Queensbridge Road Wharf

A forum for participants in the Standard Gauge Workbench.
User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1975
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby Noel » Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:14 pm

bécasse wrote:Thames barges, which were essentially sailing vessels, didn't work up the Regents Canal


Wikipedia is quite definite that they did, referring to them as "cut boats", smaller than the usual Thames barges because the Regent's Canal locks were 14ft wide and 72 ft long to accommodate pairs of narrow boats. The source given is Cooper, F. S. (1955). A handbook of sailing barges: Evolution and details of hull and rigging. Southampton: Adlard Coles Limited, p29.
Regards
Noel

bécasse
Posts: 377
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:26 am

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby bécasse » Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:20 pm

I strongly suspect that the author somehow managed to get hold of the wrong end of the stick, "cut boats" were probably intended to work through Limehouse Cut, linking the Thames at Limehouse Basin (and later Regents Canal Dock) and the River Lea which was in open country when it was built and which was certainly used by sailing barges, and the story got confused with the narrow-beam lighters which are well photographed on the Regents Canal. Sending sailing barges up an urban canal like the Regents with its many fixed bridges and tunnels would have made no sense - particularly as the purpose of the Regents Canal Dock was to facilitate transhipment between narrow boats which served the canal network and vessels such as Thames barges which served places round the Thames estuary (and a little beyond).

The description of the background to the book hardly suggests historical rigour, although I suspect that the drawings included do reasonably accurately depict typical vessels - "The result of a collaboration between the author and the illustrator, who lived on a sailing barge all year round, this book reflects the love of both for craft. It offers a survey of the hull, rig and evolution of sailing barges." To be fair to the author, it can't be said that many railway books published in the same era were any better.

User avatar
Will L
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby Will L » Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:03 pm

bécasse wrote:...The locks on the southern section of the Grand Union Canal were widened between the wars with the intention of allowing lighters to work through to the Midlands but long before the work was completed it was discovered that towed lighters (normally towed in pairs, abreast on the Thames, in line on the canal) couldn't safely pass each other on the canal and the scheme was abandoned part-complete...

Actually the Grand Union up as far as Braunston, (in middle of nowhere [Northamptonshire], at a junction with the narrow Oxford Canal), was a wide canal big enough of 14 foot wide barges. However as it didn't provide a through rout to anywhere much for such boats, they were generally only used round London. For some reason, the 1931 upgrade north of Braunston although nominally to wide canal standards only allowed 12' 6" barges to pass (but not 14 foots) so they could work closer but not right up to Birmingham, as there were narrow locks flights in the way that would have cost a lot more to convert than the Government Grants was prepared to spend. So Governments inherent ability to wast money on infrastructure improvements, because they want to be seen doing something but don't provide enough money to do it properly, is no new phenomenon. So the West Coasts Main line upgrade, smart motorways and HS2 (in all probability) are just more up to date examples of the same thing.

davebradwell
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:48 pm

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby davebradwell » Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:24 am

Whether Thames sailing barges moved up either canal or River Lee (doesn't the spelling change somewhere along its length?) is irrelevant really because with restricted headroom surely you're not going to be left with your impressive masts to look through.

London's Waterway Guide gives max dimn of craft for Regent's Canal, Paddington to Limehouse, as L 78ft, Beam 14ft 3in and headroom 8ft 11 but silting would surely reduce loads in later years. The ship lock at Limehouse (formerly Regent's Canal Dock) is 350ft X 60ft. The Lee varied but had lower headroom - down to 7ft 3in but boats about 85ft X 18ft could get up to Enfield. I have no information on Barking Creek which may be worth a look - or invent your own creek!

A dock would be the most versatile choice and possibly the only place you can leave the masts up.

DaveB

User avatar
grovenor-2685
Forum Team
Posts: 3918
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby grovenor-2685 » Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:33 am

davebradwell wrote: River Lee (doesn't the spelling change somewhere along its length?)

For some odd reason the river is the River Lea and the canal is the River Lee Navigation, both in the Lee valley.
Regards
Keith
Grovenor Sidings

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1975
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby Noel » Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:57 am

bécasse wrote:Sending sailing barges up an urban canal like the Regents with its many fixed bridges and tunnels would have made no sense


Before steam tugs, horses or sail would have been the only motive power available, and several horses would probably have been needed to move a single loaded lighter [dumb barge] or something of similar size. This would result in greater expense than the use of sail, so not as lacking in sense as you suggest. The masts could be lowered on all Thames sailing barges for bridges as this was also necessary on the Thames. With no towpath through the tunnels any boat would have to be legged through anyway without tugs. A contemporary artist shows sailing vessels between the Islington tunnel and a new London and Birmingham Railway bridge with limited headroom http://www.crht1837.org/history/regentcanal, Section 2 in particular. The lithograph is one of the series the artist made in 1837-8 of the construction of the L & B.

Sailing vessels without auxiliary motors would have had to have their masts raised at all times except for passing bridges and tunnels. The two shown have no top masts, which the Wikipedia entry mentioned earlier states was standard for cut boats.
Last edited by Noel on Mon Dec 06, 2021 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Regards
Noel

davebradwell
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:48 pm

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby davebradwell » Mon Dec 06, 2021 12:15 pm

The plot thickens, then! I'd been wondering if the folded mast might prevent the hatches being opened, or at least accessed properly. Suspect the use of sail was finally defeated by the sheer number of bridges as London developed.

DaveB

Tony Wilkins
Posts: 814
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:57 pm

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby Tony Wilkins » Mon Dec 06, 2021 12:36 pm

grovenor-2685 wrote:
davebradwell wrote: River Lee (doesn't the spelling change somewhere along its length?)

For some odd reason the river is the River Lea and the canal is the River Lee Navigation, both in the Lee valley.

I have maps that are marked "River Lee or Lea" implying that either spelling is acceptable and used interchangeably .
Regards
Tony.
Inspiration from the past. Dreams for the future.

tmcsean
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:34 pm

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby tmcsean » Mon Dec 06, 2021 12:58 pm

TonyH wrote:IMG_1479.JPG I built one of those barges , they make a nice model. There is a book, Powderbarge WD ISBN 0-9500515-4-3 which has a drrawing of Lady of the Lea,72'x13'. This barge used to deliver explosives from the Royal Gunpowder Factory at Waltham Cross.

Regards Tony


Lovely, atmospheric model, but with a steam engine that close to a barge full of powder it;s no wonder that everyone seems to have scarpered.

Tony

garethashenden
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:41 pm

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby garethashenden » Sun Dec 19, 2021 9:11 pm

I've been looking over prototype photos of the North London Railway and Poplar Docks and came to the conclusion that the whole goods yard area doesn't need cobblestones or setts and that a lot of it was packed dirt of timber planks. This was pointed out to me when I first started the layout, but did I listen? Anyway, I spread some fine ballast around to see how it looks, and it looks good! However, before I go too far, I want to work out how the points are operated by the 1/76 employees of the railway.

At first thought individual point levers seem to be the most appropriate, there are some in some of the photos of the docks. But then I was wondering if a small ground frame would be better, all four points can be operated from one location. Seems sensible enough. A thought that followed on from there was why a ground frame and not a signal box? If this were a terminus a ground frame would be right, but its always been envisioned as a through line, although single track and goods only. So would the North London have signaled a single track goods line? I feel that its not beyond the realm of possibility if it were busy enough and I think it would add interest to the layout.

So now I need a second fiddle yard, a signal box, and some signals. I also need some help with correctly positioning the signals. The only thing I really know about signaling is that I don't know much about it. I would think I'll need at least one in each direction on the model. There should be a distant and home for each section right? I don't really think there's enough space for the distant signals on the layout but maybe there is? The next question is if there's any point in holding trains clear of the loop's points. Its a very small loop, not large enough to let two trains pass. Really just a way for a locomotive to shunt the yard. I think the positions that make the most sense for signals would be just before the bridge when headed to the left, and just before the road when headed to the right. May as well keep the crossing clear until the next section becomes available. Does that seem right? What about shunt signals? How to they work? I feel that this would be a place that they would be used, but is it?

I'm thinking of positioning signals where these two pencils are. Does that fit? The signal box is mocked up in the second picture.

Image
Image

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1975
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby Noel » Sun Dec 19, 2021 9:39 pm

As it's a goods only line there is no requirement for block working, nor for locking. Given the relatively small location, on an 'industrial' single line, I would tend to expect one engine in steam, and hand levers, whatever the terminus looked like. Put the shunter on the footplate coming and going, and there is no need for a guard's van either. Much cheaper that way; even a g/f is rather too much in the context. About the only exception which comes to mind would be if there is a public level crossing in the vicinity, which might require a ground frame at the crossing and home signals, if road and rail traffic are busy enough.
Regards
Noel

garethashenden
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:41 pm

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby garethashenden » Wed Dec 22, 2021 1:19 am

Between the barge and the signaling I have been giving some thought to the location of this layout and how it fits into the wider railway scene. I feel somewhere further east would be a more appropriate setting, as opposed to on Regent's Canal. The North London ran passenger services between Bow, Plaistow, and Barking via the London, Tilbury & Southend. My proposed change is for the NLR to build its own branch from Bow or Poplar to Barking via the Royal Docks. We can imagine that the Great Eastern would have objected to this syphoning off of their traffic, so the North London was only given permission to build a single track line. With the LNWR now easily connected to the new large docks by way of the North London (always under the LNWR's influence) traffic began to flow in large quantities in both directions. The combination of heavy through traffic, local stopping traffic, and light (by NLR standards) passenger traffic in two directions on a single track line kept the signalmen hopping.

The layout is now imagined close to the banks of the River Lea, in the black box on this map. The existing NLR line is shown in yellow, LT&SR in green, GER in blue, and the new branch in red.

Image

I think this would suit my ambitions for the layout without changing the physical infrastructure too much.

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1975
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby Noel » Wed Dec 22, 2021 12:28 pm

garethashenden wrote:My proposed change is for the NLR to build its own branch from Bow or Poplar to Barking via the Royal Docks.

An interesting concept. In reality there would have been some considerable arguments in Parliament over that bill! The (Royal) Victoria Dock was built in 1850, but not opened until 1855, so the NLR line would presumably have been later than that. The Northern Outfall Sewer was being planned by 1858, and was built 1860-65. Your line crosses it just before leaving the RHS of the map; it forms a substantial embankment at that point. Immediately before the sewer the line goes through the middle of the premises of the long established Gas Light Improvement Co which supplied London's gas. The empty space on the map was, and is, mostly marsh, with minimal traffic prospects, whilst the western end of the line is through an area which was already heavily built up, and would require a substantial viaduct across the River Lea. The costs involved would have been enormous and the returns doubtful.

garethashenden wrote:We can imagine that the Great Eastern would have objected to this syphoning off of their traffic, so the North London was only given permission to build a single track line.

The BoT did not like single lines and persisted in regarding them as incomplete, so this would have been very improbable. Assuming the economics did make sense, and Parliament approved the line, then the NLR would have wanted a double line to maximise capacity. Approval of a single line only would have serious changed the economics of the line for the worse, with the very probably result of the bill being withdrawn altogether. Why accept the restriction and spend a large amount of money on something they believed to be inadequate, especially with a high probability they would have problems expanding it if this was seen as necessary in the future?

In operating terms, if you are trying to abstract as much as you can of the GER's traffic out of the docks, why build a line to Barking when you can already operate a service there, instead of putting in exchange sidings at, say, Custom House and stopping there? Also, if you only have a single line to do it with, why make operation more difficult by including a two road local yard which can probably provide only a very small return to offset the increased costs it would impose on your through traffic by blocking the single main line every time you have to shunt it?

Being interested in railway history and operation, I enjoy playing with 'might have beens' in areas I have some knowledge of in reality; please accept my apologies if you feel I have been too critical.
Regards
Noel

bécasse
Posts: 377
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:26 am

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby bécasse » Wed Dec 22, 2021 1:32 pm

I have to say that I agree totally with Noel.

My feeling is that there is no reason that "scale" modellers such as ourselves should desist from inventing "new" railway lines, but that we should take as much care in ensuring that any "new" line is both practical in engineering terms and worthwhile in respect of its traffic potential, as we would in ensuring that the locos and rolling stock are accurate models.

Indeed my own last cameo-scene P4 layout was based on an imaginary ex-LNWR line linking the NLR to the East London Line and the LNWR "city" warehouse - a line that would have been expensive (but not impossible) to build but had worthwhile traffic potential particularly if the GER had been granted running powers. It was modelled as a singled line running through a semi-derelict (largely bombed out) area somewhen around 1959/60 and would have been not untypical of that precise period in history.

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1975
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby Noel » Wed Dec 22, 2021 4:47 pm

bécasse wrote:My feeling is that there is no reason that "scale" modellers such as ourselves should desist from inventing "new" railway lines, but that we should take as much care in ensuring that any "new" line is both practical in engineering terms and worthwhile in respect of its traffic potential, as we would in ensuring that the locos and rolling stock are accurate


Indeed. One of my scenarios relates to a Neath and Brecon link from Devynock and Sennybridge to the LNWR at Llangammarch Wells. It was actually started, but the contractor failed as a result of the 1866 banking crash, which affected a lot of railway schemes, and that was the end of it. Whether it would have made any money is an open question, but the N & B thought it was worth doing.
Regards
Noel

Terry Bendall
Forum Team
Posts: 2420
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:46 am

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby Terry Bendall » Wed Dec 22, 2021 8:27 pm

garethashenden wrote:I think this would suit my ambitions for the layout without changing the physical infrastructure too much.


Noel wrote:An interesting concept. In reality there would have been some considerable arguments in Parliament over that bill!


Rule 1 applies. :)

Terry Bendall

garethashenden
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:41 pm

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby garethashenden » Thu Dec 23, 2021 12:36 am

Thanks for your comments guys, I appreciate your insights. Realistically there's no chance that a yard this tiny would have been built anywhere in London, but this is the space available and something is better than nothing. I found the comment about the BoT's view on single track lines to be very interesting and something that I will bear in mind for future layout plans. Its quite contrary to the standard practice in America, which is what I'm most familiar with. Here railroads were hastily built single track lines that only got expanded later if the traffic levels required it.
My goal with my modelling, the overarching thing I want to achieve, is to capture a feeling. Sometimes its bucolic branchlines, sometimes its struggling for survival, in this case its Bustling Edwardian Commerce. I want people moving goods from ship to rail, from rail to road, road to ship et cetera. It needs to be crowded and hectic, with everyone trying to make as much money as they can, as fast as they can. You squeeze your business in wherever you can fit it and make the most of it.
I like the appearance and challenge of P4, but atmosphere is more important to me that strict historical accuracy. I want it to look right, even if the story for why its there doesn't pass inspection. At least with this layout. With that said, the exact eastern end of the branch is a somewhat academic discussion. Maybe it goes to Barking, maybe they only said it goes to Barking so no one would notice it actually went to the docks. Maybe it dives under the Thames and goes to Woolwich or Canterbury. I had hoped that the gently flowing curve of my 30 second sketch would have indicated that not a great deal of planning had gone into it, or needed to go into it.

So I need some signals for my intense goods service, because crashing trains into each other is bad for business. I have a total of four points. If I tie two of them together as a crossover, do I still need a catch point? I would hope not as there isn't room. The other end of the yard will need a catch point. Not the end of the world, the first point on the layout needs some attention anyway so the catch point can be added in. Then I need a couple of facing point locks and at least two signals. The NLR seemed to have used LNWR signals, but did it use them exclusively? I have a copy of LNWR Portrayed, which has a largish section on signals, but before I dive in and copy it it seems advisable to find out if the NLR did things their own way...

User avatar
Winander
Posts: 847
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:19 pm

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby Winander » Thu Dec 23, 2021 11:06 am

garethashenden wrote:The NLR seemed to have used LNWR signals, but did it use them exclusively? I have a copy of LNWR Portrayed, which has a largish section on signals, but before I dive in and copy it it seems advisable to find out if the NLR did things their own way...


There are nine pages in Foster's LNWR Signalling on the NLR. The short summation is the NLR used various contractors in their early days, was one of the first to adopt absolute block working in 1855, and had a particular problem with the sighting of signals due to an environment where buildings and bridges and the London smog obscured sight lines.

In 1877 a proposal was adopted - "That as the several signals require renewal the system recently adopted by the LNW Co. be substituted for the existing arrangements with a view to having a uniform plan." My interpretation of this would be that contracts with Saxby & Farmer, Stevens & Sons and McKenzie and Holland for any ongoing maintenance would not be renewed. They did invest significant sums to provide workshops and appointed Henry Pryce as Signalling Superintendent in 1878 and from 1877 adopted "for the majority of its new work, the LNW style of signalling equipment. This was manufactured at Bow works." [Foster]. Foster notes that the NLR developed a number items of its own (diverging from LNW practice) including a distinct form of signal bracket and a rotating ground disc signal.

Foster also notes that the "[signalling] had become rather worn and outdated" and during the four years from 1878 £14,000 was expended so renewal to LNW standard would have been significant.

If you are modelling the LNWR, I would suggest that the book is a must have. My copy published by the Oxford Publishing Co. has an ISBN of SBN 86093 147 1
Richard Hodgson
Organiser Scalefour Virtual Group. Our meeting invitation is here.

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1975
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby Noel » Thu Dec 23, 2021 2:48 pm

garethashenden wrote:The NLR seemed to have used LNWR signals, but did it use them exclusively? I have a copy of LNWR Portrayed, which has a largish section on signals, but before I dive in and copy it it seems advisable to find out if the NLR did things their own way...


The LNWR only took over the NLR signalling department in 1909. "The Signal Box", by The Signalling Study Group, published by OPC [two editions at least] is rather vague about earlier practice, apparently due to lack of original sources. It does state that: Absolute Block working was in use by 1855 [probably implying also, therefore, that lines built subsequently would have used absolute block and would have been fully signalled], and the line was fully interlocked before the first BoT return in 1873; little is known about the design of the boxes, but work was put out to competitive tender with several contractors and some contractors' boxes are known; NLR box designs were used from 1870 onwards. The book doesn't cover the actual signalling, but this would presumably be to contractors' design(s) before the NLR started to do the work themselves.

garethashenden wrote:So I need some signals for my intense goods service, because crashing trains into each other is bad for business. I have a total of four points. If I tie two of them together as a crossover, do I still need a catch point? I would hope not as there isn't room. The other end of the yard will need a catch point. Not the end of the world, the first point on the layout needs some attention anyway so the catch point can be added in. Then I need a couple of facing point locks and at least two signals.


Assuming that you do not run a passenger service then catch points are not legally required. However, this is the sort of situation, with a busy main line, where any sensible operator would put one in at the LH end. The crossover is OK to protect the other end on the basis that the line at the back is the only main line. If you intend the loop to be a main line crossing loop then the situation potentially becomes much more complex; it depends how far you want to take it. As it is, there is not enough room to put a single catch point on the loop after the siding point [the trap has to be before the main line fouling point], so a railway engineer would put the catch blades in both roads before the toe of the point.

garethashenden wrote:Then I need a couple of facing point locks and at least two signals.

Again assuming no passenger service, fpls are not legally required, but could sometimes be used for safety reasons.

garethashenden wrote:I found the comment about the BoT's view on single track lines to be very interesting and something that I will bear in mind for future layout plans. Its quite contrary to the standard practice in America, which is what I'm most familiar with. Here railroads were hastily built single track lines that only got expanded later if the traffic levels required it.


In the UK, unless they were entirely on the builders' own land and not intending to carry the general public, railways required a private Act of Parliament before building. This had two primary purposes - it enabled the railway to get authority for compulsory purchase of the land required, subject to conditions, and it allowed Parliament to check objections to the scheme, the engineering involved and the route, including, for example, the gradients. What they checked and how much did tend to vary over time, but this was the usual minimum. The Board of Trade had the responsibility of overseeing railway operation in the UK, including investigation of railway accidents, and developed what today might be called 'best practice'. They were advocating "lock, block and brake" [interlocking frames, absolute block signalling and automatic power brakes] well before Parliament gave them powers to compel their installation on passenger carrying lines after the Armagh accident in 1889. Some companies paid more attention than others; the NLR seem to have been one of the more virtuous.

The BoT also required companies operating single lines to certify in writing that only one engine in steam, or two coupled together, would be allowed in any single line section. Following some nasty accidents on single lines operating with "staff and ticket" or "telegraph and crossing order" systems, signal engineers from the late 1870s introduced various electro-mechanical systems involving 'electric' staffs, tokens or tablets to make it impossible [in theory] for two trains to be in the same section. Human error still managed to cause problems even then of course...

Public railway lines with busy single main lines for freight only were probably rare in the UK in that era; most single line, goods only, situations were low speed locations operated as sidings or by telegraph/telephone and shunter's authority for movements. For a busy single track goods only line I would think it likely that the company would apply the same equipment and rules as for any other single line.

Incidentally, there is a Society for the NLR; I don’t know anything about them, but they have a website http://www.nlrhs.org.uk/.
Regards
Noel

Stephan.wintner
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2020 11:04 pm

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby Stephan.wintner » Fri Dec 24, 2021 12:29 am

That's very interesting. Like Gareth, I'm more familiar with north american practice. Over here, single track was the norm, using passing sidings and absolute/permissive block signals to avoid unfortunate attempts to share tracks. Double track was added only where traffic supported it, and often well after initial construction. In more recent times, double track has often been reduced to single track as traffic levels fell and more modern signalling allowed.

Stephan

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1975
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby Noel » Fri Dec 24, 2021 11:44 am

Stephan.wintner wrote:In more recent times, double track has often been reduced to single track as traffic levels fell and more modern signalling allowed.


This has also happened here; the Central Wales line from Llanelli to Craven Arms being an example, where it was basically a response to the refusal of permission to close the line. Elsewhere, especially in Highland Scotland, which had a lot of lines built single because of limited traffic potential, modern technology has facilitated the retention of some lines for social reasons. The legal and regulatory background is very different between us and most other countries; for example here there is an absolute requirement for railways, both public and private, to prevent trespass by both humans and livestock, which is why almost all railways are fenced. The few apparent exceptions are either down to specific legislation which has changed the rules under certain strict conditions [such as roadside tramways, ungated crossings or those with lifting barriers] or weren't exceptions at all because they were on enclosed private premises, such as working docks.
Regards
Noel

Terry Bendall
Forum Team
Posts: 2420
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:46 am

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby Terry Bendall » Sat Dec 25, 2021 9:04 am

Noel wrote:In the UK, unless they were entirely on the builders' own land and not intending to carry the general public, railways required a private Act of Parliament before building.


Some railways were built using wayleaves which are contracts between a landowner and a third party which allows building a line or access in exchange for money. One standard gauge example which has been in the news recently is in the north east where it is proposed to re-open the line from Ashington and Blyth to Newcastle. The landowner, the Duke of Nortrhumberland is now asking for rent which was presumably paid when it was peviously open. The 2 foot gauge Leighton Buzzard Light Railway in Bedfordshire was consturcted in 1919 also by wayleaves.

Terry Bendall

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1975
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby Noel » Sat Dec 25, 2021 11:36 am

Terry Bendall wrote:Some railways were built using wayleaves which are contracts between a landowner and a third party which allows building a line or access in exchange for money.

True, but the problems this caused with public railways, and some private railways as well, led to the use of Parliamentary Acts to avoid them. The landowner could, at any time, refuse to renew the wayleave for any reason, including not liking what the railway owners were doing, or charge high prices to renew, or prevent the owners expanding traffic by refusing access to more land. This all made such lines a potentially poor investment and limited their access to capital. It was a hangover from the horse tramway era, and its potential for problems was clear even then.

Terry Bendall wrote:One standard gauge example which has been in the news recently is in the north east where it is proposed to re-open the line from Ashington and Blyth to Newcastle. The landowner, the Duke of Nortrhumberland is now asking for rent which was presumably paid when it was peviously open.


The issue appears to be more complex than that, but newspaper reports seem to state that the line across his land is to replace a previous railway on a different route and the land involved has not been so used previously. It appears that the County Council are proposing to use wayleaves, presumably on the basis of this being cheaper, short term at least, than compulsory purchase under an Act of Parliament, given likely land values and the Duke has a long standing disagreement with Network Rail about something else. All-in-all a classic example of why wayleaves for such purposes mostly went out of use in Victorian times. Imagine the potential chaos if British main lines had been built under such a system!
Regards
Noel

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1975
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby Noel » Sat Dec 25, 2021 11:50 am

Terry Bendall wrote:The 2 foot gauge Leighton Buzzard Light Railway in Bedfordshire was consturcted in 1919 also by wayleaves.


But it is a private railway, not a public one, and was not built to carry passengers. I am not familiar with the line, but assume that, since it now does carry passengers there is a Light Railway Order somewhere in its past to enable it to legally do so. So far as the wayleaves are concerned, three miles is not likely to cost too much hopefully, but they may have subsequently purchased their trackbed anyway; I don't know anything about their history.

I was only trying to give a very brief synopsis of the legal position as relevant to the building of the proposal under discussion, so much was inevitably left out. Wayleaves were only ever successfully used for open land. Building a railway through a densely built up area with multiple landowners involved would be a practical impossibility; one refusal to sell could potentially block the whole project, and negotiations with the various landowners would be very time consuming, and therefore expensive, even if eventually successful.
Regards
Noel

garethashenden
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:41 pm

Re: Queensbridge Road Wharf

Postby garethashenden » Thu Dec 30, 2021 7:21 pm

I've been giving more thought to the signaling topic, and the realism of the track plan. IF this is a busy inner London route with through trains justifying any signaling, it should be double tracked. It occurred to me that there is enough depth in the baseboard to add a second track. This would most impact the buildings in the back right corner, but that corner has always been tight, I'm not sure this is actually worse. I need to rebuilt the left hand fiddle yard and build a right hand one, so the changes to add another track could be done then, that's not too hard. The first point on the left is a little broken at the moment. Some of the chairs have come loose and it is now puts everything that goes over it into the four foot. So when I rebuild it it wouldn't be too hard to realign it with the straight through route.

I have come up with two track plan options. The first just adds a second track at the back.
Image

The second removes the crossover from the original plan. This is probably the most realistic, but kinda blah somehow. And I don't really want to remove it.
Image

Are either of these worth pursuing? Should I do something else? Should the two running lines be connected somehow? Would the best thing to do be starting over with a better overall plan? The things I want out of the layout have changed since I started it.


Return to “Standard Gauge Workbench”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 0 guests