No trains to call at Altnabreac for the foreseeable future

[yorksrob]

Shame Network Rail couldn’t afford to bring the tactile tiles in overnight by helicopter- one at a time

It would have ensured they all got there

 

[oldman]

New video up about the owners claiming Solum rights, I'm none the wiser!

She claims that the railway does not own any land in the area, and that the land occupied by the railway belongs to the owner of station house. Which may be true. However, the railway was granted by Act of Parliament the right to build and operate a railway on the relevant land, and presumably still has that right. She does not address that point. All she is saying is 'it's our land'.

 

[yorksrob]

She claims that the railway does not own any land in the area, and that the land occupied by the railway belongs to the owner of station house. Which may be true. However, the railway was granted by Act of Parliament the right to build and operate a railway on the relevant land, and presumably still has that right. She does not address that point. All she is saying is 'it's our land'.

This seems unlikely as the station house would have been built and owned by the railway. I can't imagine that the railway operator of the time would have sold their operational land along with the station house !

 

[TB]

Apologies if someone else has brought this point up, but IF these two win and the court rules that the platform is their property (i.e they own it), wouldn't that make them liable for it's upkeep. Maintenance and also liable for any passenger injuries etc?

 

[oldman]

This seems unlikely as the station house would have been built and owned by the railway. I can't imagine that the railway operator of the time would have sold their operational land along with the station house !

They are claiming that the land occupied by the railway has never belonged to the railway. The company was granted (and I assume still has) rights to build, maintain and operate the railway, 'with all proper stations, approaches, works and conveniences' over this land. They sold the station house building.

 

[YorksLad12]

They are claiming that the land occupied by the railway has never belonged to the railway. The company was granted (and I assume still has) rights to build, maintain and operate the railway, 'with all proper stations, approaches, works and conveniences' over this land. They sold the station house building.

Then, surely, they can’t have bought the station building, as it wasn’t BR’s to sell (or, at least, the land it was built on wasn’t)?

Right now, I wish I was working as a lawyer on this case. I‘d be raking it in.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

They are claiming that the land occupied by the railway has never belonged to the railway. The company was granted (and I assume still has) rights to build, maintain and operate the railway, 'with all proper stations, approaches, works and conveniences' over this land. They sold the station house building.

They keep throwing new arguments out just trying to see which one will stick (hint: none of them will).

They've gone from "When they sold the station house they also sold the land" to "they never owned any of the land".

 

[38Cto15E]

As Yorkslad12 said, the lawyers must be raking it in, where is the defendants money coming from, surely Youtube will not cover it?

 

[Morayshire]

Based on the contents of post 667 (hopefully quoted below), the occupants of the station are representing themselves in the civil court hearings.

This one?


COURT SUMMARY BY STEPHEN SCANDRETT
Options Hearing - 3rd April 2024
Party litigants - Howe and Appleby.
Apology from Appleby regarding their conduct at the last hearing on 7th Februar 2025.
Ms Soldani appearing for the Defenders.
Various matters calling today;
Three motions submitted by Ms Howe;
1/ summary decree
2/ recusal of Sheriff
3/ interim interdict
The Defender is neutral in respect of the recusal motion which was pursued by M Howe on various grounds but ultimately declined by Sheriff Wilson. Ms Soldani onfirmed that the Defenders own the level crossing.
Ms Howe confirmed that the current matters relate to the Title registered with egisters of Scotland, which include the Solum ownership of an extended area of and, including the former station platform, the land in which the defenders hav built the path, and includes the private level crossing. The alleged criminal harges took place at the level crossing Ms Howe confirmed.
The interim interdict requested by Ms Howe was intended to allow more time to c nsider matters. Ms Soldani had no objections to that motion being continued.
Sheriff Wilson then addressed the two remaining matters;
1/ Whether the defenders have satisfactorily carried out the survey which they ad wished to carry out.
2/ A Summary Decree submitted by Ms Howe.
The Summary Decree motion was lodged prematurely, and Ms Howe requested time to be allowed to conduct a survey into Mr Appleby’s Solum Ownership and to produce a plan, which would constitute ‘expert evidence’. Also a surveyor would be requ red to conduct a survey of the boundaries of the 1996 Notice of Title which the defendants are relying upon.
Extension of the adjustment period of eight weeks was therefore requested by Ms Howe.
Matters could then proceed to Proof.
Ms Howe then withdrew her Summary Decree motion upon advice from Sheriff Wilson
Ms Soldani was asked regarding the eight week extension, and she confirmed that she had no difficulty with a continuation, however she remained concerned as to what happens in the meantime. She said that the pursuers were acting as if deci ions in their favour had been decided when in fact they had not been.
ScotRail intend to resume services from the station from this weekend. To do th s pedestrians require access to and from the station. The new path was construc ed to try and defuse the current situation. The track on the other hand, is sub ect to a public right of way.
The Court’s position is thus - pedestrians have a choice of going straight on a ter the cattle grid or to turn right and use the new path. The new path is owne wholly by the defender, Ms Soldani added. There is a vehicular right of way, b t for the moment it would be for pedestrians only.
Ms Howe considered that the land in dispute has already been decided by the def nders. She also considered further wrong-doing by the defender last weekend. Wo ks were undertaken on the former station platform and ScotRail has also access he platform by climbing over the chain.
The Court should decide true ownership but the defender has behaved in a manner which assumes that the defender owns the land in question added Ms Soldani.
The side gate is owned by Mr Appleby stated Ms Howe and that is the route pedes rians ned to use. She confirmed that the couple dispute the location of the pub ic right of way.
Sheriff Wilson continued to address pedestrian access, public access on foot. H asked Ms Howe what that foot access would look like. Sheriff Wilson said that e did not wish to impose something but rather get an agreement.
Mr Appleby stated that while he agrees that there is a footpath somewhere here, its exact position is uncertain. New ‘expert evidence’ would possible help to a dress that issue.
Sheriff Wilson confirmed that a public right of way can go over private land al over Scotland. He added that he was trying to avoid unnecessary confrontation.
Ms Howe stated that whilst she agrees that a public path and right of way does xist the position is not known and a survey is required to establish this.
Mr Appleby confirmed that the side gate is unlocked. Ms Howe stated that the ne footpath was constructed upon disputed land. She added that it would be approp iate to delay the opening of the station until the end of the procedures.
Mr Appleby confirmed that the couple would prefer access by pedestrians was to se the traditional right of way. Ms Howe added that there was never any need to build a new path.
Sheriff Wilson asked the couple for an undertaking that they would not stop ped strian access by a member of the public over the established right of way to th railway platform.
Mr Appleby stated that the couple had always done this and that they welcome ev ryone at the station and to come in for a cup of tea!
Ms Soldani had two concerns - the couple have consistently refused access to th defender and ScotRail. The Sheriff said that these issues will be decided in c urt but the immediate problem has been addressed, for people getting on or off he train.
Ms Howe stated that a public right of way did not include commercial use.
Currently members of the public can access the couple’s driveway to access the latform.
Ms Soldani confirmed that the Network Rail Survey has been carried out, but the pursuers did try to restrict the defenders access, but the surveyor was able to get enough data to complete the survey.
The issue of expenses were raised by Ms Soldani however Sheriff Wilson stated t at these matters would only be addressed upon the conclusion of the case.
Continued for eight weeks for Adjustments - 29th May 2025 at 2.15pm and the Hea ing concluded.

 

[oldman]

Then, surely, they can’t have bought the station building, as it wasn’t BR’s to sell (or, at least, the land it was built on wasn’t)?

Right now, I wish I was working as a lawyer on this case. I‘d be raking it in.

Their position is - we bought the building from the railway, we already owned the land.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Their position is - we bought the building from the railway, we already owned the land.

How did they come into that ownership? Did they own some/all of the land before purchasing the house? If not that makes no sense at all.

 

[3RDGEN]

How did they come into that ownership? Did they own some/all of the land before purchasing the house? If not that makes no sense at all.

They bought the property of Station House off the previous owners in late 2021 I think, not the railway.

They believe the property includes the drive/trackway to the station platform and are in a land dispute with NR/ScotRail hence the ongoing court case which they brought against NR. Additionally to that they believe the property comes with/grants "SOLUM" rights to other land in the surrounding area, it's a mess and the court will need to decide the outcome, but for now the trains are back so at least that's some progress.

When the line was built the landowners, the Sinclair family, supported it with money and land to build the railway but I don't know if it's ever been bought/transferred to railway ownership in the last 150 years. The court will need to decide.

Edited to 150 years not 175years.

 

[Rab Smith]

If they thought they had a beef with NR before, just wait until they have a class 66 or even better, a class 37 idling outside their bedroom window at 3am as it waits to get loaded with timber if the loading area gets the go ahead!

 

[Bletchleyite]

If they thought they had a beef with NR before, just wait until they have a class 66 or even better, a class 37 idling outside their bedroom window at 3am as it waits to get loaded with timber if the loading area gets the go ahead!

Even if it's not the best loco for the job it would have to be a 68

 

[Ashley Hill]

Even if it's not the best loco for the job it would have to be a 68

Or a hired in pair of 20s.