Installing my line side fencing...
Installing my line side fencing...
A rather novel concept for your American Cousin, they don't use the stuff here. If a 19th century
farmer wanted fencing to protect his live stock, he'd better get to it. Otherwise, chop-chop.
farmer wanted fencing to protect his live stock, he'd better get to it. Otherwise, chop-chop.
Nessie rocks!
- Bufferstop
- Posts: 13796
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:06 pm
- Location: Bottom end of N. Warks line
Re: Installing my line side fencing...
For the amusement of our US brethren, a hard to believe fact, which you can verify if you have the patience to plough through the parliamentary acts for the Liverpool and Manchester and other railways. The stipulation that the lines should be fenced off was inserted on the demands of many titled land owners to prevent the railway's customers trespassing on their estates. If they could have had fences that kept the common oiks in but still allowed livestock to wander on the line they would have been overjoyed at the prospect of all that compensation for a beast that wasn't going to fetch a decent price at market.
Growing old, can't avoid it. Growing up, forget it!
My Layout, My Workbench Blog and My Opinions
My Layout, My Workbench Blog and My Opinions
Re: Installing my line side fencing...
Well that is most curious: keeping out human trespassers. Clearly, any goof can hop a fence, and why would
they debark in the hinterlands betwixt Liverpool and Manchester, in the first place?? Was this a sort of add
on for the benefit of live stock, or did they really believe that such would discourage trespassers?
they debark in the hinterlands betwixt Liverpool and Manchester, in the first place?? Was this a sort of add
on for the benefit of live stock, or did they really believe that such would discourage trespassers?
Nessie rocks!
- Ironduke
- Posts: 1234
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:04 am
- Location: Ballarat Victoria Australia
- Contact:
Re: Installing my line side fencing...
I thought the public had the right to walk on most farmland in the UK?
Regards
Rob
Rob
- Bufferstop
- Posts: 13796
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:06 pm
- Location: Bottom end of N. Warks line
Re: Installing my line side fencing...
They do now. At the time the parlimentary bills were introduced few people had any idea what a railway was and their Lordships were obsessed with keeping "the riff-raff as far from them as possible. They'd not long had canals dug across their lands which brought in barges moving at a slow walking pace, with horses that could be allowed to get on with it, whilst the boatman nipped off to set a couple of snares to check out on the return trip. The canals didn't only bring the boatmen but their entire family who lived aboard ,which caused problems the landowners didn't want to repeat. I think they saw the fencing as marking a line which if crossed would allow their gamekeeper to let off both barrels.
Growing old, can't avoid it. Growing up, forget it!
My Layout, My Workbench Blog and My Opinions
My Layout, My Workbench Blog and My Opinions
Re: Installing my line side fencing...
Wow, that is quite some history.
On my grandmother's side, her grandfather, I think it works out, was
known as "The Great Poacher," would have been around late 1830's,
I would guess. He was great until he was arrested and sent to the
penal colony of Bermuda. He escaped by stowing away on a ship that
next landed at New Bedford, Massachusetts, where he gained employ
as a carpenter in a ship yard. He father some extraordinary number of
children, 14 or something, and then fell off some scaffolding and
succumbed to his injuries.
On my grandmother's side, her grandfather, I think it works out, was
known as "The Great Poacher," would have been around late 1830's,
I would guess. He was great until he was arrested and sent to the
penal colony of Bermuda. He escaped by stowing away on a ship that
next landed at New Bedford, Massachusetts, where he gained employ
as a carpenter in a ship yard. He father some extraordinary number of
children, 14 or something, and then fell off some scaffolding and
succumbed to his injuries.
Nessie rocks!
New Digs
Adding the last bit of fencing. I don't think it is necessary to map out every
kilometre of fencing, but enough to suggest that it is there. A rather
interesting look, enjoyable. I threw away these awkward lateral
braces included by Hornby and affix the fences with clear Gorilla Glue
and hold the fencing down with lead weights while it drys.
New dinosaur foot prints in the Isle of Skye, so in its honor added a new
dinosaur dig betwix the mainlines. Tried to add in some tracks in the
damp plaster, that turned out to be harder than I thought, so
emphasis on the fossil bones...Got a few tracks in there, just
hard to see.
kilometre of fencing, but enough to suggest that it is there. A rather
interesting look, enjoyable. I threw away these awkward lateral
braces included by Hornby and affix the fences with clear Gorilla Glue
and hold the fencing down with lead weights while it drys.
New dinosaur foot prints in the Isle of Skye, so in its honor added a new
dinosaur dig betwix the mainlines. Tried to add in some tracks in the
damp plaster, that turned out to be harder than I thought, so
emphasis on the fossil bones...Got a few tracks in there, just
hard to see.
Nessie rocks!
Re: Installing my line side fencing...
Why hard to believe? Privately owned land with access restricted to owners, those they permit on it, and persons properly authorised by the state, demarcated by fences or walls, are still a commonplace in the UK; and similar law applies in the USA thanks to our common law heritage.Bufferstop wrote:For the amusement of our US brethren, a hard to believe fact, which you can verify if you have the patience to plough through the parliamentary acts for the Liverpool and Manchester and other railways. The stipulation that the lines should be fenced off was inserted on the demands of many titled land owners to prevent the railway's customers trespassing on their estates.
It applies to my house plot today, and I have 940 years worth of rights to exclude anyone not entitled to be on it...
Re: Installing my line side fencing...
We have a more liberal approach in Scotland. Freedom to Roam anywhere as long as you take reasonable care and adhere to the country code. Trespassing is old hat.
Re: Installing my line side fencing...
La Sturgeon will be after you.brober wrote:...in Scotland. Freedom to Roam anywhere as long as you take reasonable care and adhere to the country code...
The 'Country Code' applied to the whole UK, but has now been superseded here by 'The Countryside Code'.
Scotland, 'The Scottish Outdoor Access Code' applies.
-
- Posts: 310
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:34 am
Re: Installing my line side fencing...
I don't claim to know what the original Acts of Parliament stated about fencing, but certainly, to my knowledge, it has been the responsibility of Britiain's railways for the best part of the last 100 years to erect and maintain fencing to keep people off the railway for liability of safety reasons, not to stop railway customers trespassing on neighbouring property.
In the UK, the railways are responsible for people trespassing and getting hurt on the railway. This is why there have been periodic cases where the railways have been on difficult legal ground when it has been found that people have been injured on the railway because they got through an unmaintained (hole) in the fence.
The US takes the 'self responsibility' approach in that if you don't want to get hurt, then you shouldn't walk on a railway, which in my mind, makes sense.
My observation of travelling in the US is that this is a general metaphor of laws in the US: that you are generally allowed to do things unless there is a sign that says you can't. Conversely, in the UK and Australia, the law tends to operate on the basis that you can't do something unless a sign says you can.
In the UK, the railways are responsible for people trespassing and getting hurt on the railway. This is why there have been periodic cases where the railways have been on difficult legal ground when it has been found that people have been injured on the railway because they got through an unmaintained (hole) in the fence.
The US takes the 'self responsibility' approach in that if you don't want to get hurt, then you shouldn't walk on a railway, which in my mind, makes sense.
My observation of travelling in the US is that this is a general metaphor of laws in the US: that you are generally allowed to do things unless there is a sign that says you can't. Conversely, in the UK and Australia, the law tends to operate on the basis that you can't do something unless a sign says you can.
Re: Installing my line side fencing...
The railway was sufficiently different to what had gone before that the law had to respond with changes. The key problem was an ancient law of Deodands (look it up) which was a means of compensating victims' families and applying a penalty, where an animal or article had killed someone - not intentionally, but by an event that had 'simply happened'. Essentially the animal or article that caused the death was forfeited to the Crown. So when Simple Simon travelling up to London for the first time jumped off the train to retrieve his wife's hat which had blown off, how did this law apply? Was it the whole train? Or just the wagon he had been in? Or was it the piece of track where he had gone kersplatt and expired? Likewise when Backward Bert expected the train to stop while he was moving his cattle across the line, and it didn't and he died. Was it the engine? Or just the wheels or bufferbeam that had done the fatal damage? Or the whole train (the driver believed he could have stopped in time if he had not had a train behind)?gppsoftware wrote:I don't claim to know what the original Acts of Parliament stated about fencing, but certainly, to my knowledge, it has been the responsibility of Britiain's railways for the best part of the last 100 years to erect and maintain fencing to keep people off the railway for liability of safety reasons, not to stop railway customers trespassing on neighbouring property.
In the UK, the railways are responsible for people trespassing and getting hurt on the railway...
So Parliament abolished Deodands in 1846, and a considerable body of legislation came in subsequently, essentially establishing the railway's duty of care toward the population, by restricted and controlled access. This included such innovations as enclosed carriages for all passengers to avoid the 'hat blown off, killed jumping out to retrieve it' scenario... (The attentive will notice that the same was not then applied to the roads which had 'grandfather rights': until relatively recently when it became clear that people were not a good mix with motorway class roads and these too are now restricted access routes, fenced, monitored and subject to comparable conditions.)
(This is from memory of a talk given by a railway legal personage about fifty years past, so some of the fine detail may have gone missing.)
Re: Installing my line side fencing...
Not necessarily, at least not explicitly.gppsoftware wrote:I don't claim to know what the original Acts of Parliament stated about fencing, but certainly, to my knowledge, it has been the responsibility of Britiain's railways for the best part of the last 100 years to erect and maintain fencing to keep people off the railway for liability of safety reasons, not to stop railway customers trespassing on neighbouring property.
Railway Regulation Act 1842 Sec 10:
"All railway companies shall be under the same liability of obligation to erect, and to maintain and repair, good and sufficient fences throughout the whole of their respective lines, as they would have been if every part of such fences had been originally ordered to be made under an order of justices by virtue of the provisions to that effect in the Acts of Parliament relating to such railways respectively
"
...so it has to be fenced (even if an earlier Act authorising the railway didn't require fencing), but:
Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, Section 68 (my bold):
"The company shall make and at all times thereafter maintain the following works for the accommodation of the owners and occupiers of lands adjoining the railway ... sufficient posts, rails, hedges, ditches, mounds, or other fences, for separating the land taken for the use of the railway from the adjoining lands not taken, and protecting such lands from trespass, or the cattle of the owners or occupiers thereof from straying thereout..."
So the 1845 Act specifically requires the fence to protect the adjoining land from trespass, and to prevent cattle straying off the adjoining lands. Nothing to do with railway safety.
That changed in 1997 when the Railway Safety (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations repealled Sec 10 of the 1842 Act and replaced it with this:
"3.—(1) So far as is reasonably practicable, a person in control of any infrastructure of a transport system to which this regulation applies shall ensure, where and to the extent necessary for safety, that unauthorised access to that infrastructure is prevented. "
In practice the emphasis had shifted by 1972 (if not long before) when BR tried unsuccessfully to argue that they owed no liability to a child who was injured after gaining entry through an incomplete fence because he was trespassing. (Herrington -v- BRB).
Portwilliam - Southwest Scotland in the 1960s, in OO - http://stuart1968.wordpress.com/