The annexed letter, published in The Times about two years ago, deals
with possible difficulties to be met with by those who make a private
line of railway. I brought to bear all the influence I could to obtain
the insertion of a clause in the Act which would meet the “public road
crossing” difficulty, but without success. The course which I took in the
case of the Eaton Railway here detailed may be of service.
PRIVATE LIGHT RAILWAYS.
_TO THE EDITOR OF_ “_THE TIMES_.”
Sir,—May I, through your columns, draw attention to a class of light
railway which does not apparently come within the purview of the Bill now
before Parliament—that of lines constructed by private individuals or
firms for their own purposes? These will usually confer advantage upon
the district in which they may be situate by relieving the roads of a
more or less heavy traffic, and in some cases by offering facilities of
transport to a section of the neighbourhood.
In a proposed route two difficulties may arise. In the first place, land
not in possession of the projector may have to be invaded, and way-leaves
obtained by a judicious tact in selecting the ground and in approaching
the owners, since private interest is properly debarred from invoking
compulsory powers. This problem, then, may frequently be satisfactorily
solved. The second and more common impediment is the crossing or skirting
of highways, and it is to this point that my letter is specially
directed. The county and district councils are usually ready in their own
interest to permit a private line to cross a road on the level—an over or
under bridge is almost invariably impossible by reason of the expense—or
to make use for a short distance of waste space by the road side. But—and
here is the crux—no permanent agreement is obtainable, because councils
have apparently no power to bind their successors in office, and without
such guarantee the projector is naturally unwilling to risk his capital
when the possible rescinding of the concession would render his entire
outlay abortive.
The Light Railway Bill contains, apparently, no provision under which
this disability can be remedied, for it is improbable that the
Commissioners would take action in respect of a private concern. The
above difficulty was lately met with in the construction of a private
narrow-gauge line for the Duke of Westminster, which crosses a main road.
The matter was ultimately compromised by the insertion of a clause in the
agreement to the effect that, should the county council give notice to
discontinue the crossing, the Duke should be entitled to appeal to the
Board of Trade for arbitration. There is, however, no assurance that the
Board would consent to appoint an arbitrator if called upon, but it is
very certain that if a provision legalizing such an appeal could be
incorporated in the Bill a serious hardship would be thereby removed, and
some encouragement given to private persons to embark capital in
enterprises of the kind.
As a case in point, and doubtless there are plenty of others, a quarry
owner of my acquaintance is at the present time conveying some 80,000
tons of stone annually by means of traction-engines from his works to the
railway along 2½ miles of highway. The road authorities, levying £400 a
year for extraordinary traffic, are utterly incapable of coping with the
destructive action of the heavy loads, and the roads are in a state of
disintegration that baffles description. The proprietor of the quarry
would at once set about making a narrow-gauge line at his own expense,
with the cordial good-will of the county and district councils and his
neighbours generally, could he only obtain some guarantee that the
permission to cross and, in some parts, run alongside the road, which
to-day would be gratefully accorded, would not be suddenly revoked at a
future date.
Perhaps those in charge of the Bill will see their way to give this point
their consideration.