Could you just start a goods only service in Victorian times

[Andy873]

I was reading about Major General Hutchinson who was the inspector of railways for the Board of Trade (BOT) from the mid 1860's to around 1895. If you wanted to carry passengers along a new railway line he had to come and inspect the line and conduct tests. If he was happy with everything he would recommend it was fit for public traffic to the BOT and a certificate would then be issued.

On my old branch, and doubtless others the first few month were goods trains only with no mention of a certificate - so could you just start running goods trains or were there some hoops to jump through first?

 

[thesignalman]

The Board of Trade were never interested on goods-only lines - even today new or altered arrangements are not subject to inspection. The responsibility revolves around the safety of the travelling public.

John

 

[Gloster]

It is possible that the BoT would want a written assurance and possibly further information about places where the line came into contact with other lines, such as junctions, and possibly certainly categories of road used by the public. But it would be very unusual for them to require an inspection, etc.

 

[Taunton]

On my old branch, and doubtless others the first few month were goods trains only with no mention of a certificate - so could you just start running goods trains or were there some hoops to jump through first?

Various accounts of opening of lines describe how they were initially goods services only "to assist in consolidating the embankments". The Great Central line to London is one such described like this.

 

[thesignalman]

It is possible that the BoT would want a written assurance and possibly further information about places where the line came into contact with other lines, such as junctions, and possibly certainly categories of road used by the public. But it would be very unusual for them to require an inspection, etc.

A junction with passenger lines would most certainly require an inspection, that would class as an alteration to the passenger line concerned.

John

 

[Senex]

It is possible that the BoT would want a written assurance and possibly further information about places where the line came into contact with other lines, such as junctions, and possibly certainly categories of road used by the public. But it would be very unusual for them to require an inspection, etc.

The Regulation of Railway Act 1871 extended the powers of inspection as from 1 November that year: "The provisions of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1842, and the Acts amending the same, with respect to the opening of, any railway, shall extend to the opening of any additional line of railway, deviation line, station, junction, or crossing on the level which forms a portion of or is directly connected with a railway on which passengers are conveyed, and has been constructed subsequently to the inspection of such railway on behalf of the Board of Trade previous to the original opening of such railway." This was the clause that caught the junctions etc, so that any goods connection made into an existing line, be it for a goods-only branch or just for a siding, needed approval.

 

[Rescars]

Various accounts of opening of lines describe how they were initially goods services only "to assist in consolidating the embankments". The Great Central line to London is one such described like this.

It would also enable the new line to start earning some revenue once fit for traffic whilst awaiting BoT passenger approval.

 

[norbitonflyer]

The RAIB certainly investigates accidents that involve no passenger trains, but was that always the case? Presumably even on goods-only lines there have always been some laws governing the safety of railway servants, although in Victorian times probably far fewer than the current Health & Safety provisions.

 

[eldomtom2]

The RAIB certainly investigates accidents that involve no passenger trains, but was that always the case? Presumably even on goods-only lines there have always been some laws governing the safety of railway servants, although in Victorian times probably far fewer than the current Health & Safety provisions.

I don't know when the HMRI gained the powers to investigate staff accidents, but certainly IIRC they had it by the beginning of the 20th century.

 

[Andy873]

Various accounts of opening of lines describe how they were initially goods services only "to assist in consolidating the embankments"

Exactly what they did on my old branch line, that is to consolidate the two miles of embankments.

A junction with passenger lines would most certainly require an inspection, that would class as an alteration to the passenger line concerned.

It is possible that the BoT would want a written assurance and possibly further information about places where the line came into contact with other lines, such as junctions,

Yes, it does look like the two junctions coming off the East Lancs line (one at either end) would be inspected, but just how far down the new line they would go is any ones guess.

It would also enable the new line to start earning some revenue once fit for traffic whilst awaiting BoT passenger approval.

One thing I noted about the several stages of opening is that the L&Y seemed in the end to want to get that line earning some money and as time on it was accelerated.

The 2 mile section Padiham to Rose Grove had a full year of goods only services, whereas the 7 mile section to the West of Padiham (to Blackburn) had only four months of initial goods only before being opened to the public.

The first 2 mile inspection was done in 1876, the second 7 mile one was done in 1877 and much more was written about it:

Friday 28th September 1877 the General surrounded by L&Y officials from various departments set off from Blackburn station at 12 noon. Their train comprised of an engine and a saloon carriage. The train was followed by two 40 ton engines to test the strength of the bridges along this section. He stopped at every bridge be it an over or under one, checked points, signals and the signal boxes. Once at Great Harwood station again he checked the points, signals and the signal boxes.

Here he did an "interesting experiment" as reported in the newspapers - The station here was on a downward gradient up to a 1 in 96 and he released a wagon to see if it would reach the next station, thankfully it stopped half a mile away on the level straight section. From there he carried on with the checks until he came to Blackburn Road bridge on the edge of Padiham. This marled the end of the test and his train arrived at Padiham around 3:30 in the afternoon to a large crowd of on lookers.

The BOT certificate was issued just five days later.

I just thought some of you might be interested in how the Major conducted one of his inspections.

 

[Taunton]

Exactly what they did on my old branch line, that is to consolidate the two miles of embankments.

It was probably as much to consolidate the ballast, which had been laid with just hand tools. Run trains over it and repack where required every week until it's properly level.

 

[Dr_Paul]

I've long been intrigued by the fact that railways in Britain have long been inspected by Royal Engineers officers. Is this something that just happened by chance, or were they specifically employed because of their specific skills or their independence from railway companies.

 

[etr221]

I've long been intrigued by the fact that railways in Britain have long been inspected by Royal Engineers officers. Is this something that just happened by chance, or were they specifically employed because of their specific skills or their independence from railway companies.

I think it was a basicly a combination of the latter two: they were the source of appropriate expertise, already in (or ex-) Government Service.

 

[John Webb]

I've long been intrigued by the fact that railways in Britain have long been inspected by Royal Engineers officers. Is this something that just happened by chance, or were they specifically employed because of their specific skills or their independence from railway companies.

Stanley Hall, in his book "Railway Detectives - 150 years of the Railway Inspectorate" (Ian Allan, 1990) says that when the Inspectorate was formed in 1840, the Royal Engineers "...were really the only source of appropriately experienced and available engineers with the necessary degree of status and independence." and goes on to comment that the Institution of Civil Engineers had only just been formed and most of its members were busy building the railways. So clearly it was a specific decision to use them.

 

[Rescars]

Stanley Hall, in his book "Railway Detectives - 150 years of the Railway Inspectorate" (Ian Allan, 1990) says that when the Inspectorate was formed in 1840, the Royal Engineers "...were really the only source of appropriately experienced and available engineers with the necessary degree of status and independence." and goes on to comment that the Institution of Civil Engineers had only just been formed and most of its members were busy building the railways. So clearly it was a specific decision to use them.

Presumably army engineers would be singularly well qualified to know how to build things quickly, where the weak spots in those constructions are likely to be and, rather less helpfully in this context, how to demolish (enemy) structures effectively.

 

[John Webb]

Presumably army engineers would be singularly well qualified to know how to build things quickly, where the weak spots in those constructions are likely to be and, rather less helpfully in this context, how to demolish (enemy) structures effectively.

I think there was rather more to it. Reading about the history of the Royal Arsenal* at Woolwich, the Royal Engineers were given a broad education on construction methods, material behaviour (such as problems casting metals) and the safe movement of heavy objects such as guns, as well as training in the management of men.
*I consider myself to be a product of the Royal Arsenal in the sense that my parents met in one of its drawing offices during WW2, hence my interest in its history!

 

[Andy873]

I think there was rather more to it. Reading about the history of the Royal Arsenal* at Woolwich, the Royal Engineers were given a broad education on construction methods, material behaviour (such as problems casting metals) and the safe movement of heavy objects such as guns, as well as training in the management of men.
*I consider myself to be a product of the Royal Arsenal in the sense that my parents met in one of its drawing offices during WW2, hence my interest in its history!

What ever the reason the Royal Engineers were used I can tell you Major Hutchinson had a long and interesting career as the railway inspector. He apparently inspected 6,500 railway works, presided over 1,000 railway accident inquiries, and reportedly travelled 1.25 million miles during his time.

Included in all that were inspecting new tram systems which were springing up everywhere. In short, if it ran on a pair of rails and was going to carry the public you needed his say so.

 

[Rescars]

What ever the reason the Royal Engineers were used I can tell you Major Hutchinson had a long and interesting career as the railway inspector. He apparently inspected 6,500 railway works, presided over 1,000 railway accident inquiries, and reportedly travelled 1.25 million miles during his time.

Included in all that were inspecting new tram systems which were springing up everywhere. In short, if it ran on a pair of rails and was going to carry the public you needed his say so.

For any Gilbert and Sullivan fans, perhaps Major General Hutchinson was "the very model of a modern Major General"!