Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

The L&BRT are holding public meetings in Parracombe next month to discuss the plans for the extension to Cricket Field Lane:

https://www.lynton-rail.co.uk/news/...nton-barnstaple-railway-to-cricket-field-lane

 

God gave us two ears and one mouth. I hope that the L and B remember this over the coming weeks. Listening will now be the most important thing.

 

And with the new trustees and there new skill sets brought to the table , I imagine that's excatly what will happen.

We need to remember to give the new team time to show how they work together for the railway and how they communicate with the public and so far , they show good promise!

 

I completely agree. This is their first real test and I hope they pass with flying colours.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I hope all the right questions get addressed regarding this extension.

 

Whilst any sort of communication with the local residents is to be welcomed, assuming that it is good and done properly, I am in two minds about this event.

I can recall that, during the debacle of the various Sec 73 applications for PE, there was one iteration of the plan which AIUI had not been the result of a formal site survey nor the subject of any set of operational requirements. Consequently it would appear that no one knew whether, if the application succeeded, it would actually be possible/affordable (a) to build the railway and (b) operate it efficiently. IMHO the railway would have been left with egg on its corporate face by having to admit that its plan was defective and a new application would be required - not a good way to proceed.

Bearing the above in mind, I would prefer to see a situation where any such plan is the subject of a thorough and intensive consultation with the Trust membership before it is put into the public domain. However I recognise that, in such an event, there is always the risk of details 'leaking out' to a wider audience, leading to complaints from local residents asking 'what is going on'. If the presentation is going to be somewhat high level and broad brush, then maybe no problem as a starting point, but if too much nitty-gritty hard detail has been firmed up before the membership has seen it and viewed it with favour, then IMHO we risk 'more of the same'.

 

The flip side to that is, that the membership sees and refines the plans but then sees it as a fait accompli. Then, rather than discussing and tweaking the plan, members view it as “here’s our highly refined plan- this is what is going to happen regardless of what you think “. It appears to me that this was the attitude with Parracombe.

Not an easy path to tread.

 

I'm not sure that the members got that far with PE, certainly not in the case of the various Sec 73 submissions.

There is also the possibility of course that a majority consensus view from the membership might produce something which the Board feels is unaffordable/unworkable and not in the best interests of the Trust and so would have to ask them to "think again". But still better IMHO to do that before any detailed public consultation.

 

It’s not for the membership to define what the strategy is or should be. It is not for the board to define such apparently without listening to any other views. Yes a tightrope wall, but not impossible. I think the present issue is that the extension to CFL does not have a compelling story. If it did we wouldn’t be concerned.

 

[QUOTE="21B, post: 2882066, member: 7670"...... I think the present issue is that the extension to CFL does not have a compelling story. If it did we wouldn’t be concerned.[/QUOTE]
I would agree with the first part. However, even if CFL did have a compelling argument in its favour, I would still be concerned as to how the Board were to go about formulating its proposal and having associated 'consultations'.

 

I would agree with the first part. However, even if CFL did have a compelling argument in its favour, I would still be concerned as to how the Board were to go about formulating its proposal and having associated 'consultations'.[/QUOTE]
I was, and am concerned about both the wisdom of the specific project, and how the consultations will go.

However, I need to respect the views of trustees whom I did vote for when they argue in favour of this project, and accept that they, not I, have the burden of making the right decisions here.

They also have the burden of seeking to make the consultation a positive process, repairing frayed relationships on the way.

I therefore wish them the best in this process, and need to hope that they prove my concerns unfounded.

 

The consultation such as it was is water under the bridge I think. I wouldn’t want to see it repeated, but we are where we are.

My view is that the board are trying to square a circle:
1. The volunteers and managers at WB do not believe a two location railway is possible. That it would be beyond the current volunteers to staff.
2. Around half the volunteers it is feared would walk away if the railway were to move base of operation and mothball WB.
3. There is no prospect of raising the (>£10m) required for the section WB to BG in one hit, and no realistic prospect of compulsory purchase powers at present.
4. The whole railway wants a longer run.

That (it is my impression) is the broad strategic position as the board sees it now. Other factors impact as well, but the above are driving the CFL extension choice.

The hard reality is that the railway is boxed in at WB for the foreseeable future and the only extension possible from the existing line is to CFL.

If all goes swimmingly then the planning might be granted (this year? Early next??) Grampian conditions are unlikely, so the fact that only a third of the cost or less is available right now isn’t the problem it was under the last permission. The railway can then be started immediately with the bridge locking in the permission. The remaining £1M (at a guess) can be raised over the following 3 or so years and the extended line opened by say 2028. The OSI to Reservoir would be 2028 to 2033 say and maybe OSi to CFL 2033 to 2038? That seems to be the broad plan.

This is all a very reasonable assessment, except for one strategic factor that I am not sure is taken fully into account. The ageing population and demographic of members and supporters. Brutally over the next 10 years we have an opportunity to dip into the wealth of the generation that makes up the majority of the membership. After that I think the pathway gets harder because of the age and the fact that succeeding generations are generally less wealthy. The match funding (for some grants will be required) is the biggest strategic problem, and I think the pool of available funding is about to start shrinking.

If we take as a starting point an assumption that the goal is something more than a mile of railway, maybe 5 to 10 miles, I worry more about the funding of the reinstatement more than any of the other strategic issues. It is undesirable to overstretch or upset current volunteers, but that may be mitigated through communication.

Incremental expansion from WB beyond CFL isnt possible for the moment, and maybe not within the timescale in which funding could be raised for expansion. It’s implied that the board realise this too.

Unless CFL (if approved) is used to rejuvenate the whole project AND it is more quickly accepted that two site operations are inevitable and will have to be planned for and achieved sooner rather than later, then I think CFL will turn out to be the limit of the operation for all time.

 

>>>The volunteers and managers at WB do not believe a two location railway is possible. That it would be beyond the current volunteers to staff....

Maybe, but.....

Firstly, it is claimed/rumoured that we will lose a section of the BR-WD trackbed back to its original owner if it is not put into use within a specific time-frame (yet to be quantified). As yet I have seen neither the compelling evidence to support this claim nor - and perhaps more importantly and concerning - any evidence from the Board to dismiss that claim. So just how long is the Trust going to (possibly) risk the viability of a BR-WD operation through an (understandable) reluctance to have a 2-centre operation?

Secondly therefore, what I have not seen as a suggestion previously from anywhere IIRC is that the Trust in effect sub-contracts the restoration of the BR-WD section to EA/YVT and then allows them to run whatever sort of service they may wish on it until such time as the line from WB reaches BR. Given EA's track-record (no pun intended!) so far, I see no reason to suggest that they will not make a good job of it in good time.

Now of course there will be those who will point out - with some justification - that both the Trust and EA/YVT share quite a (large?) part of the 'volunteer pool'. But I get the impression that the sort of 'basic railway + railcar operation' that has been suggested for BR-WD will be much less labour-intensive than steam services on WB-KL/CFL, so maybe EA/YVT may get the benefit of input from volunteers currently not working at WB (for whatever reason).

Is it not perhaps time to adjust the 'L&BR mindset' accordingly and re-adjust the boundaries so that - in essence, and allowing for 'joint working' at BR - the boundary between the Trust and EA is now set at BR rather than WD? That would then equate to the Trust working with the ENPA (+ BR site) and EA working within NDC. Surely what the railway needs are practical and pragmatic solutions regardless of the 'provider', not artificial and bureaucratic 'boundaries' that appear to do more to hamper than help the progress which we all seek.

 

If the railway is to be longer than WB to CFL, then yes, new ways of thinking and working will have to be accepted. I cannot blame the trustees for being trepidatious about that. I know that feelings at WB are strongly against two centre operations at present, and I have total sympathy with that viewpoint. However, I think that there are only three options:

1. Accept two centre operations are not possible and stick to WB to CFL. (For the logic is that if only one centre can be operated, then BG to WD cannot happen).
2. Accept that two centre operation is the only way to have a railway longer than just over a mile at least as an interim step and develop the support structure and volunteer base to deal with that.
3. Accept that only one centre can be operated and that to have the longer run wanted that has to be other than WB, so WB will need to be semi mothballed until such time as it can be joined to the rest of the line.

The trustees probably feel that EA/YVT building an operating line is a variation of 2, and in a lot of ways it is — though that doesn’t mean it’s a bad plan.

 

I think @21B has hit the nail on the head here with quite a few points, the contentious issue about a 2 centre railway is basically of the L&BR Trust's own making due to the fact that some longer standing trustee's agreement to invest so heavily in OSI to 'get the purchase done', if the figures quoted are correct the Trust's exposure to OSI itself are ITRO £680k, the length of track bed not included in the OSI deal another £50k, the work on bridges 54 and 55 £220k (including £60k grant) plus the purchase of the Bridwick Farm track bed from EA although i cant recall if that section was cash transfer of share swap so in that area alone there has been considerable investment by the Trust and no matter how anyone looks at it OSI is a high risk venture which many members invested in so it must be made to succeed and if that means building and running a simple shuttle service to and from the reservoir to bolster trade at the OSI then it really should be looked at seriously over and above a short extension to CFL. The members should be shown the viability of both ideas with supporting documents drawn up by an independent company because the bottom line is the one that should be chosen is the one that would benefit the Trust the most overall not the one that would suit the Trustees.
I cant see why a 2 centre operation cannot be complimentary to each other, one steam the other something totally different and possibly not reliant on volunteers from WB, there have been calls for more working weekends throughout the year so there's another option for the maintenance of a second line and sadly but true some volunteers are quite simply staying away because of the attitudes and arrogance of some long serving Trustees and Directors

 

Having a short running line as an additional attraction at OSI might be a way to attract more interest in what the trust is trying to achieve, as long as it don't impact on the operation at Woody Bay, but whats imperative is that a plan is firmed up to Aquire further land from woody bay, to enable that to be extended, and not just a short extension, but to the next station site, , and that has to be publicised at the same time as operating any short out and back operation at OSI, and funding raised, possibly doing both at the same time, if you have a captive market, then make use of it, have posters in the pub, have a large information board to get the word out, whilst people are eating they might look at the publicity, I would even turn it into placemats, a picture of the L&B in its hayday, and on the other side, about what the plans are, how people can help fund it, get involved, and have leftets either on racks or behind the bar, so people once you have their interest, can ask for more information.

 

Are you talking about going northwards to Caffyns or southwards from KL/CFL to BR ?

 

Northwards, because going southwards means having to sort out the problem around the grobs land

 

But where do you go to, and for what purpose?

If you manage to get enough land to get to Caffyns, what do the passengers do? They’re in the middle of nowhere. Would the planning be forthcoming to build a proper station? How do the passengers get to Lynton and who pays?

If you get enough land to get as far as Lynton, and unbelievably get to the old station site, you still have a problem of dropping passengers at the top of a steep hill. Car parking could also be an issue (depends if the railway can be used as a p&r for Lynton). If you want to build a new station closer to Lynton you are talking mega money in land and civil engineering costs.

It’s not quite as simple as just changing the direction of any extension and whichever way is chosen, a huge amount of money will be required.

 

I too remain puzzled as to the potential benefits of a (temporary) terminus at Caffyns, similar to KL.

If there was a frequent connecting bus service between CN and Lynton then maybe, but...would people people really drive up to WB to park, take the train to CN, and then a bus into LN?

An alternative scenario which I have heard was the idea that traffic coming west along the A39 would drive past LN to a P&R at Caffyns to catch a train, but IMHO that would only work really if the train was going to take them to somewhere further south then just KL or CFL.

If we were in the situation of having a firm and achievable plan with planning permission for getting from WB all the way to LN (either the old station or a new site) within (say) a decade or so, then I can see the merit of going to CN as the first stage and gaining benefit from the extra length whilst CN to LN was under construction. But let's not forget that KL was only meant to be the 'first step' of going to PE and then beyond to BR..and just how did that turn out ????

I find it difficult to get to grips with any plan (however well-meant) to extend northwards from WB, which involves so many obstacles in terms of land ownership, costs etc, whilst at the same time the Trust appears to be ignoring a stretch which it already owns, for which it already has secured planning permission, and in which it has already invested a large amount of money, namely BR to WD and the OSI.