Act of Parliament after a lines closure

[Eyersey468]

My question is in two parts. When a line was closed did that repeal the original act of Parliament authorising the lines construction or does the original act still stand? Also if the original act of Parliament is still active and the line is subsequently reopened by preservationists does it run under the original act or the Light Railways Act of 1896?

 

[Andy873]

and the line is subsequently reopened by preservationists does it run under the original act or the Light Railways Act of 1896?

I believe most of (if not all) the preserved lines run under the Light Railway Act. I think that means some of the railway rules don't apply but it also means a speed limit of around 25 mph (or certainly a slow speed).

When a line was closed did that repeal the original act of Parliament authorising the lines construction or does the original act still stand?

Around 2008 the last section of the Padiham branch was lifted, I don't know what happened anywhere else, but here the council applied for a change of use order to allow a footpath / cycleway to be created on the former track bed.

 

[Eyersey468]

I believe most of (if not all) the preserved lines run under the Light Railway Act. I think that means some of the railway rules don't apply but it also means a speed limit of around 25 mph (or certainly a slow speed).


Around 2008 the last section of the Padiham branch was lifted, I don't know what happened anywhere else, but here the council applied for a change of use order to allow a footpath / cycleway to be created on the former track bed.

Thanks

 

[zwk500]

I believe most of (if not all) the preserved lines run under the Light Railway Act. I think that means some of the railway rules don't apply but it also means a speed limit of around 25 mph (or certainly a slow speed).

The Light Railway Act was repealed in 1992, Heritage Railways now run under a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO). AIUI the Light Railways Act didn't specify 25mph but that was (and is) the threshold speed for a lot of the signalling requirements that means all but 1 (AFAIK) heritage railway - the GCR - choose to limit themselves to 25mph for financial reasons.

My question is in two parts. When a line was closed did that repeal the original act of Parliament authorising the lines construction or does the original act still stand?

It will depend on the specific act as they all had different requirements. Legislation changed through the years so exact powers and legal implications varied depending on the legal instrument, but e.g. the Bluebell Railway required a separate act of parliament to repeal the original due to a requirement in the act to run a minimum service level (Closed 1958). The power to build the line was obviously felt to have lapsed as the Bluebell's subsequent extension north was constructed under LROs and then TWAOs rather than the authority of the original act.
However British Rail remained responsible for the bridges on the line (other than the sections owned by the BRPS), until quite recently when most (all?) of the bridges over closed lines were transferred to the highways agency (Highways England).

Also if the original act of Parliament is still active and the line is subsequently reopened by preservationists does it run under the original act or the Light Railways Act of 1896?

As far as I know no preserved railway has been reinstated under it's original act. All are LROs or TWAOs.

 

[Eyersey468]

Thanks @zwk500 I didn't realise the light railway act had been repealed

 

[Andy873]

Thanks

No Problem at all!

Thanks @zwk500 I didn't realise the light railway act had been repealed

No, nor did I.

 

[Gloster]

Sometimes the original act would include things like a requirement to provide a station at a certain place in perpetuity: this was usually at the insistence of a local landowner for his convenience. In such cases it would be necessary to have Parliament pass a law rescinding this and so, in BR days, once or twice a year its legal department would produce a bill (British Rail, Miscellaneous Provisions, 19XX, I think) bundling all the various changes together and it would go through at the nod. (Another common reason was where the original Act had required a level-crossing at a certain location to be manned and BR wanted to close it or make it automatic.) For this reason I don’t think that the original Act would normally have to be cancelled, although it is not an area I know much about.

As said, this is not an area that I know much about. However, I think that the original acts were to allow the railway company the powers to build a line: they did not confer any obligation to operate trains, although they probably (directly or indirectly) allowed the company to operate them. If my understanding is correct, then there is nothing to prevent the company ceasing to operate trains if they wish to, but there may be individual clauses related to the particular line that do have to be covered by the owner.

 

[Andy873]

If my understanding is correct, then there is nothing to prevent the company ceasing to operate trains if they wish to, but there may be individual clauses related to the particular line that do have to be covered

Wasn't there once a case of BR wanting to close one particular line until it was pointed out by someone that they were duty bound to run a particular train X times per day? Where that obligation came from I don't know. but BR had to get it revoked before trying again to close the line. Sorry if that's a little off topic.

 

[zwk500]

Wasn't there once a case of BR wanting to close one particular line until it was pointed out by someone that they were duty bound to run a particular train X times per day? Where that obligation came from I don't know. but BR had to get it revoked before trying again to close the line. Sorry if that's a little off topic.

Numerous such obligations in various acts I believe. A particularly noteworthy one is the Bluebell Railway in Sussex - the original Act of Parliament specified a minimum service level and calling pattern and in 1955 after the initial closure a local resident (Mrs Bessemer of Chailey) successfully challenged BR in court to meet this obligation. It took another act of parliament to effect the final closure to mainline trains in 1958.

 

[RT4038]

Numerous such obligations in various acts I believe. A particularly noteworthy one is the Bluebell Railway in Sussex - the original Act of Parliament specified a minimum service level and calling pattern and in 1955 after the initial closure a local resident (Mrs Bessemer of Chailey) successfully challenged BR in court to meet this obligation. It took another act of parliament to effect the final closure to mainline trains in 1958.

It didn't specify a calling pattern - the stations that were not built mentioned/built in the original act where not served by the minimum compliant service that was temporarily reintroduced.

 

[zwk500]

It didn't specify a calling pattern - the stations that were not built mentioned/built in the original act where not served by the minimum compliant service that was temporarily reintroduced.

From Wiki:
The 1877 and 1878 acts included a clause that:[3][4]
Four passenger trains each way daily to run on this line, with through connections at East Grinstead to London and to stop at Sheffield Bridges, Newick and West Hoathly.

 

[stuving]

The procedure for closing railways deals with running services, and does not go on to consider repeals. What has happened recently is that the Law Commissions draw up lists of obsolete acts, including railway acts, and then a bulk repeal act is passed. The last one (I think) was the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2013. The list of repeals for that includes:

• An Act of 1856 passed to help imprisoned debtors secure their early release from prison
• A 1710 Act to raise coal duty to pay for 50 new churches in London
• 38 obsolete Acts relating to the various railway companies operating in British India and the wider East Indies
• 40 Acts relating to the City of Dublin and passed by the UK Parliament before Ireland was partitioned in 1921
• A 1696 Act to fund the rebuilding of St Paul’s Cathedral after the Great Fire 1666
• An 1800 Act to hold a lottery to win the £30,000 Pigot Diamond
• 57 obsolete Acts to raise money for the parish poor, including a 1697 Act to run a workhouse in Exeter
• 295 obsolete railway Acts. Many of the railways projects outlined in these Acts collapsed in the banking crisis of 1866
• 16 Acts passed between 1798 and 1828 to impose duty on every pint of ale, beer or porter brewed or sold in parts of Scotland
• A 1696 turnpike Act to repair the roads between Reigate (Surrey) and Crawley (West Sussex)
• The removal of unnecessary taxation provisions

The process does look at whether a route could be restored to railway use, before declaring it obsolete. I don't think that loses anything, as a major reinstatement (with significat detours) would probably need a new act anyway.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

It didn't specify a calling pattern - the stations that were not built mentioned/built in the original act where not served by the minimum compliant service that was temporarily reintroduced.

Indeed. The temporarily re-instated and rather inconveniently-timed B.R. service (which ran for a year-and-a-half from August 1956 to March 1958) was often referred to as the "sulky service".

...a local resident (Mrs Bessemer of Chailey) successfully challenged BR in court to meet this obligation.

The redoubtable (Miss) R.E. Margery 'Madge' Bessemer, after whom the Bluebell Railway's pub at Sheffield Park station was subsequently named.

 

[Gloster]

The procedure for closing railways deals with running services, and does not go on to consider repeals. What has happened recently is that the Law Commissions draw up lists of obsolete acts, including railway acts, and then a bulk repeal act is passed. The last one (I think) was the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2013. The list of repeals for that includes:

The process does look at whether a route could be restored to railway use, before declaring it obsolete. I don't think that loses anything, as a major reinstatement (with significat detours) would probably need a new act anyway.

I think that in that example many of the railways were not built, even though their Act was passed. Whether this would allow someone to take over the powers of the company today and then insist that they had a right to build it, I do not know. However, I think that many Acts included time limits for construction which would prevent that, but some might not. I think that in many cases if a company changed its mind about building all or some of its lines it had to go to Parliament to be granted powers to abandon construction. (Supposedly, this was the case with the Settle & Carlisle: the Midland used the threat of building its own line to Scotland to gain better treatment north of Low Gill and then found it wasn’t allowed to abandon construction.)

With the Bluebell the condition was the requirement to run four trains a day serving the original stations, which meant BR did not have to reopen Barcombe. However, this clause was specific to this line and, as far as I know, most lines did not have such minimum service requirements included in their Act. I have little doubt that, after the embarrassment of the Bluebell’s sulky service, BR’s legal department carefully studied all the documents before any closure proposal. It might be interesting looking through the relevant law exits to see what is included.

Note: my knowledge has been picked up in drips and drabs over the years.

EDIT: to correct the closer to any closure (underlined).

 

[The exile]

The procedure for closing railways deals with running services, and does not go on to consider repeals. What has happened recently is that the Law Commissions draw up lists of obsolete acts, including railway acts, and then a bulk repeal act is passed. The last one (I think) was the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2013. The list of repeals for that includes:

The process does look at whether a route could be restored to railway use, before declaring it obsolete. I don't think that loses anything, as a major reinstatement (with significat detours) would probably need a new act anyway.

Seems wonderful that an act permitting a specific lottery In 1800 remains “on the books” for 213 years!

 

[Eyersey468]

Seems wonderful that an act permitting a specific lottery In 1800 remains “on the books” for 213 years!

I agree

 

[stuving]

I think that in that example many of the railways were not built, even though their Act was passed. Whether this would allow someone to take over the powers of the company today and then insist that they had a right to build it, I do not know. However, I think that many Acts included time limits for construction which would prevent that, but some might not. I think that in many cases if a company changed its mind about building all or some of its lines it had to go to Parliament to be granted powers to abandon construction. (Supposedly, this was the case with the Settle & Carlisle: the Midland used the threat of building its own line to Scotland to gain better treatment north of Low Gill and then found it wasn’t allowed to abandon construction.)

Looking at the details in the report and consultation document (links in the page referenced above), very few of the repealed acts saw a railway built. And even those ones were all closed a long time ago - typically over a century:

4. Each of the 200 or so local Acts now proposed for repeal has been examined to
ensure that none supports (a) any operating railway or (b) any disused railway
that could be restored to use. The analysis of each of these Acts, grouped
according to the particular railway company involved with the project, is set out in
this consultation paper. The route of each planned railway, as prescribed in each
Act, is reproduced verbatim.

5. It is clear that most of the railway projects envisaged by these Acts never resulted
in the completion of any railway. Indeed many were abandoned without any land
being purchased or track laid. But even in those few cases where the railway
project was initially successful to the extent that the line was opened for public
use, the line was abandoned within a few years thereafter. Accordingly most of
the Acts now proposed for repeal have been obsolete for more than a century.

So it may well be that the approach to more recent closures is the same as that - but they have not yet been closed long enough to be regarded as "obsolete".

The consultation document explains the ways in which a railway act could be abandoned and repealed (or not) in the nineteenth century, if that interests you.

 

[Helvellyn]

Seems wonderful that an act permitting a specific lottery In 1800 remains “on the books” for 213 years!

In 2014 two of the four remaining sections (from 29) of the Statue of Marlborough were repealed. They'd only been there for 747 years!

Oldest surviving law faces repeal after 747 years

Parts of the oldest surviving law on England's statute books - the Statute of Marlborough - are set to be repealed after 747 years.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[norbitonflyer]

As far as I know no preserved railway has been reinstated under it's original act. All are LROs or TWAOs.

The Festiniog and Tallyllyn are, I think, still running under their original Acts, but they never officially closed, although services were "suspended" fior some years.

 

[krus_aragon]

The Festiniog and Tallyllyn are, I think, still running under their original Acts, but they never officially closed, although services were "suspended" fior some years.

The Ffestiniog is also an example of a railway that was abandoned in-situ, rather than wound up, because doing so would have required a fresh Act of Parliament (as the original one made no such provision).

Even after the lower ends of the line had been rebuilt by preservationists, some of the upper line around Tanygrisiau was flooded by the CEGB to form a reservoir. The powers that be ignored the original act on the basis that it there was no need to compensate a bunch of cranks playing trains, and a court case was needed years later to seek redress (and help fund the deviation needed to reach Blaenau).

 

[Andy873]

As said, this is not an area that I know much about. However, I think that the original acts were to allow the railway company the powers to build a line: they did not confer any obligation to operate trains

I've had a re-read of the original acts of Parliament regarding my old branch line. There is absolutely no mention of any obligation for the L&Y (Lancashire and Yorkshire railway company) to operate trains in it, only to build the line.

However, I think that many Acts included time limits for construction

That's certainly true of my old branch line.

The original act 18 May 1866 (Blackburn to Padiham section) had a time limit of four years. An act 15 July 1867 granted the Padiham to Rose Grove section and extended the Blackburn to Padiham section to 1 August 1871.

As I've mentioned many times before, this line was a challenging one to build...

The L&Y had to apply for extensions of time which they did in 1869, 1871, 1873, and 1875 taking the final time to build it up to 1 August 1876.

Once you had an act approved it was up to you to either build it, or apply for an act to abandon it, however the L&Y tried a third option: In 1872 they applied to Parliament to suspend building the line indefinitely, Parliament said No to that one so the L&Y simply had to carry on building it (or abandon it).

How strict Parliament was regarding completion dates is anyone's guess. The Padiham - Rose Grove section was within the time limit, however the Blackburn - Padiham section wasn't. Newspaper reports from August / September 1876 report the L&Y stating the full line would be opened by the end of the year (Dec 1876) which is beyond the time limit. Even worse than that, January 1877 an embankment collapsed after weeks of heavy rain, it took six more months to repair and the first train (freight) ran 1 June 1877 - well out of time!

I can understand an embankment being washed away, but not the time from August to the end of 1876? Perhaps, if you were seen to be making all reasonable attempts to complete a line's construction then that was good enough?

 

[snowball]

Aren't there cases where an act requires a railway company to maintain sea defences?

 

[Senex]

Time-limits, both for land-acquisition and for construction were laid down in Acts from very early on. It was very common for contruction times to be exceeded, so there are lots of cases for companies going back to parliament for an extension for that. But also powers were kept alive for quite some years for many schemes were companies hadn't got round to (or couldn't afford) a start on the work. A bit later in the Victorian period Acts began to include penalties for non-completion, after whivch, if you weren't going to do something, you did have to go for an abandonment (most famouns example probably the Settle & Carlisle). Fascinating arguments in the 1840s as to whether powers were compulsory or merely permissive — could there be a writ of Mandamus to force a company to build. The lawyers have always been very mucn in on the act!

 

[Recessio]

Not a line closure, but still interesting that an old railway act is still on the books - a consultation over housing near Hampton Court has been opened by the Secretary of State under Clause 49 of South Western Railway Act 1913 (source: https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/article...-next-to-hampton-court-railway-station-71566/)