Ulpha Light Railway

Tell us about your layout, where you put it, how you built it, how you operate it.
Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby Armchair Modeller » Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:04 pm

jon price wrote:You can get paper ferns from Noch, and I think Busch, or brass ones from Scalelink who call them Bracken Fronds and scale is 1:60 to 1:100). According to your research it seems you will also need a gaggle of bedraggled walkers who have just missed the Ribble bus.


Unlike me, they can catch the train ;)

Thanks for the tip about ferns. Looks an expensive option though. I wonder if I can propagate them? ;)

kelham
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:17 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby kelham » Fri Aug 10, 2018 1:14 pm

Nice to see John Birkett's Bobbin Mill model has survived relatively unscathed.

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby Armchair Modeller » Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:09 pm

kelham wrote:Nice to see John Birkett's Bobbin Mill model has survived relatively unscathed.


Very nice to have confirmation of who made it. He is also mentioned in the Rail Model Digest article IIRC.

The mill building is a very characterful model - and was very solidly built. The only real problem was the roof, where the slate strips were curling up at the edges. Now I have real Dunnerdale colour references to work from, I hope to retouch the paintwork and add a few minor details. This should bring the building back to tip top condition. On its new alignment, further into the centre of the baseboard, it should be better protected from the risk of further damage.

The area surrounding the mill needs a lot of attention to detail to give the impression of a fully working mill. Looking at old photos of bobbin mills, there should be a number of other, smaller buildings, circular saw(s), lots of coppice wood in various stages of processing, people, maybe a vehicle or two, ground surfaces, stream and retaining wall, leat etc etc. That may take some time, I suspect!

Terry Bendall
Posts: 1649
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:46 am

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby Terry Bendall » Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:04 am

Armchair Modeller wrote:One surprise was that the wood was seasoned and dried for up to 2 years in the various drying sheds, or outdoors.


The accepted convention for natural seasoning of timber is 12 months for every inch of thickness of the boards. Small sections of timber "in the round" as per the picture could well take two years.

Terry Bendall

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby Armchair Modeller » Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:12 pm

Terry Bendall wrote:
Armchair Modeller wrote:One surprise was that the wood was seasoned and dried for up to 2 years in the various drying sheds, or outdoors.


The accepted convention for natural seasoning of timber is 12 months for every inch of thickness of the boards. Small sections of timber "in the round" as per the picture could well take two years.

Terry Bendall


Add 18 years for the coppice poles to grow.....that's a long time! They explained in the guided tour at Stott Park that some of the wood was cut into small pieces and placed in warm rooms to speed up the seasoning process. Matching supply with demand must have been challenging.

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby Armchair Modeller » Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:30 pm

Despite having lots of distractions over the last week, I have finally got the wiring done on the first baseboard, along with a tiny bit of progress on the scenery.

Here is the first loco to run with the completed wiring. I have wired for DCC, but this test was under DC, using my very bare test loco.



No short circuits - and the frog was wired the correct way around first time - definitely a first for me! After careful thought, I decided to wire up the waggonway too. Originally, I was thinking of having it purely for decoration. Being able to run the occasional train would be fun though!

In other news, I am slowly progressing with the scenery. I have laid foamboard down in front of the mill to bring the ground level up to the correct height for the mill yard. I have also put a ramp in where the roadway will be. I added thin ply to the front of the trackbed where the retaining wall will be. I plan to use Wills stone sheets to finish it off. After considering various options, I think this will give the closest representation of what I am looking for here. I shall alter the stonework to reduce the size of the larger stones and to make the joints seamless. The real skill will be in colouring the individual stones to make the wall look the part for Dunnerdale. Here are a few photos, including a drawing of the tramway bridge, to give an idea of what it will look like.

Ulph051.jpg
Ulph051.jpg (155.86 KiB) Viewed 2853 times


Ulph052.jpg
Ulph052.jpg (147.42 KiB) Viewed 2853 times


Ulph053.jpg
Ulph053.jpg (137.31 KiB) Viewed 2853 times


The real challenge is trying to imagine what the landscape must have looked like before the mill, the quarry and the railways arrived. I guess everything between the stream and the road at the back of the layout would have been altered substantially from its natural form.

I got hold of some of the Noch fern kits - here is a photo of what you get in the packet. Nine paper ferns, coloured and more or less already cut out and ready to apply to the scenery.

Ulph054.jpg
Ulph054.jpg (247.49 KiB) Viewed 2853 times


I have a packet of the Busch ferns on the way, for comparison.

I don't really have time to build up a large stud of locos and rolling stock for the Ulpha Light Railway for the time being. Instead, I shall run things in 1950s/1960s mode using mainly BR stock, assuming they have running powers. A new loco is a Class 28, fairly essential for the Furness area in the 1960s. It only arrived yesterday. I have yet to convert it to P4 standards.

Ulph055.jpg
Ulph055.jpg (168.09 KiB) Viewed 2853 times


Finally, here is a photo of the stone samples I got from Dunnerdale on my walk a week last Monday. A wide variety of colours in there, once I had washed the stones. No gold, unfortunately! I shall use these and the photos I took for reference when painting walls and buildings. I may use a few of the stones in the stream too.

Ulph056.jpg
Ulph056.jpg (124.36 KiB) Viewed 2853 times


Overall, it feels like it has been a really good few days, despite not getting much done. With the completion of the wiring, at least one aspect of the layout has progressed beyond how it was when I inherited it.

Before I can do much more to the scenery, I will need to design and build the waterwheel. Several issues depend on exactly how tall and how wide I make it. I have decided, after much browsing of the Internet that a breastshot wheel is most suitable for this site.

waterwheels.jpg
waterwheels.jpg (31.88 KiB) Viewed 2853 times


In the diagram, the water comes in from the left and drives the wheel anticlockwise as we are looking at it. I am thinking I may have to get the wheel to rotate........... :?

User avatar
Le Corbusier
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby Le Corbusier » Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:29 am

Armchair Modeller wrote:
waterwheels.jpg
waterwheels.jpg (31.88 KiB) Viewed 2836 times


In the diagram, the water comes in from the left and drives the wheel anticlockwise as we are looking at it. I am thinking I may have to get the wheel to rotate........... :?


How would that look with the water stationary? Always seems an odd dichotomy to me.
Tim Lee

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby Armchair Modeller » Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:44 am

Hi Tim,

A very valid and interesting point, as always!

The water in the leat would be difficult to see moving, as it would be relatively smooth on the surface. The only part of the wheel easily visible from the front of the layout would be the dry part at the very top. The rest would be largely hidden by the leat and the mill building. I shall construct the wheel and the leat before deciding whether the wheel does need to move or not. Much easier to visualise that way.

EDIt

Hope this works

Whl-Breast.gif
Whl-Breast.gif (11.75 KiB) Viewed 2802 times


All the splashing is below the wheel, so invisible on the model.

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1143
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby Noel » Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:05 am

Armchair Modeller wrote:The only part of the wheel easily visible from the front of the layout would be the dry part at the very top.


Water wheels that are rotating don't have a dry part :) .
Regards
Noel

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby Armchair Modeller » Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:24 am

Noel wrote:
Armchair Modeller wrote:The only part of the wheel easily visible from the front of the layout would be the dry part at the very top.


Water wheels that are rotating don't have a dry part :) .


:thumb Spot on, Noel! I should have included the word 'relatively'

Here is a video of breastshot wheels at New Mills, Co Donegal



The buckets certainly look relatively dry by the time they reach the top ;) A bit of varnish on the components of the wheel should be all I need to make the model look relatively convincing.

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1143
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby Noel » Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:29 am

Armchair Modeller wrote: Instead, I shall run things in 1950s/1960s mode using mainly BR stock, assuming they have running powers. A new loco is a Class 28, fairly essential for the Furness area in the 1960s


I understand the necessity in model terms, but historically such running powers probably wouldn't have happened, for a number of reasons. Hire of a loco from BR is certainly a possibility though, and happened in a number of cases, either long term when the resident loco had reached the end of its useful life, or temporarily when a resident loco was absent for major overhauls. The other issue is the probable restrictions applied under the Light Railways Act 1896, in terms of axle load and overall weight. I somehow doubt that a Co-Bo weighing nearly 100 tons and with a seriously unbalanced weight distribution is going to be within the likely limits, even if the Ulpha's track and bridge standards and maintenance are [improbably, I think] adequate for it ...
Regards
Noel

User avatar
Le Corbusier
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby Le Corbusier » Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:37 am

Armchair Modeller wrote:Hi Tim,

A very valid and interesting point, as always!

The water in the leat would be difficult to see moving, as it would be relatively smooth on the surface. The only part of the wheel easily visible from the front of the layout would be the dry part at the very top. The rest would be largely hidden by the leat and the mill building. I shall construct the wheel and the leat before deciding whether the wheel does need to move or not. Much easier to visualise that way.

EDIt

Hope this works

Whl-Breast.gif

All the splashing is below the wheel, so invisible on the model.


And yet again I learn something new :thumb - Scaleforum ... the stand in for 'look & Learn :D

2979627-look+and+learn+v1962+079+(1963)+pagecover.jpg
Tim Lee

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1143
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby Noel » Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:51 am

Armchair Modeller wrote:Here is a video of breastshot wheels at New Mills, Co Donegal


A late iron, or even steel, wheel, and in preservation I presume? An older wooden wheel working on a daily basis will present a very different appearance, so another decision looms :D.
Regards
Noel

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby Armchair Modeller » Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:53 am

Le Corbusier wrote:
And yet again I learn something new :thumb - Scaleforum ... the stand in for 'look & Learn :D


To qualify my remarks, they only apply to breastshot wheels, Tim. Overshot wheels, for example, would be very wet at the top

Whl---.jpg
Whl---.jpg (147.56 KiB) Viewed 2798 times

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby Armchair Modeller » Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:02 am

Noel wrote:
Armchair Modeller wrote: Instead, I shall run things in 1950s/1960s mode using mainly BR stock, assuming they have running powers. A new loco is a Class 28, fairly essential for the Furness area in the 1960s


I understand the necessity in model terms, but historically such running powers probably wouldn't have happened, for a number of reasons. Hire of a loco from BR is certainly a possibility though, and happened in a number of cases, either long term when the resident loco had reached the end of its useful life, or temporarily when a resident loco was absent for major overhauls. The other issue is the probable restrictions applied under the Light Railways Act 1896, in terms of axle load and overall weight. I somehow doubt that a Co-Bo weighing nearly 100 tons and with a seriously unbalanced weight distribution is going to be within the likely limits, even if the Ulpha's track and bridge standards and maintenance are [improbably, I think] adequate for it ...


Just wondering if there is any way I can publish things on here without Noel being able to see them... ;)

Sorry, Noel, only joking! :D

You do raise very valid issues. As you suggest, it really is just to get everything up and running as quickly as I reasonably can. Not being the quickest of modellers, I need to use all the dodges I can find. In the long term, I promise to try and do better.

Please do ignore my comments above and feel free to comment as you feel fit.

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby Armchair Modeller » Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:33 am

Here's a link to a conjectural drawing of the breastshot wheel at Stott Park on Phil Kenning's site. A really impressive work of art!

Image

I meant to include it earlier, but couldn't find the link.

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby Armchair Modeller » Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:03 pm

Noel wrote:
Armchair Modeller wrote:Here is a video of breastshot wheels at New Mills, Co Donegal


A late iron, or even steel, wheel, and in preservation I presume? An older wooden wheel working on a daily basis will present a very different appearance, so another decision looms :D.


Sorry I missed your post until now.

Definitely metal, Noel. Not sure what metal though. Metal waterwheels were readily available by the end of the C19, I believe. There is good evidence of them existing at mills in or near the Lake District - and elsewhere. Breastshot wheels probably benefit from metal construction anyway due to the high stresses involved with this sort of wheel and the risk of damage due to the very tight fit required in the wheel pit.

Turbines require a good head of water to give the required pressure. At Stott Park, they had to build new reservoirs high on the hillside and install a pipe to deliver the water at the required pressure when they installed the first turbine. If there is no steep hill with water supply adjacent, a mill would probably have to stick with a water wheel. The early turbines were only marginally more efficient than a decent waterwheel anyway.

A steam engine is only essential when water is in short supply - and even then only if you could afford one and felt the cost justified. Stott Park had a steam engine, water turbine and WW2-installed electricity by the end. More than one source of power is perfectly feasible.

I was planning to keep the mill as a working mill. Some in the Lake District lasted until the 1970s and 1980s. Stott Park closed in 1971, just in the Rail Blue era. Modelling a working mill would allow me to backdate the operation of the layout to between the wars or earlier, without any changes to the fixed scenery.

Loads more decisions looming, so stay tuned in!

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby Armchair Modeller » Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:13 pm

OK, did a bit of research into Light Railways and their restrictions tonight. The full Act of 1896 is here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vic ... 8/contents

The Act appears not to set any specific limits on axle weight, speed or anything concerning standards of construction. It was up to the Light Railway Commissioners to determine for any particular line, what was appropriate for public safety. The Act seems mostly to be concerned about proper consultation, the involvement of local authorities and other statutory bodies, finance for the line and specific exclusions from other railway legislation. The Act doesn't even define what a light railway is meant to be.

One interesting clause allows existing lines to be reclassified as light railways...

"Where a company have power to construct or work a railway, they may be authorised by an order under this Act to construct and work or to work the railway or any part of it as a light railway under this Act."

In the case of the Ulpha Light Railway, the 'official' history shows that the line existed prior to the 1896 Act, but as a mineral railway. Applying for the Light Railway Order was just to legalise passenger traffic. On that basis, we might easily imagine the Ulpha Light Railway as a heavy mineral line with heavier than normal permanent way etc. and still be defined as a light railway under the Light Railways Act of 1896. The line could even have been upgraded at any time after the granting of the Order, allowing any existing restrictions to be relaxed.

Most, if not all preserved railways operated under Light Railway Orders until the legislation changed in the 1990s(?). Many of these ran the largest locos in preservation. Looking into the Class 28s, they were RA6. So were the Class 73s and the Class 33s, both of which ran occasionally on the East Kent Light Railway.

My guess from all this is that anything goes, within reason! That's quite a relief.

User avatar
steve howe
Posts: 527
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:16 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby steve howe » Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:52 pm

Armchair Modeller wrote:
Thanks for the tip about ferns. Looks an expensive option though. I wonder if I can propagate them? ;)


If you are able to get access to some damp woodland, have a look for the thick moss that generally grows on rocks and stream banks, I don't know the botanical name for it, but when you separate the fronds they look exactly like miniature ferns/bracken. They need to be dried and soaked in paint (matt enamel is best) to preserve them, but look far more natural than the 'man-made' products. If I can find some when I'm out with the dog I'll post a picture.


Steve

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby Armchair Modeller » Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:28 pm

steve howe wrote:
Armchair Modeller wrote:
Thanks for the tip about ferns. Looks an expensive option though. I wonder if I can propagate them? ;)


If you are able to get access to some damp woodland, have a look for the thick moss that generally grows on rocks and stream banks, I don't know the botanical name for it, but when you separate the fronds they look exactly like miniature ferns/bracken. They need to be dried and soaked in paint (matt enamel is best) to preserve them, but look far more natural than the 'man-made' products. If I can find some when I'm out with the dog I'll post a picture.


Steve


Thanks Steve that would be very helpful. To get the right effect, I need bucketloads. The Noch stuff doesn't look all that convincing to me. A free, natural source would be fantastic!

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1143
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby Noel » Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:54 am

I am interested in transport history, but most people aren't, I know, so I'll shut up after this ;).

Armchair Modeller wrote:Most, if not all preserved railways operated under Light Railway Orders until the legislation changed in the 1990s(?). Many of these ran the largest locos in preservation. Looking into the Class 28s, they were RA6. So were the Class 73s and the Class 33s, both of which ran occasionally on the East Kent Light Railway.


Many preserved lines till run under LROs, I believe. They are a bit of a red herring here as their use in this context originally, as I understand it, was as the only available mechanism (without impossibly heavy legal costs to the preservationists) to allow someone other than BR to legally carry fare paying passengers by rail. It also allowed the authorities to impose what were felt to be necessary restrictions on that then unknown quantity, an enthusiast run railway. These days, I understand, preserved lines could apply to run faster than the 25 mph limit most are subject to, but only by becoming subject to all the requirements applicable to a main line railway.

The 1896 Act was originally intended to encourage the construction of lines where the costs of a normal railway would be too expensive to permit any return to the promoters. It was, as you say, basically a financial Act, with the BoT permitting relaxations of some of the normal rules in return for restrictions, especially relating to speeds and weight of stock, on a case by case basis. The biggest was probably the SR run North Devon and Cornwall Light Railway http://colonelstephenssociety.co.uk/the%20colonels%20railways/north%20devon%20%26%20cornwall%20junction%20light%20railway/index.html, which was a similar situation to the Ulpha in many ways. There was basically a trade off - the more restrictions you accepted, the more your legal requirements were relaxed, and vice-versa. Who was actually running the line could also make a difference.

Armchair Modeller wrote:In the case of the Ulpha Light Railway, the 'official' history shows that the line existed prior to the 1896 Act, but as a mineral railway. Applying for the Light Railway Order was just to legalise passenger traffic.


Rather curious, this. Being in existence as a railway before 1896 presumably means that the Ulpha had an Act of Parliament (necessary to legally enable the compulsory purchase of the land needed for the inevitable deviations when converting a tramway, if nothing else). As a statutory railway company it could make the necessary alterations to cater for passengers and apply to the BoT for permission to carry them. The LRO is irrelevant to this process. Possibly the conversion from a tramway after the 1896 Act is why the LRO was involved, as with the ND&CLR?

Armchair Modeller wrote:The line could even have been upgraded at any time after the granting of the Order, allowing any existing restrictions to be relaxed.


Not without going back to the BoT for a variation to the order, with the certainty of more of the usual rules being applied and the possibility of refusal and the need to apply to Parliament.
Regards
Noel

Phil O
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 5:23 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby Phil O » Thu Aug 16, 2018 1:50 pm

When the Plym Valley Railway was in consultation with Magor Olver with respect of getting an LRO, he said that it was quite possible to have speeds of up to 60MPH, but he said why would any tourist type railway want to whisk their passengers past all the scenery. I believe that the Severn Valley and the Great Central have higher speed restrictions for non passenger carrying trials.

Phil.

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby Armchair Modeller » Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:54 pm

Noel wrote:I am interested in transport history, but most people aren't, I know, so I'll shut up after this ;).

Armchair Modeller wrote:Most, if not all preserved railways operated under Light Railway Orders until the legislation changed in the 1990s(?). Many of these ran the largest locos in preservation. Looking into the Class 28s, they were RA6. So were the Class 73s and the Class 33s, both of which ran occasionally on the East Kent Light Railway.


Many preserved lines till run under LROs, I believe. They are a bit of a red herring here as their use in this context originally, as I understand it, was as the only available mechanism (without impossibly heavy legal costs to the preservationists) to allow someone other than BR to legally carry fare paying passengers by rail. It also allowed the authorities to impose what were felt to be necessary restrictions on that then unknown quantity, an enthusiast run railway. These days, I understand, preserved lines could apply to run faster than the 25 mph limit most are subject to, but only by becoming subject to all the requirements applicable to a main line railway.

The 1896 Act was originally intended to encourage the construction of lines where the costs of a normal railway would be too expensive to permit any return to the promoters. It was, as you say, basically a financial Act, with the BoT permitting relaxations of some of the normal rules in return for restrictions, especially relating to speeds and weight of stock, on a case by case basis. The biggest was probably the SR run North Devon and Cornwall Light Railway http://colonelstephenssociety.co.uk/the%20colonels%20railways/north%20devon%20%26%20cornwall%20junction%20light%20railway/index.html, which was a similar situation to the Ulpha in many ways. There was basically a trade off - the more restrictions you accepted, the more your legal requirements were relaxed, and vice-versa. Who was actually running the line could also make a difference.

Armchair Modeller wrote:In the case of the Ulpha Light Railway, the 'official' history shows that the line existed prior to the 1896 Act, but as a mineral railway. Applying for the Light Railway Order was just to legalise passenger traffic.


Rather curious, this. Being in existence as a railway before 1896 presumably means that the Ulpha had an Act of Parliament (necessary to legally enable the compulsory purchase of the land needed for the inevitable deviations when converting a tramway, if nothing else). As a statutory railway company it could make the necessary alterations to cater for passengers and apply to the BoT for permission to carry them. The LRO is irrelevant to this process. Possibly the conversion from a tramway after the 1896 Act is why the LRO was involved, as with the ND&CLR?

Armchair Modeller wrote:The line could even have been upgraded at any time after the granting of the Order, allowing any existing restrictions to be relaxed.


Not without going back to the BoT for a variation to the order, with the certainty of more of the usual rules being applied and the possibility of refusal and the need to apply to Parliament.


No need to shut up Noel. The points you make are very interesting! Researching answers to the problems you pose has improved my knowledge no end.

There were various ways in which a railway could exist before 1896. Apart from Acts of Parliament, there were wayleaves - or the land may have belonged to one or more owners who happily donated or sold the land. Wayleaves were not unusual for waggonways. No need for an Act of Parlament at all where there was no problem obtaining the land. In the case of the waggonway, it would largely have followed the west bank of the river which is undeveloped. It would have crossed very few - and only minor- roads. Wayleaves, or the granting/sale of land seems a reasonable proposition in this case.

I agree with you point that they would have to go back to the Light Railway Commissioners if they wanted to change any regulations. I definitely implied that, even if I didn't say it.

A Light Railway order meant that the railway paid far lower rates than a normal railway - I think 25% of the normal rates. That in itself would be a big incentive to get a LRO - but the LRO could only be granted if the local authority were in agreement.

The law has changed and preserved railways now do run under different legislation - the Transport and Works Act 1992. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport ... s_Act_1992

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1143
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby Noel » Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:39 pm

Armchair Modeller wrote:there were wayleaves - or the land may have belonged to one or more owners who happily donated or sold the land. Wayleaves were not unusual for waggonways.


There were two major problems with wayleaves. Firstly, the landowner usually got a toll on the traffic passing, commonly so much per ton. This could mount up over time and become very expensive (and lead to major problems if you couldn't or wouldn't pay). Secondly, the land could pass to a new owner if the land was sold, or by inheritance. The new owner's attitude could be very different, and you might suddenly find there was an unexpected gap in your railway. (There might also be difficulties if you needed more land later, in order to expand your line.) Tramways of any sort were, for the time, expensive undertakings, and, if they wanted to attract investors, which many of them had to, just as the canals did, they wanted the certainty provided by an Act of Parliament. Land being undeveloped did not mean that it didn't have an owner, and that owner might be uncooperative for any number of reasons from protecting his shooting/hunting rights to sheer awkwardness. Or perhaps the ownership was unclear, so there was no one to give uncontested permission, which would leave the legal status of the line in doubt without an Act, etc., etc ...

Wayleaves tended to be limited to those tramways where the builders were also the landowner(s), and probably the owners of the industry served. Short tramways were often built to canals under the terms of the eight mile (or sometimes four mile) clause of the canal's Act, but longer ones almost invariably obtained their own Acts, unless they were wholly on land owned by the builder(s), in which case they were usually not for general public use. The increasing costs of construction for a railway of the sort we know meant that their cost, mile for mile, was much more than a contemporary tramway, because of the much higher engineering standards required for steam power than for horses. Wayleaves were just too much of a risk for a public railway, so even if the tramway was so built, the conversion to a railway would have resulted in a need for some form of change in legal status, I believe. I agree donation of land is a possibility, but this usually happened with later branch lines where the landowner saw a clear benefit to the local population, and was willing to act as a public benefactor, probably not really relevant here.
Regards
Noel

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: The Ulpha Light Railway

Postby Armchair Modeller » Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:36 pm

Can't dispute much of that, but the Ulpha Waggonway (or whatever it was called) would only have been around 6-7 miles long. I suspect the land in the valley was largely owned by one family. They would probably have been involved in the promotion of the line and would certainly have benefited financially from its existence in various ways. Wayleaves seem to have worked well in other cases.

For the Ulpha Waggonway, it obviously worked out fine if the line was still operating successfully into the 1960s ;)

EDIT

Looking again at the Light Railways Act, many of the clauses cover things like raising finance, local authority involvement, negotiation etc so that would have been a good opportunity for the railway to get its house in order. Purchasing the land it had wayleaves over or purchasing new land for diversions would have largely if not completely eliminated any problems with the old setup.


Return to “Layouts and Operations”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests