A considerable amount has appeared on these Forums over the past few years, touching on the Talyllyn Railway fairly shortly before, and after, the preservation society's taking it over as of 1951. Hoping that not everyone will feel that this is something which has been discussed to death: recent correspondence with an associate has brought up a -- to me -- interesting new matter or two in this connection.
Some of the Talyllyn discussion on this site as referred to above, revolved around the question of how it came about that the Talyllyn was one of the few operational rail concerns not included in the 1948 nationalisation of public railways in Britain. Various suggestions have been floated as to possible reasons for this. My correspondence of recent times has yielded a to me, new "piece of this puzzle", if puzzle it is -- information which, it appears, came to light only a few years ago; this info found by my contact, via a DVD put out by the TR about the line's history. According to this source: the TR was not included in 1948's nationalisation -- and indeed, not in the in the 1923 Grouping either -- because of its as it were, falling at a fairly early point down a "bureaucratic black hole". It appears that possibly right from Sir Henry Haydn Jones's taking the railway and the Bryn Eglwys slate quarries over from the previous owners in 1910; or if not from then, anyway from 1914 -- the TR's technically obligatory annual financial / administrative returns to the Government, were not made; whereby over time, the railway effectively disappeared from the ken of national officialdom.
The significance of 1914 as above: is that, according to what has recently come my way -- early in World War I, with many quarrymen leaving their employment to volunteer for the armed forces; the Bryn Eglwys quarries closed for a while, and the railway's services were suspended, in step with this. As circumstances changed later in the war, quarry activity and rail services were resumed. (I 'm not aware of having heard anything before, about this early-WWI temporary closure: admittedly I'm not a Talyllyn scholar -- and there's stuff which I read decades ago, and most of whose content I've forgotten; but the "suspension" came to me, as a considerable surprise.) It would seem, though, that several factors around this time contributed in combination, to the TR's "disappearance" bureaucracy-wise. If annual returns had been submitted commencing post-1910 / 11 -- as mentioned, it's not certain that they were -- that ceased to be done, as from the wartime suspension of services. Confusion was increased by the deaths in action in the war, of the national railway inspector with special responsibility for the TR, and several of his colleagues -- info not passed on to their successors; and by during those years, Sir Haydn's business premises' moving to a new address in Tywyn -- whence potential muddles communication-and-correspondence-wise, possibly with accidental-on-purpose input by local folk working in humble capacities, and with no love of English bureaucracy. It's recounted how thirty-odd years later, at the time of rail nationalisation, Sir Haydn asked why the TR was being omitted therefrom. The civil servant to whom he directed this question, was amazed -- informed him that with no paperwork having been submitted for many years, the line had been presumed closed; and that he (Sir H.) ought to be jailed for operating a public service illegally !
A grand story, I feel -- and chiming in with some mentions in L.T.C. Rolt's Railway Adventure, of assorted formalities generally taken for granted; which the TR, remote and reclusive in its "fairyland", never bothered with: such as public liability insurance, and insurance for locomotive boilers. Find it hard, though, to believe that Sir Haydn's seeming cluelessness as just told of, was genuine. He was an intelligent guy, well acquainted with the workings of the wider world -- had served many years as M.P. for his local constituency: to be reckoned I think, that he was well aware of his sins of omission of the official kind -- likely, enjoyed this means of winding-up the over-serious and procedure-and-protocol-obsessed "Saxons".
At all events, this was for me, new and interesting stuff concerning a railway which -- whatever else one may think of it -- has always been a highly character-ful one. Would be interested in anyone's thoughts hereon.
Some of the Talyllyn discussion on this site as referred to above, revolved around the question of how it came about that the Talyllyn was one of the few operational rail concerns not included in the 1948 nationalisation of public railways in Britain. Various suggestions have been floated as to possible reasons for this. My correspondence of recent times has yielded a to me, new "piece of this puzzle", if puzzle it is -- information which, it appears, came to light only a few years ago; this info found by my contact, via a DVD put out by the TR about the line's history. According to this source: the TR was not included in 1948's nationalisation -- and indeed, not in the in the 1923 Grouping either -- because of its as it were, falling at a fairly early point down a "bureaucratic black hole". It appears that possibly right from Sir Henry Haydn Jones's taking the railway and the Bryn Eglwys slate quarries over from the previous owners in 1910; or if not from then, anyway from 1914 -- the TR's technically obligatory annual financial / administrative returns to the Government, were not made; whereby over time, the railway effectively disappeared from the ken of national officialdom.
The significance of 1914 as above: is that, according to what has recently come my way -- early in World War I, with many quarrymen leaving their employment to volunteer for the armed forces; the Bryn Eglwys quarries closed for a while, and the railway's services were suspended, in step with this. As circumstances changed later in the war, quarry activity and rail services were resumed. (I 'm not aware of having heard anything before, about this early-WWI temporary closure: admittedly I'm not a Talyllyn scholar -- and there's stuff which I read decades ago, and most of whose content I've forgotten; but the "suspension" came to me, as a considerable surprise.) It would seem, though, that several factors around this time contributed in combination, to the TR's "disappearance" bureaucracy-wise. If annual returns had been submitted commencing post-1910 / 11 -- as mentioned, it's not certain that they were -- that ceased to be done, as from the wartime suspension of services. Confusion was increased by the deaths in action in the war, of the national railway inspector with special responsibility for the TR, and several of his colleagues -- info not passed on to their successors; and by during those years, Sir Haydn's business premises' moving to a new address in Tywyn -- whence potential muddles communication-and-correspondence-wise, possibly with accidental-on-purpose input by local folk working in humble capacities, and with no love of English bureaucracy. It's recounted how thirty-odd years later, at the time of rail nationalisation, Sir Haydn asked why the TR was being omitted therefrom. The civil servant to whom he directed this question, was amazed -- informed him that with no paperwork having been submitted for many years, the line had been presumed closed; and that he (Sir H.) ought to be jailed for operating a public service illegally !
A grand story, I feel -- and chiming in with some mentions in L.T.C. Rolt's Railway Adventure, of assorted formalities generally taken for granted; which the TR, remote and reclusive in its "fairyland", never bothered with: such as public liability insurance, and insurance for locomotive boilers. Find it hard, though, to believe that Sir Haydn's seeming cluelessness as just told of, was genuine. He was an intelligent guy, well acquainted with the workings of the wider world -- had served many years as M.P. for his local constituency: to be reckoned I think, that he was well aware of his sins of omission of the official kind -- likely, enjoyed this means of winding-up the over-serious and procedure-and-protocol-obsessed "Saxons".
At all events, this was for me, new and interesting stuff concerning a railway which -- whatever else one may think of it -- has always been a highly character-ful one. Would be interested in anyone's thoughts hereon.
