Field Gate Question

[Andy873]

This one I hope should be a simple question.

If we take a farmer's underbridge, i.e. the farmer crosses under a railway from one field to another, would there be one gate at one side or two, one at both sides of the underbridge?

 

[PeterC]

Surely it would be down to the individual farmer.

 

[308165]

Agreed, up to the farmer(s). Two gates might be put in as the space under a bridge provides a useful place to pen in a few animals, or can provide shelter, with a choice of which field you want the animals in.

 

[Rescars]

Presumably nothing to do with the railway. They've done the expensive bit and provided access from one side of the line to the other. If the farm is totally arable, why bother with gates at all? Quite another matter of course if the lie of the land is such that a bridge can't be built and an occupation crossing is installed instead.

 

[Gloster]

If the land on both sides of the railway belongs to the same farmer then there is no need to put up a gate as a boundary, while the railway’s land is separated from the farmer’s by the normal fencing and the bridge so that they are always separated. As said above, any gate(s) put up by the farmer would be for his convenience.

 

[Andy873]

Surely it would be down to the individual farmer.

Agreed, up to the farmer(s).

Presumably nothing to do with the railway. They've done the expensive bit and provided access from one side of the line to the other. If the farm is totally arable, why bother with gates at all? Quite another matter of course if the lie of the land is such that a bridge can't be built and an occupation crossing is installed instead.

If the land on both sides of the railway belongs to the same farmer then there is no need to put up a gate as a boundary, while the railway’s land is separated from the farmer’s by the normal fencing and the bridge so that they are always separated. As said above, any gate(s) put up by the farmer would be for his convenience.

I've spent very little time considering field gates, just presumed (looks like wrongly) that in building a railway line and cutting a field into two sections that the railway company would provide the farmer with gates for access as fields have boundaries, seems I'm quite wrong!

Question:

If you (the contractor building the line) are told you must provide 30 field gates, are these gates then required along the line for P/W staff? that is, access to various parts of the line as and when required?

If so, presumably these gates are locked at all times? and if they are locked with, say a padlock, would there be one master key for all 30 of them?

The gate design drawing shows them to be 9 foot, 9 inches wide, 4 foot, 6 inches high, have 5 horizontal cross pieces and the usual 1 diagonal cross piece. Does that sound right for a railway access gate?

 

[Rescars]

Do you know if these gates were for access to the line by P/W staff etc? Pre 1970, surely the normal access route for maintenance staff was via the railway itself. It seems more probable that these gates would be for occupation crossings or perhaps access to goods yards. I would be surprised if they had any form of padlock. For occupation crossings, more likely just a cast iron plate instructing the user to "Shut and Fasten Gate". Failure to do so might well have incurred a fine "not exceeding X shillings"! Security was rather more relaxed back in the day, especially outside the larger conurbations.

 

[Gloster]

If when a railway was built it divided a property in two the railway was required by the Act to provide access between the two parts: this could be an over- or under bridge, or a level-crossing. These were known as occupation bridges or crossings because they were there for no other purpose than to connect the two parts of the property. I do not think that gates would normally be locked as nobody else should be on the landowner’s land and the landowner was supposed to be informed (and inform those with business thereon) of basic crossing discipline: closing the gate, looking out, not wandering along the track etc. But remember that this would all have been in an era when people were expected to do what they told (‘Shut the gate’) and it would be their fault if they did something stupid.

 

[Andy873]

Do you know if these gates were for access to the line by P/W staff etc? Pre 1970, surely the normal access route for maintenance staff was via the railway itself. It seems more probable that these gates would be for occupation crossings or perhaps access to goods yards.

What's confusing is the name the railway company gives them, "field gates". If they were for access to the line wouldn't they be called access gates?

These gates are 9 foot 9 inches wide, seems very wide for railway access gates? more for a horse and cart?

And when I measure most of the farmer's field occupation under bridges, they all come out at 12 feet or so, which is the total width (including posts) the contract drawing state.

do not think that gates would normally be locked as nobody else should be on the landowner’s land and the landowner was supposed to be informed (and inform those with business thereon) of basic crossing discipline:

Absolutely agree with all you say, but regarding the number of gates, (30), I simply can't make that fit with either farmer's gates and or access gates to the permanent way. Strange isn't it, something as simple as some gates would cause confusion...

 

[Bevan Price]

Remember that public footpaths can cross both farmers' land and the railway. Many of this did not have - or need - full-sized gates.

 

[Rescars]

Remember that public footpaths can cross both farmers' land and the railway. Many of this did not have - or need - full-sized gates.

Or in some instances, any gates at all. What more safety protection could you possibly need beyond a nice "Beware of Trains" or Stop, Look and Listen" sign?

 

[stuving]

Looking at the specification for the Hoddlesden Branch (ibid) again, the section on level crossings says in part: "All occupation roads to have oak gates for carts, and a curbed swing gate for foot passengers at each end, as shown on drawing. The field gates to be of oak, the same as occupation roads, but without the side gates. All the gates to have strong posts, hinges, latches, and padlocks."

Standard practice in the absence of enough information is to start with the simplest interpretation of what we do have. So maybe a field gate is a gate into a field, usually from a road but possible from another field.

Now, building a railway involved re-routing roads, and that would need new fences to be built. And field boundaries cut by the line, if taken out beyond the railway's boundary fences, would need some rebuilding. So is this kind of new fencing not along the railway's sides called up in your documents? And if so, are any gates in those fences required?

One further possibility is where (as must have been usual) several of a farmers fields were split by the line but only one occupation crossing was provided. New gates between fields might be considered necessary to restore "connectivity" between the now separated parts of those fields.

The padlocks could be a requirement (on all gates including at crossings) to cover the case where the farmer decided he did not need a gate after all. In that case he might demand only a fence, i.e. a locked gate.