"Big Four" Light Railways

[Nearholmer]

The GWR also got the Welshpool & Llanfair LR, and the Mawddwy (sp?) LR.

 

The Southern would probably have inherited the electric Surrey Heath LR via the LSWR, but like The Surrey Heights LR, it didn't quite get built.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Nearholmer

[melmerby]

33 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 what about the GWR? Did they have an electric LR tucked away somewhere?

Not unless you can call the Hammersmith & City a light railway

 

Maybe they owned a tramway somewhere?

[009 micro modeller]

42 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

So the LMS and LNER had an electric one each; the SR just missed with the Surrey Heights; what about the GWR? Did they have an electric LR tucked away somewhere?

 

Did the LMS have another electric one? I seem to vaguely remember that they did, or perhaps it was another main line company. The Wolverton and Stony Stratford Tramway apparently ended up being operated by them, but apparently was built too early for the 1896 Act. I’m not sure whether it used the 1868 Act or some slightly distinct tramway legislation.

 

A modern iteration is the Heart of Wales line, operated under an LRO as part of the national network but not originally built as such. There seem to have been a few in Scotland with varying degrees of involvement from the relevant local main line company (and its big 4 successor) and in Wales, have we had Tanat Valley yet?

[009 micro modeller]

This is an interesting one. Was the Tovil goods line actually built under an LRO in the end?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headcorn_and_Maidstone_Junction_Light_Railway

[Andy Kirkham]

14 hours ago, Welchester said:

The L&MVLR was 2’ 6”, not standard gauge.

 

But the Leek to Waterhouses line (which connected with the L&M) was also built under a light railway order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterhouses_branch_line

 

The above article states that "In order to access Treasury funds the line had to be constructed and operated by an existing railway company"

[Nearholmer]

5 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

The Wolverton and Stony Stratford Tramway

A pure street tramway, built and operated under tramway legislation, even though it did go pretty rural on the “one minute wonder” Deanshsnger Extension.

[2251]

Speaking of tramways, does anyone know the precise status of the Shipston-on-Stour branch? It was shown after conversion to locomotive haulage as a "locomotive tramway" or "tramway" on timetables, and was always worked without block telegraph. 

 

I suspect that the answer is that without a trip to a good library, and a trawl through the legislation from the original Act of 1821 to the GWR Act of 1883 permitting the use of locomotive haulage, it is impossible to know.  

[Compound2632]

34 minutes ago, 2251 said:

Speaking of tramways, does anyone know the precise status of the Shipston-on-Stour branch? It was shown after conversion to locomotive haulage as a "locomotive tramway" or "tramway" on timetables, and was always worked without block telegraph. 

 

I suspect that the answer is that without a trip to a good library, and a trawl through the legislation from the original Act of 1821 to the GWR Act of 1883 permitting the use of locomotive haulage, it is impossible to know.  

 

Read all about it: https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/mortonshipston.htm.

[2251]

Many thanks for posting that link (as it happens, I was aware of it).

 

Unfortunately it, like all the other material I have read on the subject, does not answer the question, was the branch legally a tramways?

[Nearholmer]

 

 

51 minutes ago, 2251 said:

does anyone know the precise status of the Shipston-on-Stour branch?

 

That piqued my interest, because I've long thought that was a fascinating line, but didnt know that it had remained a "locomotive tramway", so here we have words from the 1883 Act, slightly garbled, because ICA to tidy the copy up:

 

To authorise the Company to act as carriers 'of passengers, goods, minerals, and other trafficon their Stratford, and, Moreton . Tramway, sind tcj • thereon, or on 'some^part'or parts "thereof, .steani: engines or engines' worked by' other mechanical power; to.restrict aud. limit'the spee^ -at such engines shall travel on the said tramway, and to make special provisions with reference to the level crossings on such tramway and to the opening and shutting of the gates at such crossings, and to make bye-laws with reference to any of the matters aforesaid.

 

I can find nothing later than 1883, so that seems to be it.

 

To get the full picture, we'd need to see the byelaws, but I read it a meaning that the line could operate rather like a street tramway*, on line of sight, if the GWR wanted, but there was clearly more to it than that, because there were a few signals, and I have dim recollection of seeing a photo of a train staff, so presumably the GWR used "staff and ticket" a a good safety precaution. perhaps of their own, rather than legally enforced, volition.

 

Has anyone got a copy of the Wild Swan tome to hand?

 

*It wasn't a street tramway, clearly, and not covered by the 1870 tramways Act, I'm merely drawing an analogy here. 

Edited August 4, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Compound2632]

26 minutes ago, 2251 said:

Many thanks for posting that link (as it happens, I was aware of it).

 

Unfortunately it, like all the other material I have read on the subject, does not answer the question, was the branch legally a tramways?

 

I thought that would be the case (on both counts) but Warwickshire Railways is such a splendid resource it wants advertising at every opportunity. All credit to Mike Musson - if only every county had as dedicated an enthusiast!

[melmerby]

13 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

 The Wolverton and Stony Stratford Tramway

 

 

8 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

A pure street tramway, built and operated under tramway legislation, even though it did go pretty rural on the “one minute wonder” Deanshsnger Extension.

 

Rather like the 3' 6" Kinver Light Railway, which was also a tramway, even though it went very rural and even towed goods vans behind the trams.

It was part of the Black Country tramway network and at one point even had excursion trams from the centre of Brum for holidays.

 

[Wickham Green too]

17 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

....... the Surrey Heights; .......

Southern Heights, please - without a proper map of the proposals I can't say for certain, but I'd guess well over half would have been in Kent.

[Nearholmer]

Sorry, yes. It was supposed to go somewhere near Biggin Hill, which definitely isn't in Surrey. It was late when I typed that.

[Nearholmer]

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

Rather like the 3' 6" Kinver Light Railway,

 

That was legally a Light Railway, with an LRO under the 1896 Act.

 

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by Nearholmer

[melmerby]

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

That was legally a Light Railway, with an LRO under the 1896 Act.

 

 

Interesting.*

So could any street tramways also be a light railway?

 

*EDIT found it in my tramway books

LRO obtained 1898

[melmerby]

Found a few more Tram systems that were Light Railways:

 

Mansfield & District LRO 1901

Potteries Electric Tramways LRO 1897

Worcester & District (Worcester Electric Tramways) LRO 1901

Llandudno & Colwyn Bay Electric Railway LRO 1898

Llanelly & District Electric Tramways LRO 1907

Merthyr Tydfil Electric Tramways LRO 1899

 

What was the advantage/disadvantage of authority under either LRO or Tramway acts?

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, melmerby said:

What was the advantage/disadvantage of authority under either LRO or Tramway acts?

 Wikipedia says:

 

"A number of municipal and company-owned street tramways were built or extended by the Act, in preference to the Tramways Act 1870. The procedure of the 1896 Act was simpler, permission easier to obtain (local authorities had the right to veto lines under the 1870 legislation), and there was a 75% savings on rates payable as compared to a tramway."

[Nearholmer]

Well, leaving aside that most of the KLR wasn't in the street, once the 1896 LR Act was in force, many things for which authority would hitherto have been sought under the 1870 Tramways Act were authorised under it.

 

They tended to be lines with a fairly high proportion of reserved, off-street, route, but from what I can work out that wasn't why the LR Act was used.

 

The Tramways Act was famously very favourable to everybody and his dog, with the exception of street tramways promoters. It enabled their construction and operation, but in a very begrudging manner. IIRC, each tramway had to obtain its particular Act, which was a costly process, and the application of the main Act often saddled the tram company with a disproportionate amount of road maintenance costs, and it allowed local authorities to make petty byelaws that hedged-about the tramways' conduct. At worst, local authorities with "anti-tram" members could scupper even obviously viable schemes. The 1870 Act held back tramway development in Britain, as compared with elsewhere.

 

Whereas, the 1896 LR Act was very flexible indeed. It made it comparitively cheap to obtain authority to build and operate, and it put the LR Commissioners, ably assisted by HMRI Inspectors, in a position where they could take a balanced view of safety provisions, the need for compensatory clauses etc, thereby reining-in the worst excesses of local authorities.

 

So, where they had a choice, or where they could get away with it, tramway promoters used the 1896 LR Act, rather than the 1870 Tramways Act.

[Nearholmer]

As a bye-the-bye, the tramway legislation in Ireland "put the boot on the other foot". A tramway could effectively be imposed on the local authority by decision of (IIRC) the Lord Lieutenant or his county equivalent, and Townlands (parishes) could be compelled to raise rates to pay subsidies to struggling tramways.

 

It was a strange, but actually quite enlightened, piece of neo-colonial legislation, designed to get communication into, and goods to market from, areas that were desperately poor, and the burden of any rates for subsidies fell almost exclusively on the more prosperous landed class, not the impoverished locals.

[melmerby]

5 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Well, leaving aside that most of the KLR wasn't in the street

Yes.

About 5km total from the District boundary at Ridge Top to the Stewponey on roadside reservation and Stewponey to Kinver across then fields. (All in Staffordshire)

Plus about 3km total for the in road trackage from the two start points Fish Inn & Enville Street to Ridge Top (All in District Council area)

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by melmerby

[Wickham Green too]

A couple more on the Southern which I don't think have been mentioned yet - The Lee-on-the Solent Light Railway and The Sheppey Light Railway.

[corneliuslundie]

If we are including narrow gauge the Vale of Rheidol had an authorised extension to Aberaeron, never built of course. I am pretty sure that like the VoR it was a Light Railway.

The Mawddwy was a mess but it certainly initially was not a Light Railway as the Act is dated 1865! More or less the personal property of Sir Edmund Buckley. The Light Railway Order was obtained in 1910.

The Van Railway was not a Light Railway.

There were also several proposals but not built in Cornwall.

Jonathan

[Nearholmer]

10 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

The Light Railway Order was obtained in 1910.

 

Which, for my money, means that it was a light railway, certainly during the GWR period.

 

Which I guess brings up yet another definitional question.

 

My personal, working definition is that a thing was(is) definitely a Light Railway if:

 

- it was the subject of an LRO under the 1896 or succesor Acts; or,

 

- it used the LR provisions within the 1868 Act.

 

Things that sometimes looked or behaved like LRs, but definitely weren't:

 

- things built before 1868/70, which were allowed by their particular Acts to behave in a "light railwayish" fashion. These were often tramways that had either original (Oystermouth* for instance) or amended (Stratford & Moreton for instance) powers that allowed them to use locomotives;

 

- passenger carrying lines that were built without the need for compulsory purchase, so no need for an Act or an LRO, often either on wholly private land, or land accessed by negotiated wayleaves, with any crossings of highways by agreement, rather than compulsion (Brill Tramroad for instance, IIRC);

 

- anything subject to the 1870 Tramways Act and its succesors (Wantage was actually in the pre-1868/70 block, IIRC);

 

- "industrial railways" where the passenger service was solely for employees, although some "industrial" railways were the subject of LROs, and some "independent" LRs were effectively wholly owned by industrial concerns (Corringham was one, I think).

 

Where I get misty is with Ireland, because the legislation was so different!

 

Of course, things can be light railways, without being Light Railways! The lower case term is applied to all kinds of things, ranging from a few yards of portable track and a skip, upwards.

 

Discussion invited.

 

*Really odd this, because it was built before railway locomotives were invented, but it had a convenient "....or by other means....." in its Act.

 

 

[kevinlms]

On 03/08/2021 at 09:01, phil_sutters said:

The GWR did buy the assets of the Weston, Clevedon & Portishead Railway with the intention of using it to store surplus coal wagons during WW2, but very little use was made of it. All traffic had ceased in 1940 after decades of operating in Receivership.

There was spare wagons to be had?