Jump to content
 

Light railways begun using the Regulation of the Railways Act (1868)


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

I am struggling to get my head around the legal processes need to construct a light railway under the 1868 Regulation of the Railways Act. I mean, what a company needed to do to get permission to build a light railway using the 1868 Act, during the years before the more useful Act of 1896.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/31-32/119/contents/enacted

 

Clauses 27, 28 and 29.

 

Clearly, a railway built to suit the provisions of this Act was a lightweight affair, with an axle limit of 8 tons. Perhaps this dissuaded many projects. Perhaps also, some small projects found it easier (though not necessarily 'easy') to use the Tramways Act of 1870, even if they were on alignments entirely away from public roads.

 

I have an idea for a 'might have been' scheme, where the railway really needs to open around 1889-1890 to fit in with local history. Also, this would give me opportunities to include some older wagons without dominating the scene with RCH 1887 types.

 

I suspect I would find my investigations easier if I knew of examples of light railways built under the Acts of 1868 or 1870; and perhaps a discussion is possible based on such examples that exist ... I would welcome relevant ideas and pointers.

 

(Hopefully, this is a fair way to try to begin a discussion without seeming to merely ask a question, which is tempting but limiting)

 

- Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that if you look carefully you will find a substantial number of railways that were actually constructed in accordance with the light railway clauses of the 1868 Act, remember that they still needed an Act of Parliament. Even the L&SWR's first route to Bournemouth was a light railway under the provisions of the 1868 Act. Pain was very vociferous about the three lines (Culm Valley, Highworth and Southwold) that he engineered in accordance with the Act, but I have come to realise that the North Wales Narrow Gauge Railway had to have used the Act as certain features would not have passed the Inspecting Officer otherwise, and doubtless there were many other standard gauge lines.

 

A major clue is that the line had to be subject to a 25 mph speed limit and the signalling arrangements can appear odd, sometimes without starting signals, for example.

  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Quite a few lines built around this time used the Act - for instance the Ilfracombe line and the Sidmouth branch were both built using its provisions, but you probably wouldnt know it as they were upgraded in later years. 

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

There was a recent discussion about light railways here:

 

I did study this topic but I still couldn't understand how the 1868 Act worked.

 

At the root of this I was unsure whether the Licence granted by the Board of Trade was instead of an applicable Act of Parliament, or in addition to it. As far as I can see (and thanks to everyone above) the railway company still needed to obtain its Act of Parliament, and logically this would have to happen before the Licence.

 

Re-reading clause 27, a Licence could be retrospective, for an existing railway:

 

The Board of Trade may by Licence authorize a Company applying for it to construct and work or to work as a light Railway the whole or any Part of a Railway which the Company has Power to construct or work.

 

I don't want to seem facetious, but I imagine the Board of Trade encountered a fair number of inadequately-built new railways or decaying existing ones, and enforced an axle limit or speed limit to let them begin or continue operations and get some income to put things right. So logically, the 1868 Act provided a formalised process to allow reduced standards of construction. These could be standards of signalling as well as track. A railway company promoting a new line could save money on construction but still had the expense of getting its Act.

 

I am also at risk of misunderstanding the second part of clause 27:

 

Before granting the Licence the Board of Trade shall cause due Notice of the Application to be given, and shall consider all Objections and Representations received by them, and shall make such Inquiry as they think necessary.

 

I think, the Notice of Application here is a notice from the railway company served on the Board of Trade. Not (say) published in the London Gazette or the local press. This would explain why I cannot find examples of these Notices online.

 

I will try some searches for the railways everyone has mentioned in the replies above.

 

- Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

My understanding is that an act of parliament was only required if Land had to be purchased. So, if all the landowners agreed, they could just apply for the licence and start building. 

 

But of course, that scenario was rare, and there were some additional benefits that meant that even then some lines sought an Act.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This matter was discussed some years ago in the long running ‘Castle Aching’ thread (https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/107713-castle-aching/).  The key protagonists here are @Edwardian (the originator of the thread) and @Nearholmer, representing the legal and railway professions respectively.

 

If I’ve understood the conclusion of the discussion correctly, under the ’68 act, promotors had to obtain an Act of Parliament for their line first.  Once they had attained their Act, they could then apply to the Board of Trade for a Light Railway Order which, if granted, allowed them to build their line to the ‘reduced’ standards of the ’68 Act.

 

Hopefully, one or other (or both) of the cited individuals will be able to recall their debate and confirm (or otherwise!).

 

On the issue of wagons, my view is that the 1887 specifications would only apply to wagons built on and from that date.  There would be plenty (in fact, the majority) of pre-1887 specification vehicles still running in 1889-1890.

 

Regards

TMc

18/10/2021

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1868 Act required an individual Act to build the railway, plus license from the BoT to build and operate it as a LR.

 

The 1896 Act was an enabler, and what it enabled was the granting of an LRO by the LR Commissioners, rather than an individual Act, to build the railway and operate it as an LR. The 1896 Act also dispensed with the blanket and arbitrary 25mph and 8 ton axle-load conditions.

 

The individual Act or LRO could impose conditions, and in both cases the BoT Inspecting Officer could also impose conditions in detail. Big advantage of the 1896 Act was that an LRO was a lot cheaper to obtain than an Act.

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 hours ago, JohnR said:

My understanding is that an act of parliament was only required if Land had to be purchased. So, if all the landowners agreed, they could just apply for the licence and start building. 

 

But of course, that scenario was rare, and there were some additional benefits that meant that even then some lines sought an Act.

 

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

The 1868 Act required an individual Act to build the railway, plus license from the BoT to build and operate it as a LR.

 

Please, staying with the provisions of the 1868 Act, and supposing the promoters already owned the land ... did they  still need an individual Act of Parliament before obtaining their BoT license to build a light railway?

 

I realise the answer may be "it depends ..." but it would help me to understand what the 1868 Act achieved.

 

- Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If those wishing to build a railway either own all the land, or can buy it without compulsory purchase, or can obtain wayleaves to use it, they need neither Act nor LRO to build it. The most common case is an industrial railway, but some passenger-carrying public railways were built without the need for ‘powers’.

 

What they almost certainly will need is BoT (now ORR) approval to operate it as a public passenger carrying railway.

 

The main purpose of a railway construction Act or an LRO (and similar modern powers) is to give the promoter of the railway compulsory purchase powers, rights to cross highways, divert footpaths etc.
 

 

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

This really does give me a way to let my fictional railway happen around the end of the 1880s. I don't think the scheme would have been economically viable if it had needed to fund an Act before it began; but I do have two cooperative land owners ready to host the scheme.

 

My line would need to cross two roads - the branch line itself across a minor country lane; and an extended siding across a more important but unmade public road. I can deal with the country lane by explaining it is a private road through an estate, where the landowner lets the public use the road by grace and favour. The siding across the public road is more difficult, but the Tramways Act 1870 should help me. The local borough could grant a concession to the railway company to let them construct the track and maintain the road each side of the track.

 

Preparing the fictional history is becoming quite fun, though I am glad I am doing it this time before designing the layout.

 

- Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to look at the Brill Tramway, and/or consider the possibility that the highway authority could be persuaded to allow your railway to cross the highway without having a stautory right to do so. The latter did happen, again most commonly on industrial railways, and since what you are talking about is only a siding, it oughn't to interfere too much with road traffic.

 

I'd have your chaps steer well clear of the Tramways Act of 1870 if I were you, because that was even more costly and annoying to comply with than the LR provisions of the 1868 RoR Act.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From memory I think the "eight ton per pair of wheels" maximum weight restriction in the 1868 Act was a problem given the locomotive technology at the time - and the BoT could demand a lower limit if it warranted. To put it in perspective even the Hawthorne Leslie 2-4-0t of c1898 on the KESR was over 24 t. It basically limited operators to very lightweight contractors' locomotives - with all the inefficiencies that implied in districts where traffic was more significant.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, fezza said:

From memory I think the "eight ton per pair of wheels" maximum weight restriction in the 1868 Act was a problem given the locomotive technology at the time - and the BoT could demand a lower limit if it warranted. To put it in perspective even the Hawthorne Leslie 2-4-0t of c1898 on the KESR was over 24 t. It basically limited operators to very lightweight contractors' locomotives - with all the inefficiencies that implied in districts where traffic was more significant.

 

Thanks for this.

 

From a purely personal point of view, I am in a happy place at the moment because I have a Minerva MW K class (19 tons) and this is well below the 8 ton/axle limit. This loco is barely longer than some modern cars, and I think I can find space to build a 7mm scale micro to run it with a suitably minimal train. But clearly, most other loco prototypes will be much larger and I may be backing myself into a corner and ruling out alternative motive power in the future.

 

- Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 18/10/2021 at 20:35, Nearholmer said:

You might want to look at the Brill Tramway, and/or consider the possibility that the highway authority could be persuaded to allow your railway to cross the highway without having a stautory right to do so. The latter did happen, again most commonly on industrial railways, and since what you are talking about is only a siding, it oughn't to interfere too much with road traffic.

 

I'd have your chaps steer well clear of the Tramways Act of 1870 if I were you, because that was even more costly and annoying to comply with than the LR provisions of the 1868 RoR Act.

 

I need to do a site survey and work out whether my railway could go under the public road instead of across it ... this might need a bridge with a limited height clearance and this could look quite good on a model - a box van squeezing through, the loco with no cab and the crew almost ducking their heads.

 

- Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...