a means to an end - that end being the wider purposes of the L&BRT which is its dominant shareholder.

This equation is further complicated by the history of the site and its importance to reinstatement of the railway.

 

I think the valuation of the OSI is something that needs to be carefully considered.
What is the cost of not owning it?
Suppose it is sold and turned into resi accomodation, and the owners object to the railway and/or bring a claim in nuisance?
Or what if it remains commercial premises and becomes eg an abattoir? Or is extended with a modern exterior.

Yes there are planning controls and so forth, but there's no absolute guarantee you'll get the decision you want.

 

Oh dear, I was hoping not to reignite the OSI viability debate

 

Although it's dull, it's (another) elephant in the room. Development is happening, whether it should or should not is outside the scope of this forum.

Probably in part becuase preserved railways bring in money and interest, but any railway looking to run through "unspoiled" landscapes needs to have an eye on what's going on. You can't always influence it, but any assessment of the cost of doing anything should include the cost of not doing it.

If you travel on the Leighton Buzzard railway, or the RH&D, a lot of it is between tall suburban hedges or fences, which don't make for a fun day out.

 

All of which factors complicate decision making, but do not remove the need to answer underlying question about how the OSI business supports (or not) the railway.

My strong hope, to be clear, is that OSI trades well enough to avoid bringing these questions to a head - there is plenty to do without adding that

 

Agreed.

 

The next episode of Steam on the Moor premieres on YouTube at 18:00 today, and is focused on Blackmoor - so let's see what that has to say!

 

In the 70s, the Leighton Buzzard line passed through some fairly open country on the edge of the town. In the 30s the RHDR was not crowded in by bungaloid development. Both of these environments have changed because of the particular social and economical factors of south-east England-namely wealth, population density and nimbyism.
It will be a very long time before Woody Bay becomes crowded by suburban development.

 

But those lines are affected now, and they can't do anything about it.

It's not just in the South East. I've seen comments on GSWR blogs about encroaching development, the SVR have had issues with new housing behind the engine shed etc etc

Suburban expansion is not my point here, but the wider point about rights of property and nuisance. If the building passes to other users, they may well be able to use it for purposes that intrude on the railway.

It's up to railway to factor in that risk. But if it becomes a neon-lit roller-disco[1] it's going to do more harm to the "untouched since 1925" look than a thousand agonies over the right sort of door handle on the coaches.

[1] Obviously this precise use is unlikely, but per se unlawful

 

In many cases this is similar to the examples of (say) people who move into a village and then complain about the noise from church bells. IMHO if the 'problem' existed before you bought your house and was either (a) already discernable or (b) might reasonably be expected to exist (eg church bells or clocks), then really there ought to be no grounds to complain. Not to say of course that you might not seek some possible form of amelioration, but certainly not to expect it to be stopped as if it were your 'right'.

AIUI when the housing developements on the seaward side of the WSR at Minehead extended eastwards toward the level-crossing allegedly there were complaints from some of the new residents about the smoke and smuts from engines, despite the fact that the heritage railway had been operating for many years long before those flats were built.