Light Railways of the Rural Transport Committee

[RLBH]

The Rural Transport (Scotland) Committee of 1918-1920 has come up now and again. I've managed to get a copy of their two reports - the main report published in 1919, and a supplementary report from 1920 - through the National Library of Scotland's online resources. It makes rather interesting reading, and some of the things that have been claimed about it turn out not to be entirely true. Equally, some of the things it recommended were rather interesting!

 

In general, standard gauge was to be preferred where a connection to existing railways exists, to preserve the benefits of through running. One point which I didn't think of is that this extends to locomotives - it allows the light railway's locomotives to access the main works, whereas a narrow-gauge line would need to provide its' own works. Where no connection to the main line network was possible, narrow gauge was expected to be cheaper, and whilst 2'6" gauge was preferred a considerable quantity of 60cm gauge equipment was available as war surplus. Baldwin 4-6-0 and Alco 2-6-2 locomotives were particularly liked, and conversion of War Department covered goods wagons to passenger coaches was proposed. The ex-War Department narrow-gauge 20lb rail was considered too light, however, and the Committee proposed 45lb rails for narrow-gauge lines. Surplus 75lb flat-bottomed rail was thought to be well suited to the standard gauge lines.

 

The actual lines would be laid alongside existing roads and left unfenced where possible, running at low speed (25mph, in keeping with the Light Railway Act) to permit this. Passengers would board carriages from the ends, dispensing with platforms, and fares collected on board, dispensing with booking offices and their associated clerks. Indeed, halts were not to have any buildings at all except possibly a goods shed. Signalling, too, would be dispensed with - all lines except that from Culrain to Lochinver would be worked by one locomotive in steam.

 

Of course, what we really want is the list of lines. There are some notes on the route in the text, though this is usually rather vague. As noted above, they would have followed the existing roads as closely as possible. The lines actually proposed, between the two reports issued by the Committee, were as follows:

 

Standard Gauge, total 252.5 miles

• Alford to Bellabeg, 19¼ miles
• Ballater to Braemar, 17 miles
• Turriff to Maud, 21½ miles
• Fraserburgh to New Aberdour, 9 miles
• Falkland, 3 miles - this was a separate prewar project not formally included in their recommendations
• Stranraer to Drummore, 14½ miles
• Parton to Dalmellington, 28 miles
• Pinwherry to Ballantrae, 8 miles
• Balfron to Fintry, 8 miles
• Garve to Ullapool, 33 miles
• Conon Bridge to Cromarty, 18 miles
• Culrain to Lochinver, 40 miles
• Lybster to Dunbeath, 8 miles
• Thurso to Scrabster, 2 miles
• Nigg to Portmahomack, 12 miles
• Muirtown Basin to Loch Ness steamer quay, ⅓ mile
• Gifford to Beltonford Sidings, 11 miles

 

Narrow Gauge, total 173 miles

• Whiting Bay to Blackwaterfoot, 20 miles
• Stornoway to Barvas with branches to Carloway and Ness, 40 miles
• Ardvasar to Dunvegan with branch to Kyleakin, 75 miles
• Dunoon to Strachur, 21 miles
• Beauly to Invercannich, 17 miles 

 

A reasonably substantial number of other lines were considered but rejected. These were often reiterations of previous light railway proposals, some of which had been fairly well progressed but had fallen at one hurdle or another. Among the more notable proposals which were rejected were updated versions of the Highland Railway's lines to Aultbea, Laxford Bridge and Melvich, a line from Inveraray to either Arrochar or Dalmally, and a line from Campbeltown to Tarbert. Others were clearly pie in the sky concepts that the Committee was being very polite in even considering. Railways were generally rejected due to lack of traffic, although in a few cases the Committee felt that a railway might be viable but no practical proposal for one had been made. In many such cases the Committee recommended improvements to roads or road goods service - to be operated by the railways as a kind of low-cost branch line - and hoped that demand might be stimulated to the point where it justified a railway.
 

Edited October 27, 2020 by RLBH

[cornelius]

Tom Dauben's former 009 layout, Isle Ornsay, was based on the narrow gauge proposal on Skye and he conducted a fair amount of original research into the proposals.

 

https://hlrco.wordpress.com/

 

[RLBH]

That's a different proposal for Skye – the 1898 Hebridean Light Railway Company proposed a branch to Uig that the Rural Transport Scotland Committee didn't even consider, and their proposals for Lewis were very different.

 

The 1890 West Highland Royal Commission considered something different again for Skye and Lewis.

[JinglingGeordie]

Interesting the Dunoon to Struchur narrow gauge line. The NB had proposed a standard gauge line much earlier and had it approved. This was Dunoon to Struchur, ferry to Lochgilphead and rail from lochgilphead to Crimson, alongside the canal. 

 

It would have been interesting... For as long as it lasted.

[RLBH]

That sounds like the Clyde, Ardrishaig and Crinan Railway of 1887, which was to run from Hunter's Quay to Newton Bay on the Cowal Peninsula, with a ferry to Furnace, then a line from Furnace to Lochgilphead and Crinan via a junction at Kilmichael Glassary, with new piers at Hunter's Quay, Newton Bay, Furnace and Crinan. A description of that line may be found on the Scottish Law Commission website in conjunction with the repeal of the 1892 Act formally abandoning it.

 

The Rural Transport Committee didn't consider a railway in the Crinan area at all, only commenting on improvements to the road service in the area. They do briefly mention a proposal to improve the Crinan Canal to a single-lock ship canal at a cost of £1 million, but only in the context of it being outside their remit.

[invercloy]

I own a copy of the Rural Transport committee documents describing those lines. There's definitely some modelling potential in there!