Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I don't think it really works at all for anyone aiming to start at East Grinstead, i.e. use the train to get to Sheffield Park, visit the gardens, then return. It's a 20 minute walk each way; allow time to get off the station and into the garden and it is basically an hour out of your day before you even start to look round, and on our weekend timetable, there is only just over three hours between the first down arrival at Sheffield Park and the last up departure. So at best you can get about two and a bit hours at the Gardens.

Possibly a bit more viable if you start and finish at Sheffield Park and do railway in the morning, garden afternoon - provided you are either a Bluebell life member or (and don't have to pay at the railway) or an NT member (and don;t have to pay at the garden). But if you have to pay for both, it's an expensive day out that you have in effect compromised at both ends.

I suspect it is an itinerary that might appeal to coach party traffic.

In the L&B case, I simply can't see a one mile line acting as a park and ride into anywhere - if I've had to drive for some distance into the middle of nowhere to get to Woody Bay, why would I get out and get a train to visit a country house when I could go to the house directly by extending my drive by three minutes?

There needs to be some realism here: the railway is the attraction. Pretending it is some gateway to other attractions is for the birds. So the railway has to be seen as an attractive and value-for-money place to visit in its own right.

Tom

 

I agree, but if I were staying in the area, I might well combine Woody Bay with either Lynton & Lynmouth, or one of the nearby-ish NT properties (yes, I am a member...), whether Heddon Mouth or a little further away Arlington Court. And if the L&B were running 5-10 miles, that might also be true depending on what it had to hold me on the line.

However, and data would be interesting, the other side of the question would be to understand how reciprocal promotion affects numbers. So not combined visits, but visitors to X seeing publicity for Y and following up.

 

I think you're right and I think the curent L&B fits that bill pretty well. It's not too expensive, not a massive drain on time (with a young family), has a cafe, shop and toilets on site, free parking, enables good views of the Bristol channel and most importantly has the sight, smell and sound of a steam engine on site. I think it currently ticks lots of boxes so unless an extension offers significantly more, I'm not sure it would make it more attractive.

 

That opens a different can of worms, which is that of "what is the optimum length of a heritage railway".

 

Well, I agree with everything so far; however, there is only one pot of money, and yes, I understand that the railway needs to be the reason for the visit, but not everyone wants to travel on a railway that is only 1 mile in length and as I understand it we only sell runabout tickets ( ie you can travel and many times as you like on the day). In an ideal world, you need the railway to take you to a place that you can get out and do a visit for say 2 hours and then get back on the train and get back to your car. Fine if this new L&BR had been set up in that way, but it wasn't.

For me, this then asks the question, what market research has the railway carried out and what does it show that affects the long-term of the railway?

What concerns me right now is the upcoming membership survey, since I don't think the commercial implications will be put to the membership in a way that will make a lot of sense to them. But reading between the lines, I suggest the question may be something like this:

You want us to build an extension, and this is what we are offering you. You have a choice of A. B. C. D. If you don't like any of them, then we don't have any other option open to you. Or if we do, they will be very expensive.

I am hoping that a second open question will be to invite suggestions on what to do next, should the membership not agree to the proposals ( which for what it worth, I think will be a rehash of the last questionnaire).

What I do think from reading these pages is that there is calling for a need to redefine the project, not only from a heritage point of view, but also to take in a commercial viewpoint as well. I know what we say on here is never going to affect any L&BRT policy making, but If there want the support of the membership in the future, then I hope they add all the comments on here into the mix.

 

Wise leaders will take a range of opinions into consideration, of which those on here will only be part.

Let's see what the consultation brings, and how the Trust respond to it. I'm personally content that the question is quite narrow, because I think there is a narrow question about where the Trustees have members' support for taking the L&B.

There are commercial questions to be looked at, but they are precisely the type of questions in any charity or company that the board of trustees or directors are charged with leading on. If any of us have particular ideas, there is nothing stopping us offering them forward, and perhaps being involved more deeply, without waiting for a formal consultation (and, yes, I am aware of the political aspect to this!). We're entitled as members to seek a fair representation of the issues, but the board are also entitled to their views on the right course of action - and to advocate for that.

I was critical of the 2023 consultation because it was so heavily weighted, and did not support a fair choice; if that is repeated in this consultation, I will not be shy in providing such feedback to the Trust. But in fairness to them, that needs to be based on what they ask.

 

I suspect that one of the problems in trying to assess and meet customers needs is that no two will have the same ideas - what is great for one may not appear to another. Take as an example this idea of an all-day 'rover' ticket that is used by the L&BR and other short-ish lines....

Now, it is good in the sense that you can arrive, have a look around, take a ride, come back, have some lunch, visit any other onsite attractions (eg loco sheds, museum, children's play area etc etc, then have another ride before you leave. On the other hand, for some people one ride may be enough just to see down the line and back, they don't want/need another ride so they may baulk at the fact that (presumably) the ticket price is higher than that of a one-trip return.

I went to one such line not long ago. Their timetable was 4 trains only per day and they sold only rover tickets. Now, I could not get there in time to board the first train of the day - bad traffic on the roads. The 2nd train departed at 12:30pm, at which time I was in the nearby pub having my lunch - often the most important part of any such day out . I could have taken the 3rd train after lunch had I wished, but I had to leave before the 4th train would have come back, so I would have been forced to buy a rover ticket for just one return journey - so I did not bother to travel at all. In these days of ever-increasing costs and static (or declining) fixed incomes, value for money becomes an important factor.

Others may disagree, of course....

 

That's true, but where the ticket is presented as a rover, the question of value for money does arise. At the railway in East Somerset that I suspect @RailWest is referring to, the website explicitly describes the ticket as a "rover", and if value for money is assessed by usage, his logic seems entirely plausible - if very much of an enthusiast's style.

 

There is only one answer - the length that provides the best balance between the numbers that can be attracted to it and the cost to maintain and operate. Longer does not equate necessarily to better, but shorter might not attract sufficient custom. It depends upon what the “offer” is.
I would suggest that something in the region of 50mins to 75 mins each way through attractive countryside which is otherwise difficult to access and enjoy, with a range of refreshments at the other end of the journey would probably be the backbone.
There are other subsidiary offers that can be added to that of course.
I would forget tying in with other attractions. The overwhelming majority of visitors will not tie in with a visit to somewhere else on the same day. Ticketing that permits visits on different days might be a different matter as this is a visitor area.
It is also unlikely that the railway will be used as a local transport option other than by a fraction of the visitors. Though, there may be a market for train out, walk or cycle back type schemes where the railway provides the means to do that.

 

I believe that there is/was quite a bit of that on the WSR, coupled with the fact that there is usually some form of refreshment available at/near each of the stations for much of the time.

Another thing which the WSR did some years ago was a supervised, sponsored walk along the track-bed during a non-operational day. In fact it was done in two halves on different occasions. Something like that over Chelfham Viaduct or similar might be popular in the future?

 

Not once it is an operational railway

 

Why not, if supervised and on a non-operational day - of which no doubt there will be a few?

 

Back in the day (and I am talking the very early years of the Association) they did do a sponsored walk from Lynton and Barnstaple, calling in at or as near as they could get to each station, the pubs at Blackmoor and Bratton did very well out of it, I don't have the exact figures they made but I think it gave the railway Association a huge boost financially.

 

The slips, trips and falls get to be considerably more likely. How tall is the parapet, after the bridge is ballasted? Is the amount of supervision required consistent with the return (money or pr or combination). Instinctively too I dislike the idea of allowing people to walk on the line occasionally, it sends mixed signals - I realise I am probably going to thought to be a party pooper here. Im not really, it’s just I have had the responsibility in the past and I know what is required to be safe, and I know of too many near misses with such walks. Trained pway people have been known to fall, strike their head on a rail, and do themselves a serious mischief. I dare say many of the risks can be mitigated, but what’s the cost in time and materials? Would that be better used concentrating on the railway and its operations?

 

Received wisdom - from HRA and others - used to be 7 miles. Much shorter than that is hard to make a full day out of: much longer and the ticket cost inevitably becomes too high. Of course longer railways can promote shorter trips (look at the F&WHR). And short railways can make more of each yard of line, with added peripheral attractions.
Doubt that now anyone can specify an ideal length nowadays - it depends so much on scenery, geography (i.e. where it is, as well as what other attractions are around it), to a certain extent on history - and above all its management and staff. James

 

My thanks to you and @21B for answers to the question I looked like I asked - although my question was more rehtorical and referencing the ferocious debates that can arise on this topic.