Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I think we also need to be aware of the planning permission for the Killington Lane halt. I stand to be corrected, but I am sure I have been told that once trains go under the Road Bridge at Killington Lane, the halt has to be removed and the lane returned to farmland, so to a certain extent, is it worth only having a short extension (with no loop) or would it be worth going the whole hog and force the issue to get back to Blackmoor, as they say you can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs.

The other alternative is to relook at Blackmoor and rebuild the whole thing as a North Devon Heritage Centre, as has been suggested elsewhere and then work away from that both northwards to Lynton and Southwards to Barnstaple.

This would mean a change in direction with the setting up of a railway museum of the Statfold size and quality as the first step in going forward.

 

As I said before, Killington Lane as things stand has to be removed once the extension to CFL is built.

A terminus in a cutting on a falling 1:50, is not desirable.

ORR guidance is for a max 1:500 gradient through a new platform.

If the railway is extended to CFL you pretty much have to have the scheme that is proposed. The Trust have decided that this scheme is the one they back, and so have “settled” the value for money argument (even if we might disagree). The only remaining question is whether they obtain planning permission or not, and if they do, can raise the money.

 

It has been obvious for several years I think, that any attempt to significantly extend the running line will only be achieved by starting from somewhere other than the current operation. I realise that this is difficult, but the opposition to and the scale of works required to reinstate Parracombe bank make it the case.

 

Indeed, and I guess it is implicit in my thought process that such a scenario only makes sense if it is part of a larger plan. (The "Bluebell to Imberhorne Lane" scenario, when clearly the objective was East Grinstead). If there is really no possibility of getting past Cricket Field Lane, then it has no validity.

Which comes back to what others are suggesting: you need a long hard look at strategy first, you can no longer do this just on aspirations that hopefully it will all work out in the end.

For the most recent one, i.e. to Imberhorne Lane, the shuttles were run as a separate service. (i.e. you detrained at Kingscote and transferred to a different train). I can't remember now if you paid or it was a donation model, I seem to recall a small supplementary fare. It was definitely a "now and again" service at galas, not run every day. But equally obviously, it was a stepping stone en route to an end goal that was clearly unambiguous, another 3/4 mile on from the rail head.

Tom

 

I do agree with you on this, however, I just can't get excited, or do I have the confidence that they could raise the sort of money they need for this to happen, I feel it is time as much as I hate saying this that we need to bring in people with more experience of large fund raising programmes.

I do understand people's reticence in discussing money or fundraising, after all, it is not what we signed up for, but a project of this size, we do need to get our heads around it

 

Potentially, the basis for refusal. If it is refused because it causes "harm" to the setting and does not comply with the National Park Plan for reinstatement (because it obstructs reopening), then refusal is potentially supportive of a future plan to reopen "properly".

This is where a push-pull operation could be of value, and where my understanding is that the Bluebell (and other) precedents during extension was that such a journey didn't trigger VAT. However, I'm not clear what role KL might play there.

 

Re KL, I was always under the impression that the PP required the 'temporary' KL station to be removed 'once the line was extended' - and I have written as such on many occasions.

However, when last year I went to look at the actual PP to see precisely what it said and/or meant (eg could we build the extension but not use it and thus keep the Halt etc), I could not find any such constraint at all. So, was I wrong in the first, or did I just not look in the right place, or did the PP get amended at some date and that condition removed? After all, was not the PP for KL originally for a max of 10 years and we're well past that now.

I wonder if anyone can give us 'chapter and verse' on this please?

 

I agree. L&B restoration and a general NG heritage centre are different objectives, serving different purposes. Without very clear objectives joining them, the risk is that both would fail, and neither succeed.

 

[QUOTE="Pete Thornhill, post: 2927375, member: 3383"......

What I do disagree with is this idea of a North Devon heritage centre as a priority, why? This just seems as a distraction to the core project......[/QUOTE]

As a very minor aside, consider the current restoration of the ex-L&SWR signal off the North Devon line. Leaving aside the fact that there are probably few original bits left (other than most of the post), it would be appear to be a very good match for the former Up Home at Chelfham in its later position, so quite useful as an L&BR-lookalike relic. But...it is said that the intention is to erect it at BR and use it being 'off' or 'on' to tell people if the OSI is open or shut!

But who will know what it means when the arm is up or down without a sign to tell you the meaning, in which case why not just have a normal OPEN or CLOSED sign anyway and use the signal somewhere more 'appropriate' ? I'm afraid that this sort of 'gimmick' jars with me and does nothing to enhance the railway's heritage ethos. I would hasten to add, no disrespect intended to those doing the actual restoration work.

 

I didn’t say I thought the value for money argument was settled, rather that the Trust felt it had been.

Bluntly, the trust is pursuing the wrong strategy if the aim is a longer running line. There is a lot of thinking that owes more to a garden railway than a serious undertaking seeking to create a sustainable railway.

 

Colin, you’ve mentioned bringing in professional fundraisers several times and also proffered a price of £10m per mile for reinstatement.
You’ve also mentioned a narrow gauge Statfold type railway museum several times.
Three questions:
1. Are there recent examples of heritage railways using professional fundraisers to achieve large scale funding? The days of WHR style funding are long gone.
2. Where does the £10m figure come from? Fact or opinion?
3. Why is a ng museum necessary? A modest L&B museum yes, but why a general ng museum when we already have Statfold? Finance, land and volunteer numbers should instantly tell you that this is not going to be viable.

 

It's an awful idea. In any case, isn't there already a signal there, on an original SR concrete post, doing, (or not doing) much the same thing?
As for the Chelfham up home, it has already been recreated, just not currently vertical.

 

Yes, I am aware of that and of course in the earlier form and position

 

Personally I would suggest that experienced grant seekers/application writers are more useful than professional fundraisers in 2025.

 

Why?
Other than your long held ambition to buy/restore/run almost anything other than L&B stock?

Feels a bit like special pleading for your preferred hobby horse - a solution in continual search of a problem…

 

Ok, let me try to answer that:

1 I think I said I was loathed to use professional fundraisers since the last time a railway used them, the North Devon Railway, ie the Barnstaple to Ilfracombe project, failed big time, and so I have that in mind. That said, of course, I don't know of a fundraiser being employed by a railway, but that does not mean that a professional does not give his time free to a heritage railway project.

2 The cost of 10 million pounds per mile is how much the L&BR has spent so far on building the Woody Bay project. So I think I am safe in thinking that building the rest of the railway is going to cost a similar amount. You can check this if you look back at the various financial reports over the years. So that being the case, rebuilding the L&BR could cost up to, but not exclusively, 200 million pounds. I have not included in that figure the amount of effort given by volunteers over the last twenty years or so, but when applying for grant aid, it is one of the tick boxes they normally ask you about.

3 Is a Museum necessary? Well, I could argue that if you looked at the Trust's M&A, then you would find that it is part of the objects and powers, and it is not just limited to the L&BR either. As for a Statfold style collection, there should not be a limit, how many other railways can possibly say they run exclusively with locos and rolling stock that would have been seen only on their railway from yesterday. For this discussion, I will omit miniature railways like the RH&DR and the Ratty.

Also, it must not be forgotten that if Peter Rampton (Collection X) had got his plans approved for Blackmoor back in the 1970s, you would have had several narrow gauge steam locos working over the demonstration line as far as the Reservoir that had no connection to the L&BR. Could it still happen? Well, yes, it could, as we all get older and die, collections come up for sale, and I would guess that at least one such collection could end up on the L&BR at some point and we should not forget the number of locos that are owned by individuals that have not steam in twenty years.

As for Blackmoor becoming a heritage centre, I would suggest that once the trains have departed, what else is there to do after a drink and refreshment have been taken? Building a museum is something that would be an added extra plus also providing a covered storage for locos and rolling stock out of ticket. My role model for this is the Froissy Dompierre Light Railway, which is worth visiting.

To say you don't like the idea, let me put it this way: if you came to visit the railway and the museum, would you refuse to go and look around? Of course not, referring back to the M&As, we are an education charity, so having something like this is part and parcel of the whole experience for the general public.