Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

But surely also a third, over-arching body in the form of the Trust to (a) own the heritage assets and (b) set the strategy and direction for the railway, as well as being the membership body?

 

Don't think all young females don't like steam trains. Perhaps the L&BR, EA and Station inn should appoint a young, enthusiastic female community officer to help its image in N Devon?

 

Had the same problem in 2015 when I applied for a Certificate of Lawful Use for vehicle storage. They even dreamed up non-existent legislation that I was expected to comply with. I appealed, the Inspector ruled in my favour, and the Council got their knuckles rapped.

 

It would appear to be a nationwide malaise of what appears to be incompetance - the main reason behind the Bala Lake refusal resulted from public authorities and politicians charged with doing a job not doing it; it is said to be costing £100k to reapply. This is just the latest example. It is not a recent apparition - here, not far from @RailWest, we have one of the country's largest cities without a tram system because two local authorities bickered over the route until the funding disappeared, and the citizens were denied civilised (and since then, in public perception, environmentally friendly) transport. And now, as described by @Ross Buchanan we have wokery.

 

Given the overall message of Ross's post, what might have been a better turn of phrase to make the same point about young planning officers' world views?

 

I think that @Ross Buchanan conflated two issues, the latter having nothing to do with planning but potentially a lot to do with fund raising from grant giving bodies.

The point he makes though, if in the last issue badly is that the world is changing and a new generation looks at heritage, steam railways etc in a very different way to the older one and that the wider heritage movement needs to look hard at what it has to do not only to be relevant but also not to be seen as - how might I put it potentially 'unfriendly' to anyone who isnt an old straight white male

 

Agreed, but if those with influence are changing and with it the focus of the decision making bodies, that also needs to be considered. Especially with a National Park involved, officers' views of the nature, purposes and audiences for conservation will have changed, not necessarily to the advantage of the L&BRT.

 

I do not think the world is unfriendly to straight white males. I think we have to grow up and realise that there was an unfair advantage in being such and quite rightly the playing field is being levelled somewhat.

It is also a long way from my experience of council officers to suggest that they are placing their own personal views above the policies handed to them by government and their councillors. The attitude of the world is certainly changing and different priorities and values are emerging quite rapidly. It does not follow that these need necessarily be detrimental to any particular application provided that the policy objectives are met. You only have to look at some of the very creative ways in which the NYMR has secured grants for things like carriage sheds, in order to be able reach out to a wider fraction of the population, to see a model for how the needs of a railway can be met through a perfectly proper meeting of the objectives of a grant funder. The same holds true for obtaining planning permission and TWAO. It may be harder in terms of imagination required, but the opportunity to (for example) build a railway through a national park is definitely still there. It would be wise not let the “they’re all against us mentality” set in any further. Engagement is the answer.

As to the lack of experience of planning officers and the woeful understaffing of the departments they work in, that has been the case for more than 20years and it has long been the case that after a couple of years the brightest leave and join private practices at three times the pay (and who can blame them).

 

This latter discussion feeds nicely to the point made by Tobbes (and others) that a section of the rebuilt line may well be operated, in part, by an electric railcar. This being an efficient people mover which minimises many pollutants and removes cars, potentially, from local roads. If electricity is sourced from local PV then so much the better. Obviously the established line can also operate the heritage L & B locomotives and rolling stock.....but it does answer several of the objections being made - and progresses the aim of a rebuilt L & B railway.

 

Difficult one that though - I've said for a long time that if that's the best that can be done then I'm walking away, if not actually shifting to the opposition to the railway camp.

The dream (or at least my dream and what I give my few hundred pounds a year for) is to rebuild the Lynton and Barnstaple Railway as a heritage steam operation as close as possible to what was there before closure, not to be the transport adjunct of the Centre for Alternative Technology. If we're funding and building a non-steam operation with 'efficient people movers' then frankly someone else can pay for it and let it be their dream not mine.

 

That's the end game....but we have to get there first

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

Being very careful how I phrase this (as someone who sits near the green end of things - hence knowing about the centre I mentioned above, and very much supporting it) but holding those beliefs in tension with my love of steam railways. I think that’s a very dangerous game.

Go overtly down the green road and watch that become the goal, as a lot of people I normally agree with away from steam railways get involved to make it happen. It will become, and stay, a battery electric flagship for eco-tourism and I’d rather, as I say, that that happened to another railway not this one!

The only thing stopping me being a Green Party member is knowing that when it comes down to it they want to kill several of the things I love…

 

Your choice, of course, but nothing suggested above precludes a much longer steam-operated service in the longer term (probably post-mortem, in my case, but I can still dream!)

Would you rather see nothing of your dream for the next ten, maybe twenty years, or see some progress on the restoration of the infrastructure to operational status even with modern rolling stock, leading towards the joined-up steam railway?

 

see my subsequent post - go green, and green will get baked in - fight two will become, down the line, about trying to row back from it. I know/suspect this because tbh I’m on the green side in a lot of other fights and know exactly how I’d play it from the green pov… We’ve really got to try and be a bit cannier IMO.

I prefer the approach of the Clan project, which is to make the steam as green as possible and shout about that in the comms while still being focused on steam.

 

I think it's a distraction in green terms.

I'm with @gwralatea here. At the moment the L&B is one mile off track, that people drive to. So in green terms, it is basically irrelevant as a transport undertaking that somehow opens up access to the National Park in an eco-friendly way. People drive for fifty miles to a point and then get carried one mile nearer to somewhere else. Making that last mile electric is hardly worth it - even less so if you consider the environment in the round, and look at the visual intrusion you'd get from sufficient solar panels to generate the necessary electricity. If you want a green tourism scheme based on the L&B - turn the trackbed into a twenty mile hiking / biking track that provides an easily-graded route right into the heart of a beautiful upland area. People will still drive to either end, but that way the intervening hills are less affected by development; the station buildings could be sensitively restored to provide interesting stopping points that would actually achieve a significant benefit of ensuring the preservation of as much of the surviving L&B as possible. You just wouldn't proceed to a whole additional layer of recreation.

All these schemes seem to be about turning both the railway and the national park into something that it isn't. If your concern is about the sanctity of the natural environment, then no railway at all is better than an electric one with a field full of solar panels to support it. Far better in my mind to pitch it as a tourist attraction that has the potential to generate jobs in the local area. I desperately want to see the L&B recreated - but recreated is the important word: not some ersatz railway that is neither green in its own right, nor bearing any resemblance to the original railway.

Tom

 

There is a very extreme phase of 'green' at present, based on who shouts loudest. As it hits the reality of people's pockets & the fact that China & India are massively bigger CO2 emitters than us, one hopes for more realism.

As with so much in the last day's posts there is inevitably much that divides us, so we need to focus on where we can work together.



Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

I think the suggestion was more that more of the line could be reopened as an electric people mover track to get it built, then that would be joined together eventually to make a long steam railway, which I don’t think would actually happen and otherwise agree with your thoughts. I don’t think anyone was suggesting electrifying the current mile.

(sorry, that was a reply to Tom which for some reason my phone didn’t quote…)

 

Could the "Green" element be such innovations as solar power for station buildings, using recycled materials, etc, fuel the engines on biomass and other side products from industry, steam made from electric was done in some of the Swiss railways, so the technology does exist, but if my memory is right it was just a way to pre heat the water, so raising steam was quicker,

 

I tend towards @gwralatea's views on this, though I don't consider myself remotely "green". Running parallel projects risks creating tensions between the different parts - heaven knows, the L&B already has an overdose of that. Decisions made tactically for one bit of the whole have a grave risk of being locked in despite not being well suited to the overall reinstatement. Just think about the discussions about interim measures at Parracombe Halt for how that has gone.

We have too much of "something must be done, this is something, so we will do this" already; let's not add to it.

 

Definitely on board with all of that, though I’d hope to limit electrical firing to what the Swiss have used it for in your example rather than actually building mobile kettles!