Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

You're right that there will have to be compromises on all sides.

On the bold bit, you realise of course that if it was that binary (which obviously it isn't) then the opposite is the 'people who are doing all the work' saying to the 'armchair enthusiasts'

keep giving us your money so we can build what you don't want

Food for thought?

 

I don’t particularly propose pushing through Parracombe; my earlier comment was planning related rather than dealing with the politics.

What matters is that, whatever the plan, it a) is a plan rather than a wish list, and b) is based on a realistic engagement with external constraints, not what the proposers like to think.

 

Meanwhile, a question....

In the context of the failed CFL application, AIUI two of the objections were that (a) the plan was to build a station/platform where none had existed before and (b) the proposed platform and access track would be off the line of the original trackbed. As such, both were deemed to be at odds with the 'heritage restoration' concept of the Local Plan. If so, then can anyone explain to me please how it was that previously ENPA saw fit to grant approval for the new Blackmoor Depot, despite the fact that (a) there had never been such facilities at BR previously and (b) Rowley Moor Farm is clearly well off the heritage trackbed? Is there not a degree of inconsistency here?

More recently of course, they have granted much-welcomed permission for the new Carriage Shelter at WB (never one there before) and apparently also renewed as permanent the temporary permission for the WB loco shed and works. Consequently, if at some future date it proves possible to extend towards Lynton without the need to remove the shed, then that is another non-heritage feature that could form part of the future railway (although of course by that time one would hope that BR Depot would be operational and accessible from WB, so retention of the WB facilities would not be necessary anyway).

Fortunately NDC seem less restrictive, having already granted permission for an entirely new station at Wistlandpound and - one must hope - in due course will do the same for Pilton, both locations which have never previously had stations. If EA/YVT succeed in creating a thriving line in the south, I can see scope to increase tourism by providing new halts at places likely to attract more visitors if new attractions are opened up close to the railway. And what about the possibility of a halt at (say) Rowley Cross for the picnic site and walks in the area?

 

Yes, I agree with you, you can't build a railway with only one group of people, it needs to appeal to everyone who has brought into the plan in the first place

 

I would only look for inconsistencies within the National Park; North Devon is a different planning authority.

The key point that emerged to me from the video was the importance of balancing harm to the existing environment with economic benefit. So the sheds at Rowley Moor or the carriage she’d have clear benefit, whereas the CFL halt did not.

Understanding and working within the grain of the rules will permit results, fighting them will deliver a sore head.

 

This is the bit with which I struggle. Both the identification of 'harm' and the balancing against economic benefits appear to me to be very subjective issues (the former perhaps even emotive) without any obvious guidelines on how to 'score' them and weight them against each other. For example, if the railway were to build a railway scrapyard at X and discharge toxic waste into the local streams, then clearly there is harm to the environment in a way that would be measurable and obvious. On the other hand, the fact that - by raising the track-level at CFL - people would be able to see, at a location where previously it would not be visible, a train that had been clearly visible anyway when leaving KL and heading towards Parracombe Lane bridge - then what and where is the harm?

For example, one could argue that both the Carriage Shelter and the BR Depot bring an economic benefit to the L&BR, insofar as they will help to reduce its ongoing maintenance costs etc. But how does that benefit, or not, the wider Park community, other than if the carriages rot away and the locos break down so the trains no longer run then the railway folds and the Park loses tourists. Conversely, one could also argue that - by refusing the CFL and/or PE extensions - the Park denies the railway the chance to increase its attraction to visitors and there loses the scope for increased tourism income.

But then, you might consider those to be my subjective views

 

I would, and I might agree with you on the merits of policy.

But the policy is a fixed point. The success or failure of any application will depend on how it addresses that policy. The video shows how that played out.

 

@35B makes a (typically) sensible point here - we need to work with the grain of the policy - which favours the reinstatement of the historic railway fabric unless there is a strong reason for varying from the form that was previously there: the visual impact of the embankment to put CFL station on - none of which was original - was key to sinking this application.

At Parracombe, this would mean that it is difficult to turn down a way-side station on a single line with no passing loop, looking like this:


This is avowedly not what has ever been proposed by the L&BRT, and to justify any changes, the bar is clear, and high.

Now, the reason that this version of Parracombe hasn't been proposed is presumably that it couldn't be built now (I'm not exactly clear where the Trust's land runs out beyond the waiting shelter) and if you could replicate this, you could only operate on top-and-tail or pull-push basis without a run round loop until the line is extended to Blackmoor Gate.

So, I'd say forget about it until you can extend from BG(OSHI) to KL.

 

To me the point that was obvious before and reinforced by the planning committee is that whatever scheme is proposed in the future it must obviously be designed to deliver significant identifiable and verifiable benefits. The CFL scheme never did that. Had it done so it would have been allowed.

 

As a formerly very keen, but now rather disappointed and distant, supporter of a rebuilt L&B, it heartens me to see some very sensible thoughts and comments on here. All of you usual suspects make good and valid points.
Please may I make a couple of observations?
Re. land acquisitions in particular areas. Don't commit to purchasing all parcels bar one before attempting any further method. If owner 'C' can persuade owner 'E' to hold out, then purchases A,B,D and F will be fruitless- and 'C' and 'E' can pressure one another into never backing down.
Whilst it is clear that a line could, possibly must, be be reinstated on another part of the route, as long as the existing chiefs have control of the good toys, and keep them at WoodyBay, there will be problems. Clearly the planners think there is a difference between an authentic re-creation of the lost L&B as it was, and a tourist train that happens to be on the formation of the lost L&B. Certainly one of the objectors once cited that the railway does not have any of the original locomotives, and very little of the restored stock is original.
The argument that the operation cannot decamp elsewhere because a lot of money has been spent on the new canteen at Woody Bay merely causes me to ask why the money was spent when there was no certainty that the operation could expand at the existing site. Hindsight surely confirms that it might have been better to wait.
Once 762 was built, it seemed that we had finally matured out of the 'quarry Hunslet and a mile of track' phase- a phase which Bala, Llanberis, Knebworth etc. appeared to be trapped in throughout the 70's and 80's. - sadly the L&B Woody Bay is now reminiscent of Cameron's Lochty Railway with a ridiculously big, gorgeous loco on a mile of track.
When we 'armchair enthusiasts' with our chequebooks built No762, we did it because we were promised the railway was going somewhere. Perhaps the Trust need to be reminded of this. We didn't put up such a lot of money just for one man's personal trainset- and no more of my money will go to Devon until I see some change of heart.
All I have seen at Woody Bay since 2018 seems to be money and opportunities wasted due to poor management, whilst elsewhere on the route, good things are getting done by the supposedly the untermensch.

 

I believe that the owned land terminates just beyond the platform, leaving insufficient space for a set of points and headshunt to form a run-round loop. This is why the "turntable as a sector plate" idea was hatched, and caused much ill-informed opposition due to the alleged "hoards" that would flock to see loco's being "turned".
This suggestion is probably too late now as the Trust seems to have lost whatever goodwill they ever managed to build with Parracombe residents, but "Top and Tail" working could be achieved using a battery-electric loco similar to those recently acquired by the FR. Used in the downhill direction it wouldn't need to be particularly powerful, just vacuum brake equipped. The steam loco would work the uphill direction. This forestalls any objections to additional "pollution" from an extra steam or diesel loco and allows the Trust to trumpet some green credentials.
I have no skin in this, but have taken a great interest in developments. I have to say that I do sympathise with the difficulties involved, and while the Trust directors appear not to have covered themselves in glory at times I do wonder if anyone else could have done any better. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
There seems to be a choice of consolidating on the "Woody Bay to Nowhere" railway or starting again at the "Blackmoor to Wistlandpound" railway. Both about the same length and both with a considerable obstacle to further extension. The latter does have an attraction at both ends and my guess is if starting from scratch this would be the better option, but what to do about the existing operation? I don't think it is feasible, either in terms of finance or volunteer numbers, to operate both. A huge dose of realism is needed.
I am reminded of the old joke about a stranger asking for directions and being told "Well, I wouldn't start from here"!