Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Whereas for me the Garretts are magnificent machines, and if they weren't running in North Wales they would very likely not be running anywhere and might have been scrapped. The fact that they are nothing like what ran there in the 1920s doesn't bother me at all. It is fortunate for them that the structures are large enough to accommodate them.

Two aspects of the serious reconsiderations that all the L&B organisations should be doing over the next year or two should be to re-assess and document (a) what constraints accurate (as far as possible) reconstruction of the original infrastructure would place on the rolling stock and (b) the pros and cons of any concessions to modern requirements. If the ENPA is allowing some new buildings, where sufficiently justified, and of course deviations of the route where unavoidable, they may well allow other minor variations such as longer platforms.

 

Indeed, @MellishR - but to the point, the WHR plan involved using Garretts from the get go, and hence the structures were modified to take them - look at the underpinning of the road-over-rail bridge on the approach to Waunfawr. I'm not saying whether this is bad or good, just that it had to be planned from the get-go, and it has successfully delivered.

Yes, I think that's exactly right. The question on longer platforms is where they could easily be accomodated, and what amendments to the existing reinstatement plan would be required to accomodate a regular 8 coach + van train, for instance, as these were never regular on the original line.

 

Can you recall if the two engines had their own crews, or did the train engine crew also work the shunt engine while at Sylfaen?

 

That was all part of the problem IMHO, as no-one had yet thought that bit through :-( There was also the issue that IIRC the original idea (still trying to find the relevant documents!) could not avoid the need at some stage to have the ECS sat on the gradient at CFL with no engine at the upper end and the engine at the lower end being a few yards away downhill - if the coach brakes failed the rake would not run far, but enough to be of concern.

IIRC the idea was for the shunt engine to be manned by a second crew, who would travel to/from PE on each service train, thereby saving them having to sit around at CFL during the interval. Trying to have both engines manned by the one crew would have involved an awful lot of walking about and time-wasting.

Certainly there were a few ideas formulating in my mind as to how to tackle the issues, but they never got very far 'cos the plans changed.....

 

I'm fairly disappointed by the planning rejection, but it was clear that the application was poorly handled, poorly managed and stood little chance of being approved.

The L&BR has four serious and reasonable options and none of them seem overly desirable
a) Have a period of reflection and considerable changes at board level, and have another shot at extending the line into Parracombe station, with a four carriage loop, possibly incorporating a sector plate. Cricket Field Lane was a dead end both figuratively and literally, but extending to Parracombe halt might make for a stronger planning application.
b) Set up a second preserved line on the southern end of the line, at either Bratton Fleming, or Chelfham. It's understandable why certain parties are pushing for this but there are major earthworks and two bridges required required between Snapper and Chelfham, along with a major chunk of the line being privately owned. Chelfham and Snapper both have major access problems. Bratton Fleming, EA owns virtually no land around.
c) Reinstate the line between Blackmoor Gate and Bridge 53 - I can't see any point in setting up a second Woody Bay style operation, even with electric traction. If the L&B family could purchase the privately owned section of trackbed south of Rowley cross bridge, it would give a just under two mile stretch of line between Rowley Cross and Wistpoundland which could be reinstated without any major engineering works apart from the tunnel/bridge under the A39. It might be viable to consider relocating the main business from Woody Bay.
d) At least for the next decade, accept that no further extension can take place, but continue operations at Woody Bay, finish at least one replica MW, continue to rebuild coaches and keep on obtaining land, and restoring Chelfham and Bratton Fleming station, and hope time presents new opportunities.

 

@Tintagel - how would your thinking change on (c) if there was a longer run available?

 

I have a feeling that the train crew drove the shunter, or in modern parlance, the second man drove the shunter while the train driver moved the steam loco about.

 

Others have commented, rightly, on stock being a distraction. I’ll return to it because I think the distraction says a lot about where the railway is now.
We can debate what is “authentic” till the cows come home. I regard the work done at Pilton East as superb, but struggle with the label of “rebuild” in the same way that I struggle with a brand new Spitfire with components from a recovered airframe as “authentic”. Lovely to observe, brilliant work - but not “authenyic”. I feel the same about the purchase of company names.

On the other hand, we have 5 carriages to original designs, and civils have been built and designed to those proportions. That, to me, says that whatever is done needs to be to original dimensions - and therefore that other decisions follow that pattern.

That will then determine the planning on Exmoor. North Devon District Council will have different policies, and it’s likely that the Devon unitary authority (once created) will differ further.

Those positions, taken together with the dimensions at the original stations, will define what can run - and probably also how often it needs to run.

 

For what it is worth, I think the Trust now needs to just concentrate on raising as much money as it can to buy up all the remaining trackbed that we still don't own and work with and not against EA/YVT to do this.

 

I believe that it depended on whether there was someone to drive the diesel or not.

 

All of this is pointing towards a unified approach. It's a no brainer for the EA/YVT team to lead on land acqusition given their remarkable track record and the Trust's failure to prioritising the purchase of all of the land available between Parracombe and BG/OSHI.

Simply put, the stupid games and refusal of some of the leading members of the Trust to work with YVT/EA has to stop. The Trust have repeatedly insisted that theirs is the only way forward. Well, they keep failing and it's time to bring everyone together - under neutral chairmanship.

 

Just, slightly late, picking up on that statement: what exactly are these grandfather rights? What can you legitimately do with those coaches that you can't do with any others?

 

Absolutely. I'd go as far as to say that after this, anyone voting in favour of Peter Miles at the AGM is of a similar mind to proposing a vote of thanks to General Percival following the fall of Singapore.

 

As with any in service vehicle it will succumb to wear and tear. The only way you can keep veteran stock and even Spitfires without at some point having overhauls and repairs is to keep it unused in a museum like the carriage in the NRM. And even then it will gradually deteriorate.
With the carriages we have, faithfully restored as much as possible to original, means visitors can enjoy them as they were and experience travel from a time past.

 

Very much this

 

Well I haven’t

 

I guess the quesrtion is, @DaveE how many of the originals is enough? If it is going to be the only design we use, then are we proposing to knock out completely new-build coaches to the 1898/1911 design (albeit with more recent running gear, as I understand it), or are we open to a more modern design in keeping with the historic coaches (e.g., the latest WHR coaches in, e.g., Southern Green) as well as the originals?

 

I think with the heritage of Lynton, the National Park and the story behind the railway, which is unlike many other railways in as much as this railway was designed and built for tourists, then even if we new build, they should have an L&B look and feel which creates a defined image. We don't have to copy elsewhere.

It is something commented on again and again at Woody Bay, and that's the carriages.

A point on longer trains I keep seeing come up. North Wales actually has a lot more space for longer platforms. The landscape is much more confined in North Devon and apart from maybe Woody Bay I can't think of many stations that would be able to have platforms of 450'+. Woody Bay would have to be pretty much doubled in length to accommodate an 8 carriage rake, plus points...it already drops swiftly into a 1:50 as soon as it leaves the points in the station as it is.

If the same was done at Snapper I feel it would spoil the atmosphere there, Chelfham is confined by the rising land behind the station. Not sure about Bratton Fleming. Blackmoor, I think we would soon run into the elevated section over the valley running towards the two bridges, Parracombe no, and Lynton is going to be I would say 4 or 5 at most due to the lay of the land.
Pilton? I think the urban area is too cramped.

 

I agree on in service; my thoughts are about the boundaries between preservation, restoration and recreation.

I mean no slight on the workmanship to say that, whatever the official status, I regard Pilton East’s work as recreations rather than restorations.

 

Certainly none of the L&B stops have the space of say Beddgelert. But, again, the question is not about “how long should trains be?” but “what are the implications of the constraints of the station sites?”. The answers will then determine how a preserved operation would work financially.