|
|
Post by quex on Jul 28, 2021 19:50:08 GMT
I was having a think the other day about the types of Parliamentary Acts (or not) that the Underground was built under. For the most part, your bog-standard railway Private Bill seems to have been the preferred method. More recently Transport & Works Orders seem to be used. But this is apparently not the case exclusively: - The Kings Cross loop is said to have been the first to have been sanctioned under a Ministry of Transport Order. Have any other bits used the same? - The Brill Branch was apparently built without any Parliamentary approval at all as it passed entirely within the Duke of Buckingham's land. Is this unique on the Tube? - Has any part of the Underground been built under a Light Railway Order?
If anyone's got any other legal oddities to add to the discussion, they'll be appreciated!
|
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,255
|
Post by roythebus on Aug 2, 2021 8:38:32 GMT
I have copies of the Acts enabling the extension of the Piccadilly Line aldwych branch to Waterloo dted in the mid 1960s. the same Act also enbled parts of the Victoria Line extension and other bits and bobs of access tunnels in various places. I've put extracts of these on here before.
|
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on Aug 2, 2021 11:28:11 GMT
Wasn't the DLR built under a Light Railway Order?
It was certainly discussed at the time (mid 80s).
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Aug 2, 2021 20:14:44 GMT
I would be surprised if the DLR had been built with an LRO which imposes speed limits and very simple signalling arrangements on any line. It wouldn't surprise me, tho', if an LRO wasn't considered by LDDC , who were very badly advised on transport legislation.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Aug 2, 2021 20:49:55 GMT
DLR planning started out with street running to Mile End, which may have influenced intended authorisation?
|
|
|
|
Post by quex on Aug 6, 2021 6:21:39 GMT
The DLR was not built under a LRO, but "proper Acts of Parliament" - the London Docklands Raikway Acts, 1984 and 1985.
As you say though, I've little doubt a LRO was considered when the scheme was more modest and street-running was part of the plan.
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Aug 9, 2021 11:41:28 GMT
If there was to be street running, they would have had to use the Tramways Act 1870 powers. (A faint echo of that came when the LDDC, have failed initially to find the funding for a rail scheme, considered a trolleybus system (something for which LDDC had no powers) and turned up on my doorstep demanding that the department authorised that under the "Trolleybus Act".) There never has been any such animal* and we sent them away with a flea in their ear to try their luck at promoting a suitable Act. Once again, LDDC were very badly advised. Things went very quiet after that.
*Trolleybuses have always been a strange beast legally: there are no "standard clauses" for any Bill, and they have usually been authorised on the back of pre-existing municipal/company tramway powers; there hasn't been a standardised definition; and the Railway Inspectorate had great difficulty finding a legal foothold so that they could try and regulate them (ho ho).
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,225 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Aug 9, 2021 21:01:54 GMT
Hmmm, yes. I don't suppose a trolleybus falls under the Railways and Others Guided Transport regulations, given that they are unguided!
|
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Aug 9, 2021 23:08:59 GMT
And the main authority would be stringing the overhead wires (and siting the bus stops).
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Aug 10, 2021 7:23:49 GMT
It was decided that they came under the Motor Car Act of 1903, but not until many tramway operators were already running them on the same basis as trams.
(I suppose they are technically 'off-limits' for this Forum)
|
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Aug 10, 2021 9:23:28 GMT
It was decided that they came under the Motor Car Act of 1903, but not until many tramway operators were already running them on the same basis as trams. (I suppose they are technically 'off-limits' for this Forum) They were actually required to exhibit a registration number & pay the road fund licence (albeit at an advantageously low rate) from the 1921 Act onwards. The very few trolleys run before then, in Dundee & Leeds, simply had a fleet number, as trams always did. Going back to Tubes, I wonder if the East London Line had an enabling act raised? Probably, but it was converted from the Brunel's original foot-tunnel under the Thames to railway use, so others may know better. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 11, 2021 17:27:56 GMT
I would be surprised if the DLR had been built with an LRO which imposes speed limits and very simple signalling arrangements on any line. It wouldn't surprise me, tho', if an LRO wasn't considered by LDDC , who were very badly advised on transport legislation.
Minor point - but having a LRO in itself didn't* mandate low speeds and simple signalling! Some lines authorised under a LRO were in fact indistinguishable in such matters from branch lines authorised via the normal process.
What the LRO process was streamline the process and make it easier for the promoter to offer up lower speeds and simple signalling as a trade off in exchange for not being subject to all the usual requirements. The exact details would be bespoke to each line rather than being set in stone and although 25mph has come to be seen as the 'ideal' figure a LRO could easily be for a higher or lower speed depending on the railway build / proposed operating methods.
*The legislation to issue LROs has been revoked for many years now. Railways which already have one can keep operating under the LRO they have - but should they extend or a new railway start up then a Transport and works Act will be needed to authorise it.
|
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,255
|
Post by roythebus on Sept 27, 2021 17:26:20 GMT
Certainly, the Rother Valley Railway, the extension to the Kent & East Sussex Light Railway is being promoted under a Transport & Works Order.
|
|
|
|
Post by selbiehouse on Oct 2, 2021 11:19:17 GMT
The various history books record that the Cromwell Curve tracks, constructed by the Metropolitan District Railway on the night of 5th July 1870, were done without Parliamentary powers. They ran outside the existing Metropolitan Railway tracks between High Street and Gloucester Road. The District was apparently within its rights to construct them as they were entirely on its own land. The Metropolitan could, if it so wished, have refused to recognise them or to accept traffic from them to their system. This became a long standing dispute between the two companies which resulted in a court case in 1903.
|
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,255
|
Post by roythebus on Oct 4, 2021 18:36:14 GMT
The DR must have had to go some to build the curve in one day! And all that without the machinery we have these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by selbiehouse on Oct 5, 2021 10:20:48 GMT
The DR must have had to go some to build the curve in one day! And all that without the machinery we have these days. Perhaps something of an object lesson for today's project managers! |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 5, 2021 13:36:09 GMT
The DR must have had to go some to build the curve in one day! And all that without the machinery we have these days. I suspect quite a lot of planning went into it. As it was already MDR land, they could be doing work on it without necessarily arousing the Met's suspicion. (Maybe they thought it was going to be a couple of sidings until the MDR added junctions at both ends?) |
|
|
|
Post by quex on Oct 15, 2021 18:38:44 GMT
The Bartlett tunnel (the odd experimental bit of the Fleet line dug near New Cross) is entirely under what was then LU-owned land. Presumably then, for similar reasons to the Cromwell Curve, the tunnel would not have required an Act.
Does anyone know if it was specifically authorised or not, or alternatively know where one might look to find out?
|
|
|
|
Post by rapidtransitman on Oct 15, 2021 19:27:07 GMT
The Bartlett tunnel (the odd experimental bit of the Fleet line dug near New Cross) is entirely under what was then LU-owned land. Presumably then, for similar reasons to the Cromwell Curve, the tunnel would not have required an Act. Does anyone know if it was specifically authorised or not, or alternatively know where one might look to find out? It was a test tunnel on a non-authorised stage of the Fleet Line railway, so no Act required. Although provision for digging a test tunnel to test the Bartlett tunnel new concrete technique may have been specified, or allowed for, in an earlier, approved Act. |
|
