More Railway Plan Questions

Well I finally got a copy of two different plans to build the you know who loop line. I can't share them on here but I can describe them.

Both plans are drawn on the OS 1844 map.

Plan 1 - This is from the newly formed Manchester & North Lancashire Railway Co.
It shows the route drawn in red with dashed lines either side of the red line, and using measuring tools plus landmarks I can state that the distance from one dashed line across to the other is on average 600 feet.

Plan 2 - This is from the L&Y, it again shows the route as a red line, but doesn't show any dashed lines either side of it.

I date these two plans as being from 1865, which makes them 160 years old.

Questions:

Plan 1 - Does 300 feet either side of the red line route sound excessive?
Plan 2 - Why is there no dashed line either side of this red line?
Plan 2 - Shows a branch off the route to Whalley in blue, but the L&Y never proposed that branch in its original bill?
Both plans - Neither of these show any fields numbered?, I know the L&Y's Act of Parliament mentioned the route is to terminate in a field numbered 5 on the deposited plans.

I've never seen any original railway map plans before and I'm curious as to what I'm actually looking at / being told.

Andy873 said:

Well I finally got a copy of two different plans to build the you know who loop line. I can't share them on here but I can describe them.

Both plans are drawn on the OS 1844 map.

Plan 1 - This is from the newly formed Manchester & North Lancashire Railway Co.
It shows the route drawn in red with dashed lines either side of the red line, and using measuring tools plus landmarks I can state that the distance from one dashed line across to the other is on average 600 feet.

Plan 2 - This is from the L&Y, it again shows the route as a red line, but doesn't show any dashed lines either side of it.

I date these two plans as being from 1865, which makes them 160 years old.

Questions:

Plan 1 - Does 300 feet either side of the red line route sound excessive?
Plan 2 - Why is there no dashed line either side of this red line?
Plan 2 - Shows a branch off the route to Whalley in blue, but the L&Y never proposed that branch in its original bill?
Both plans - Neither of these show any fields numbered?, I know the L&Y's Act of Parliament mentioned the route is to terminate in a field numbered 5 on the deposited plans.

I've never seen any original railway map plans before and I'm curious as to what I'm actually looking at / being told.

Click to expand...

Your 300 feet either side (Plan 1) looks to me like the 100-yard open-country limit of deviation provided for in the Railways' Clauses Consolidation Act 1845.

Senex said:

Your 300 feet either side (Plan 1) looks to me like the 100-yard open-country limit of deviation provided for in the Railways' Clauses Consolidation Act 1845.

Click to expand...

Found it thanks, Section 5, clause 15 Lateral deviations. That explains the dotted lines on plan 1.

Plan 2 I'm still puzzled about as it doesn't have those dotted lines? Would a railway company make available a pre bill submission map for important land owners to look over? or perhaps a post Act of Parliament map showing the approved route?

Why would two plans in the name of different companies have the same date? Could it be that the L&Y plan was after the actual alignment was agreed, so it didn't need to concern itself with limits of deviation?

I wonder if it was obligatory to indicate on maps the 100 yard limit of deviation provided for in the Act. The true purpose of the M&NL seems somewhat obscure, as I think you have uncovered previously. Was it a genuine proposal to insert some missing links in the network, or an example of Victorian corporate politics, created with the aim of shaming the L&Y into building "your" loop line? If this is correct, then the more detailed map may have been part of an exercise to present the M&NL as a credible competitive proposition. IIRC the M&NL included at least one link to the LNWR, which would have provided an opportunity to syphon traffic away from under the nose of the L&Y - a sure way to focus minds! This might explain two companies and two maps produced presumably only weeks apart.

The Deposited Plans always shew the Limits of Deviation as required, but if I remember aright the 1-inch accompanying map shewing the general course of a proposed line normally made no attempt to indicate such detail. Also, the Deposited Plans did indeed number the adjacent fields and provide a Book of Reference. So I think the issue here is to try to ascertain what was the particular reason for the issue of these two maps — who was the intended audience? Then one might be able to make an informed guess at why they cover what they do and why they differ.

Rescars said:

Was it a genuine proposal to insert some missing links in the network, or an example of Victorian corporate politics, created with the aim of shaming the L&Y into building "your" loop line? If this is correct, then the more detailed map may have been part of an exercise to present the M&NL as a credible competitive proposition. IIRC the M&NL included at least one link to the LNWR

Click to expand...

I firmly believe after years of piecing the facts together that it was an expensive and risky ploy to force the L&Y to build the line. After the ELR failed in the 1840's to gey their bills passed they gave up on it for the time beings. In the meantime, the people of the two towns repeatedly asked the ELR to try again, but that fell on deaf ears. After the ELR became part of the L&Y, calls for the line to them also fall on deaf ears and so a plan was hatched.

Senex said:

The Deposited Plans always shew the Limits of Deviation as required, but if I remember aright the 1-inch accompanying map shewing the general course of a proposed line normally made no attempt to indicate such detail.

Click to expand...

Makes sense to me.

The plan 2 map described:

Apart from the railway line route marked in red, a good part of the map sheet has been coloured. Some lines enclose a large area with red, blue and green lines, some fields are enclosed with a blue line, and various fields have different colours shaded in.

The large area - This is a combination of a Parliamentary boundary and the local council boundary.

The marked fields seem to be areas that have been earmarked for something, probably land for sale or for building on.

Another to the north west of the sheet has a large enclosed red boundary with a blue boundary inside it, this is the (as yet not built) Dean Clough Reservoir, the land for which was purchased only a short time before in 1864.

Finally there is a red line which follows a lane then goes through fields, this isn't and kind of legal boundary and wondered what it could denote. When I zoomed in close and followed this line I spotted some faded words "COAL 130" and further on either "1865 or 865", both written in red. Clearly this is a coal seem being marked out.

Presumably these numbers denote depth in feet or yards under the ground? and if so, feet? or yards?

So what is the plan 2 map telling me - I think @Senex is right with the outline railway plan route through the area. This map seems to have been re-used by either the local board or the then major land owner, who by the way did have several coal mines in the area until the 1850's.

For me now, I'm quite clear plan 2 is the L&Y one and it is an outline map of the railway route. More reading of the Railways' Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 tells us the detailed plans have to have arches clearly marked, something this map doesn't do as it crosses the site of Martholme viaduct.

My conclusion is:

Plan 1, Part of the M&NLR's detailed deposited maps.
Plan 2. Part of the L&Y's outline maps which have been reused by either the local board or the main landowner for planning the expansion of the town etc.

What does anyone think?