Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

The L & B is still very much a nascent project and as such, imho at least, it really needs to show some progress towards its next stage of development, as much as anything to provide visitors with a reason to return. An unchanging mile-long line is unlikely to be somewhere they will keep coming back to. So if they can extend to almost reach Parracombe, that really should be their next objective, to start building asap. Talk of extending in the other direction baffles me - isn't their only covered accommodation blocking the trackbed?

 

The engine shed at WB was designed to be removable in readiness for Phase 2A. There was a suggestion recently that it might simply be moved a bit to one side, albeit that would involve quite a bit of work.

 

It's good to see the new access road going in at Rowley Moor Farm, and good comms on Facebook and the website too.

https://www.lynton-rail.co.uk/news/view/rowley-moor-farm-access-road

 

"
"Designed to be removable" in the sense that it is not indestructible. There is no way it can just be moved to "one side", you'd have to gouge out a massive amount of the cutting that is currently occupied by a number of different things.

 

Nice to see that things are still progressing in several areas on the L & B!

 

...which is why I said that it would involve quite a bit of work

 

Sometimes, even spelling it out is not enough.

 

As they say around here 'you cant educate pork'

 

*can’t

 

A reminder that today (14th April) is the closing date for members to submit their vote on the "Way forward" consultation put forward by the board. Also of note is that Monday should see completion of the purchase of the OSHI.

 

There are various display panels at Woody Bay (and, IIRC KL?) explaining the extension plans, and volunteers and staff are always keen to explain in response to any questions from visitors, so I would be surprised if any visitor left Woody Bay Station without being aware of the potential expansion.

 

I wouldn’t. From experience of my family, showing interest in such boards is a source of frustration.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Remember that, from the choice of A, B, C, or D, "None of the above" is a valid response.
Plus, there is room on the form for comments. Responses will have to be by email now, so plenty of room for comment. Use it well.

 

True, but...IMHO the form does not give that impression - it simply says to put a cross in one box. As there is no 'none of the above' box, some members may simply not bother to return it.

As an aside, it reminds me of a recent 'public consultation' done by our local council - there were a number of options, but no specific "I don't agree with any of them" option. Anyone who commented to the effect "I like some parts of it, but not others", but did not specifically say "I object to the whole idea" was counted as being in favour!

 

i was a member of the L&B for many years but I am not currently a member mainly because, with a limited cash supply, i occasionally leave one railway and join another instead.
I do however, follow the L&B and I have a deep interest in it.
To make this thread more meaningful to a non-member, please could someone sumarise what options A, B, C and D actually are?
Ian

 

A and B are go south from Wistlandpond or go north from Woody Bay towards Caffyns and then Lynton. The Trust doesn't like either of these ideas. Option C is have another go at Parracombe but this time go bit by bit and don't mention the fact that the grobs will never sell. They like this. Option D is attempt to get the TWAO (with CP powers we assume but not stated). They don't like this as being too long to do and too expensive (they've only taken 15 years to get nowhere). I am not voting as I don't believe this farce is useful and the Trustees already have decided what to do.

 

Martin - I fear that in your brief summary above you have missed out a very large chunk of the work proposed under option C. I will leave it to you to have another look at your copy of the paperwork and then to edit your original message.
Mike

 

nope

 

Here's my response: apologies for the length, but the issues raised need addressing.

____________

29 March 2023


Dear John,


Response to L&B Consultation


This is a response to your request for feedback on the four options presented in the ‘News Bulletin’ of March 2023.


I should begin with recognising the Railway’s significant achievements since 2018: the purchase of the trackbed to and including Parracombe Halt, the locking in of NDDC planning permission with the Bridge Reconstruction, and EA’s very significant achievements in securing trackbed at Higher Bodley and below Wistlandpound, notably including securing Bratton Fleming and Snapper, the CIC’s award-winning work at Chelfham, and of course Lyn and the heritage carriages. Together, these are strong foundations on which to build.


Whilst the forthcoming acquisition of Blackmoor Gate is intrinsically welcome, I am cautious until it is clearer what the financial arrangements are – the ex-banker in me is always aware of the risk of significantly overpaying for assets, especially in hospitality in a softening economy. Indeed, the reason that I didn’t invest in the OSHI share offer was the lack of any satisfactory answers to the (basic) financial questions which I posed to Ian Cowling.


But as welcome as these progress markers are – only some of which are the result of Trust activity – nothing can mask the Trust’s strategic failure to deliver Phase IIA in the five years of the ENPA Planning Permission which expired this March.


It is simply not good enough for the Board to metaphorically shrug their shoulders and attempt to blame anyone/everyone else; in any other organisation I have been involved in I would have at least expected some contrition – in fact, I was expecting Peter Miles (and key members of his team) to take responsibility and resign, making their case for re-election to the members at the AGM or an EGM. Personally, their collective failure to do so does them no credit whatsoever.


Sadly, this brings us to the “Consultation” which in practice is nothing of the sort. Not only is there insufficient information to undertake a detailed options appraisal, but it is hard to escape that conclusion that this “Consultation” is simply a strawman to force Members to endorse Option C as proposed.


I decline to do so.

As set out in the News Bulletin, Option C is silent on three key points.

· First, why would ENPA grant planning permission to extend from KL to Cricket Field Lane and from Blackmoor Gate to Lower Rowley rather than insisting on the whole of Phase IIA being completed in one go as they did in 2018? What has changed?

The same risks to the National Park of having an incomplete (in this case, two incomplete) railway(s) terminating in the middle of nowhere in the park - and therefore providing no obvious public transport benefit - would apply, and so why would they approve this?


· Second, why would there be substantially less local objection in Parracombe with Cricket Field Lane and Lower Rowley as railheads?

Parracombe gets none of the benefit and at least some of the inconvenience (noise, tourists), and the level of local opposition to the s73 process was frankly overwhelming – itself an indictment of the Trust’s engagement strategy.


· Third, even if you chose to operate solely in the NDDC area, how are you going to get the works and carpark (in the ENPA area, as I understand it) approved in light of question one? Why would two centres work?

I can only conclude that Option C as presented is poorly thought out and it is hard to see how it could succeed with planning let alone financially. Crucially, it doesn’t address how to get access to trackbed from unwilling owners.

Moving Forwards

Against this pretty bleak backdrop, I am wholly in favour of a period of reflection and detailed options analysis based on real data. I am not privy to anything that is not in the public domain, and I speak as an enthusiast with a civil service background, though I am not a planner; the bureaucratic mindset may be helpful, however.

I cannot see any extension plan other than Phase IIA as deeply problematic. It may well be that given a clean slate, we would not start from WB, and that it is entirely possible that an approach stating from Pilton up the Yeo Valley may in theory be preferable. However, from a business standpoint, running two railways or putting Woody Bay – Killington Lane on ice to operate another stretch of the line lacks credibility. Not only would you need to move or replicate all of the facilities, the Woody Bay operation appears profitable and well sorted.

This logic applies to something in the Yeo Valley, but obviously applies to the Trust’s proposal to simultaneously (?) extend to Cricket Field Lane and from Blackmoor Gate to Lower Rowley, which in addition to the three questions above is why I do not support Option C as proposed.

North from Woody Bay

If we accept that Woody Bay will be the operational railway’s base, then the options appear to be a northern extension to Caffyns or a southerly extension to Blackmoor Gate and beyond.

I understand that the L&B family doesn’t own any trackbed between Woody Bay and Caffyns. Acquiring this, together with the need to cross the A39 and the bridges required at Martinhoe Cross, a Caffyns extension seems to be and expensive way to add a mile and a half of track. Worse, I don’t think that it adds a great deal for ENPA Planners in the sense that Killington Lane – Woody Bay – Caffyns is unlikely to reduce traffic in the National Park area (indeed, likely the reverse) and if Killington Lane is nowhere-in-particular, then Caffyns isn’t far behind, resulting in a ride from nowhere to nowhere.

On this basis, I think that short of an engineered and funded extension to Caffyns (and again, I’m only privy to that which is in the public domain), I can’t see a northerly extension being attractive.




South from Killington Lane

Any southerly extension needs to build on our recent failure. This will require humility, engagement and a clear, deliverable plan. As described, Option C is none of these things.

We should start by understanding why the previous Phase IIA plans failed.

In my view the key reason was that we could not meet the Grampian Conditions of owning all of the trackbed and being able to complete the works to Blackmoor Gate as a single project. To my mind, ENPA imposing Grampian Conditions in 2018 was eminently reasonable – the last thing that ENPA want is an incomplete railway in the park, with all of the costs and none of the benefits – and therefore we should expect Grampian Conditions to be imposed for any future application (north or south of Woody Bay).

Why did we fail to acquire the trackbed? Let’s call it as it is: Louise Grob has repeatedly made clear that she will not sell willingly under any circumstances. Fair enough, that is her right, and it is also what CPO powers exist for.

For me, the Trust’s principal failing was to not apply for CPO powers under a TWAO immediately planning permission was granted (or not later than the purchase of the Parracombe Halt site) – any critical path analysis would have flagged this up and should have made the next steps obvious.

Instead, the Trust prevaricated before happening upon the s73 route (a wheeze in my view that was never likely to succeed). Having come up with a cunning plan, the Trust leadership failed to sell it to anyone, least of all the good people of Parracombe. The result was the (expensive) debacle of the last 15 months and the lapsing of all of the ENPA Planning Permission.

Based on a close reading of the objections to the s73 applications, I do not see how we will gain local support for a temporary terminus in Parracombe without a guarantee that we would extend to Blackmoor Gate in short order – which everyone knows we cannot deliver without the Grob’s trackbed. If I were an ENPA planner, this would translate into an insistence on Grampian Conditions, leaving us back where we were in 2018, albeit that we own more of the required trackbed than in 2018.

A proposed way forward

Knowing that the Grobs won’t willingly sell, I propose that we:

- Open a dialogue with the residents of Parracombe and understand their concerns, addressing them as we can – and this means accepting that we can’t address those who want no trains at all. A key element is to honestly discuss CPO powers and what they would and would not be sought for – that is, we need to allay fears that we’re looking for anything other than the land required for the trackbed, and (temporarily) for the reconstruction (e.g., of Parracombe bank).


- For the trackbed we own, I want to go as far as possible in readying it for reinstatement within the current planning constraints – I presume we’d be able (as with any other landowner) to be able to sort out the drainage, clear overhanging trees, and grade and build up a pathway across our own land. This could open up the trackbed we do own as walking paths without prejudice to the reinstatement of the railway, providing both momentum, good neighbourliness and crucially, a sense that the railway’s return is both inevitable and positive. (And, drawing on Anne Besley’s work, this should also include common signage with EA in the Yeo Valley, too.)


- Based on this engagement and consultation, prepare plans for the extension to BG in two forms. First, a single phase in the expectation that Grampian Conditions are reimposed. Second, a phased approach if – and only if – there is demonstrable Parracombe community support for opening to a temporary Parracombe terminus.


- In parallel with this work, ensure that we have a TWAO application ready to go in the day after ENPA planning permission is achieved. We have five years; the TWAO will take at least two and probably three of these. This should build on the engagement and make clear that we’re only looking at CPO for the minimum amount of land, not as some generalised power.


- And this will either work or it won’t. The economic case will be positive but must be credible. The reality is that a reinstated WB – WP railway will incrementally increase the number of day tourists to the National Park, and may increase the spend of those who are coming to the Park for a week. It won’t fundamentally change the North Devon economy, but it will help, and it should offer a few comparatively well-paid engineering jobs in an area where tourism will normally be poorly paid.


- If the TWAO goes in our favour (and there are clearly lessons from RVR about the vital importance of accurate land interest data) we then need to be able to fund the extension in full, at once. Whilst buying out the Grobs under CPO terms seems to me to be unlikely to be more than £50k, I’m yet to see realistic costs for the reconstruction other than “£10-15m give or take”. As I started my civil service career at HM Treasury, this isn’t especially persuasive, and we need to have a much better handle on the expected costs for our own purposes, let alone trying to convince major funders to contribute the lion’s share.


I apologise for the length, but I hope that this is, in some small way, helpful. I stand ready to help however I can.

With all good wishes,