• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Altnabreac station and the various legal disputes around it

styles

Established Member
Joined
7 Dec 2014
Messages
4,967
Location
Gwynedd
With apologies for imposing but I wonder if someone would be able/willing to come up with a brief summary of where each of the various actions now are? Particularly the criminal case and the EE case? As entertaining as this all is it would be good to get a handle on what the current state of play actually is?
Just to elaborate on the dates @Baxenden Bank has given.

The EE case has basically had an interim decision which is that the couple didn't have the right to block EE in the way that they did. The Court of Session normally hears cases which are valued at six figures or more, so EE are likely claiming for a lot of money, particularly with how much legal counsel time involved. The exact figures are not yet known, but we will find out over the coming months. At the last hearing, the couple said they had new material evidence and were told they could submit it with a formal motion and it may be considered; it was submitted then withdrawn, so I think this is getting close to the "end of the road".

The culpable and reckless conduct criminal case had been delayed due to weather, availability, and mutually agreed delay due to new evidence on the Crown's part (~90 minutes of CCTV footage). This has apparently now been shared and there's enough time before their next hearing to account for it. They've posted videos seemingly of the incident in question now to YouTube, as they feel persecuted by the legal system. I can't see how there could be any further delays at this point, perhaps an appeal to the decision of oppression, but the couple do have a skill in delaying proceedings. The weather has been improving, trains are calling at the station, and it seems like the legal avenues to delay it have been close to exhausted, so this case also appears to reaching the end of the road.

The contempt proceedings in Inverness are complicated. There's both civil and criminal aspects at play, and the couple were in luck when they first appeared in Inverness court for this there happened to be a contempt expert in the building who provided some pro bono representation. He convinced the court to delay things. Not sure if he is working with them longer term. The couple in their own words say they don't trust advocates in Scotland, and call them "devil's advocates" implying an evil connotation. For the most part they've self-represented in all their cases, except during some initial proceedings. From the outside, asking if a virtual hearing can be recorded, then being told no, then recording it, then uploading it to YouTube, seems pretty clear cut; and on the criminal side, contempt is a strict liability offence (with a defence of innocent publication but I'm not sure they're pursuing this angle as it doesn't seem like it would apply). So, like the above two sets of proceedings, this also appears to be nearing its conclusion.

Interestingly, I wonder if uploading these videos yesterday would be considered contempt. Usually it is not defendents who upload footage of themselves in the alleged criminal act, so maybe the police and courts will shrug it off. If it is considered contempt, there may be a new set of proceedings on the cards.

Otherwise, it seems like all of these proceedings are coming to a close over the next few months. It will be an interesting time.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,144
Location
Redcar
Thank you both for your updates that's made things much clearer for me (and hopefully others!) :)
 

norbitonflyer

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2020
Messages
5,862
Location
SW London
Thank you both for your updates that's made things much clearer for me (and hopefully others!) :)
Seconded. But I thought there were two contempt cases. One for the recording (and publishing) of the case (now dropped, i think) they brought against Network Rail, and another for failing to appear at a hearing (the one in November, for which they were arrested a couple of weeks later)
 

styles

Established Member
Joined
7 Dec 2014
Messages
4,967
Location
Gwynedd
Seconded. But I thought there were two contempt cases. One for the recording (and publishing) of the case (now dropped, i think) they brought against Network Rail, and another for failing to appear at a hearing (the one in November, for which they were arrested a couple of weeks later)
This is where it gets a bit complicated. Contempt can be a civil issue or a criminal issue in Scotland. There are multiple contempt issues being dealt with. When the couple appeared in Inverness for the contempt proceedings, a contempt expert happened to be in the building and provided the couple some representation. He argued that at best the court could only deal with the failing to appear (civil) contempt issue that day. In the end it was all continued.

In the words of the contempt expert:

Neil Beardmore said:
This is a unique scenario. The court can’t be prosecutors and also fact finders and it would be wrong for the court to be so at this stage. Their liberty is at risk as the penalty for this is up to three years imprisonment.

I think actually it was quite right that this was continued to a future date, as the couple had been claiming in videos that there were no contempt charges against them, and I think people should be informed of the specific allegations against them before they are made to stand trial, so they have time to prepare a defence. This does somewhat stem from the fact that they left court in Wick before the contempt proceedings could be put (hence the warrant of apprehension being issued).
 
Last edited:

norbitonflyer

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2020
Messages
5,862
Location
SW London
Apologies for long post

I have tried to work out the sequence of events that led to this point. Some of the data was gleaned in haste from the "Uncovered" channel when it was about to be closed down, and my notes are not always very clear! The rest is from the "Ballybannon Uncovered" channel, and the "Cover Up" channel itself. (Yes I have been through the entire channel - 22 hours of my life I won't get back) The dates and facts are of course only as accurate as their sources.
I have tried as far as possible to keep the account of each event in this timeline objective and non-contentious, although the selection of events required some subjectivity. I have not included every court hearing, as they are many and various and many of them did not progress the case significantly further.

Corrections and clarifications welcome

Numbers in brackets are notes to be found at the end.
The "v" numbers (v1- v104) are the videos on the "Cover Up" channel, in order of publication (and therefore the reverse order they appear on the channel - note that v96 "Station Hill" has since been removed from the Channel. V100 and v104 otiginally followed v94 but were withdrawn and republished
"VS-" and VL-" are the five "shorts" and three "live" ones, again in order of publication
Italics are events taking place outside Caithness

I am indebted to "Baxendon Bank" for identfying the various titles as follows:
(supplemented by my own copies if the relevant titles downloaded from ScotLIS)
CTH3311 ''Station Hill' - area of forest north of railway, excludes the wedge of land immediately north west of station down to the level crossing. Caledonia Forest Land Investment Limited
CTH5589 two separate areas, separated by the railway - wedge of land north west of station not covered by Station Hill (CTH3311) and land south and west from railway station, between railway and road track, out to Badnaheen Cottage, excluding School House.
From 5589, six parcels of land / premises were later removed in two transactions:
CTH7230 OCS Group to Kevin Alan Booth on 17/1/18, three plots of land
CTH7265 OCS Group to Kevin Alan Booth on 31/1/18, Station Cottage, Deer Larder, Badnaheen Cottage.
CTH 7726 subsequently split from CTH7265
The area to the south of the railway not covered by these titles is CTH3449, except for an enclave at Lochdhu Lodge and the loch itself, which is is CTH325
Not included in any of these, and therefore still owned by Network Rail, is the trackbed of the railway, the platform, and a triangular area immediately NE of CTH7726 and on the same side of the railway - this is the area that has become kniwn as "washing line hill"



TIMELINE
1874 Sutherland & Caithness Rly opens from Helmsdale to Wick and Thurso, on land owned by Sinclair family (1) (v64) - (The Far North Line was built between 1862 and 1874 in four stages)
1875/6 Land passed to railway under a "feu disposition"
1895 Loch Dhu Lodge built by Tollemache Sinclair (2)
1915 Transfer of land from Cecil Sinclair to Archibald Sinclair (Tollemache's gardson). This includes "such rights as he may have" in Station House, the railway land etc (i.e the feu dispositions)
16 Sept 1966 sale of land from Robin Sinclair (Archibald's son) to Thurso Fisheries
13 June 1969 BR sell station House (0.34 acres) to Robin Sinclair, (v43, v66). Servitude granted over access road
1975 Loch Dhu Hotel becomes a private residence
1979 Loch Dhu estate (as defined in 1915, in two parts separated by railway line) ), Stn Ho, School Ho, and any residual rights he “may have” in the railway’s land, all transferred from Robin Sinclair to John Sinclair (v66)
7 Sept 1984 Sinclair sells School House
1986 passing loop and second platform closed
1992 Kevin Booth’s school in Newbiggin closes, advertises new school in India
1994 Kevin and Tammy Booth buy Loch Dhu Lodge for £80,000
1996 Title deeds to station still in Railtrack’s name (v59) (3)
28 Nov 2004 Coming into force of “Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000” from which point feu dispositions are abolished and the tenant becomes the outright owner.(1)
10 August 2010 Planning permission for underground "ancillary dwelling" at Loch Dhu Lodge (v99)
2014 Land including quarry, sold by FG REalisations to OCS Forestry (later CFIL) (v47) Registered as CTH5589, erroneously including the access. The part of the "pink" area on the Railtrack that is not registered as 5589 remains Railtrack property.
2016 Kevin and Tammy Booth separate.
late 2016 Track renewal in Altnabreac area. Old track left in station sidings fior later recovery (nb still there in 2019)
17 Jan 2018 OCS sell CTH 7230 to Kevin Booth
23 Jan 2018 David Howe buys house in Ballybannon for EUR100,000
31 Jan 2018 OCS sell Station Cottage, Deer larder and Badnaheen to Kevin Booth (CTH 7265) (5)
9 Feb 2018 Elizabeth Howe leaves Greater Manchester Police
1 Mar 2019 Kevin Booth sells Station Cottage CTH7726 to Tammy Connor-Booth
(2019) An FoI response in 2023 says that access disputes at Altnabreac started in 2019. NR had an access agreement with Connors (v24) (5).
June 2016 Caithness Transport Forum reports that Connor has bought the scrap track material replaced in 2016 and moved it onto his own property
26 July 2019 David Howe dies
24 Dec 2019 Elizabeth Howe reported missing
7 Feb 2020 EH traced, moves with Ian Appleby to Ballybannon
22 Sept 2020 Appleby buys Toyota reg 01-C-21536
4 Feb 2021 Ballybannon house on market: asking price EUR155,000. Alex Howe notifies estate agents of Elizabeth’s siblings’ interest in the estate

3 April 2021 Death of Stuart Young in accident at Darren Bruce & Tammy Connor-Booth’s scrapyard at Altnabreac
26 April 2021 Probate of D Howe’s estate granted to EH as sole executor – estate valued at EUR167,525 gross, EUR162,148 net
c 9 May 2021 A & H staying at Booth’s holiday cottage in Altnabreac (“Keeper’s Cottage”)
21 May 2021 Appleby offers Connors £160,000 for Station cottage
7 June 21 Tyres buried by Johnny Mckay (V3) (This is the only appearance of that name)
17 Jun 2021 Ballybannon house sold by Appleby for EUR 10,000 (sic)
24 june 2021 Bruce & Connors “ran away” (V3) (5)
28 June 2021 Appleby becomes the owner of Station Cottage, Title CTH 7726 (6) Vendors solicitor emphasised that sale did not include the quarry that vendors were still using (v72 at 10:41)
June 2021 Toyota’s Irish National Car Test and Road tax expire. Never registered in UK, or declared to Customs
9 Sept 2021 Logging application lodged by CFIL, using redundant platform opposite Altnabreac station for loading
Dec 2021 Highland Council approve logging plan. No objections recorded
9 Aug 2022 EE Mast planning application
August 2022 Appleby films couple walking to the station with ?Booth (7)
Early 2023 A & H seek access fees from Network Rail to use driveway
Feb 2023 A&H sue Bruce and Connors (previous owners of Station Cottage)
Feb 2023 Network Rail notify owners of forthcoming works to install Press-to-Hail kiosk, including use of quarry site for a temporary compound– access agreement with CFIL who are now registered owners of 3449 and 5589 which includes quarry) (v43, v64) (5)
4 April 2023 Interdict following Howe chaining gate to quarry (v43, v46) (nb not platform or driveway)
19 May 2023 Booth gets interdict against A&H to stop harassment of Booth and his family.
22 May 2023 “Billy Mckay” phone call (v94). Confirms police already investigating Booth. As far as is known there is no connection with Johnny McKay (see above)
4/5 September 2023 A&H preven t EE access on approach road to level crossing
18 Oct 2023 A&H prevent Network rail accessing station via driveway (8)
30/31 Oct 2023 A&H block road leading to level crossing, and prevent EE accessing mast site. Arrested for obstruction
9 Nov 2023 Scotrail close station
21 Nov 2023 meeting between Scotrail, NR, BTP etc to discuss ways to reopen ABC. Compulsory purchase of entire Stn Ho property (not just driveway as Appleby says) considered but rejected as not legally possible (v82)
2 Dec 2023 First video published on ACU channel – relates to alleged illegal dumping in old quarry on Connor’s land
22 Feb 2024 A&H obstruct EE supplying mast site again. EE claim unable to fuel generator
1 Mar 2024 A&H stop trains at level crossing v100, v104, v101. Phones are seen lying in the ditch, Threaten to erect fences to obstruct the railway the next day
4 Mar 2024 A&H appear in court in connection with train incidents
Feb/ March 2024. Level crossing gate replaced with narrower one (date unknown - photo uploaded to internet 7 March but original gate was present on March 1st (v100, 101, 104) so it was either done between 1st and 7th, or original gate restored before 1st March)
March 2024 A&H Charged with theft of NR property removed from station
15 May 2024 October level crossing case dropped due to lack of second witness (9)
19 June 2024 “Earlier incident referred to by “Mr Smith” (V10)
summer 2024 - at some point the gate and hedge separating the driveway from the platform were removed (v28, compare independent video made in July 2023)
24 July 2024 Network rail take away vandalised equipment from station(10, v28))
3 Sept 2024 First attempt to build path round “Washing Line Hill ” (V6, v18) NR says WLH is their land
10 September 2024 “Washing Line Hill” path completed (VL-A)
20 Sept 2024 A&H v Network Rail civil case opened
14 oct 2024 NR discuss installing help,point (v42)
6 Feb 2025 EE v Appleby & Howe civil case opens
26 Feb 2025 Booth bailed - conditions include ban on sponsoring visas, informing police of visitors, and travel ban (11)
30/31 Mar 2025 Railtrack work on platform overnight, arrive by rail. Tactile Edging (VL-B, v63)
3/16 Apr 2025 A&H v NR hearings by Webex – recorded by Appleby – includes undertakings but scope disputed (v65, 78) (12)
6 Apr 2025 Station reopened
14 Apr 2025 ScR paint shelter and remove obstructions to Washing Line Hill path (v65)
June 2025 Appleby sends recordings of April hearings to High Court. Charged with Contempt of Court
1 Nov 2025 Booth sentenced for indecent communication to member of his staff. Other charges await further trial (13)
5 Nov 2025 “Young girl” filmed arriving at Altnabreac by train late at night. (14), v86
11 Nov 2025 A & H due to appear at three hearings at Wick – only attend first
26 Nov 2026 Booth remanded (v87)
26 Nov 2025 A& H arrested for failure to appear at third (contempt) hearing and breach of Booth interdict (VL-C, V86)

Total length of videos 23 hours 14 minutes (including one deleted video)



Notes
1. This timeline covers five generations of the Sinclair family
– Sir Tollemache Sinclair (1825-1912), John George (1825-1912), Sir Archibald (1890-1970, later the first Lord Thurso), Robin (1922-1995) and the current (3rd) Lord Thurso John, born 1953.
- another branch of the Sinclair family were Sir Robert Sinclair (1820-99), who appears to have owned the land on which the railway was built, and his nephew Cecil Lennox-Sinclair (1872-1922) who sold what remained of the estate in 1915 to Archibald.
- yet another branch was james sinclair, the 14th Earl of Caithness, who had supported an earlier proposal to link Caithness with the south, which failed because of opposition from the coastal shipping intersts in Wick. the railway that was built was supported by the Duke of Sutherland, to feed extra traffic into his existing railway at Helmsdale.
- I have not been able to ascertain the relationship between these three branches of the Sinclair family, although the senior branch can trace its history back to the 15th Century Earls of Orkney & Caithness.
In 1875 the Sinclair family owned 100,000 acres (more than a quarter) of the county of Caithness. Howe refers to “feu dispositions” from the Sinclair family (presumably Sir Robert) in favour of the S&C Railway dated 1875 and 1876 (v64). Such dispositions were abolished by Act of Parliament in 2004, full ownership passing to the disponee. Thus any rights the feu owner "may have still had" at that date ceased to exist at that point

2. sidings at Altnabreac probably laid out at that time to allow building supplies to be delivered)

3. The map sent to Appleby (v59, v64) delineating Railtrack's (later NR’s) land is annotated to exclude anything later sold as CTH 5589 (v64) (“under exception”); from which 7230 and 7265 were later separated off. The NR map shows Station House to be outside the shaded area, but the driveway within it. It also includes both the trackbed and “Washing Line Hill”. 5589 does not include these (see v47), so it appears from these documents that they are all still NR property. However, the map accompanying the title to CTH7726 also appears to include the driveway. There are three possible explanations for this - a) the NR map is correct, and the driveway was never part of the Station House site and therefore could not be sold to Connors and then to Appleby - b) the NR map is in error - c) the driveway is jointly owned

But see EDIT 27/2/26 below - it appears that "a" above is the actual position - the NR map is correct, and the driveway was never part of the Station House site and therefore could not be sold to Connors and then to Appleby

4. Station House was outwith the BRB estate at the date of NR’s map, but became part of CTH5589 at some point. It was then split off, with Badnaheen and the Deer Ladder, to form 7265.

5. If Connor and Bruce owned CTH5589 in 2021 (after it was split from CTH7230 in 2018), this included the site of the old railway siding, and may have included anything such as dismantled track left on that land when it was sold to them. It did not include the active railway line. The NR “access agreement” referred to by Appleby actually relates to the quarry, not the driveway as he claims. Connors’ solicitor made it clear at time of sale of Stn Ho in 2021 that the quarry was not included in the sale of Station House to Appleby (v72). At some point between June 2021 and Feb 2023 ownership of the quarry passed to CFIL, and NR negotiated a new access agreement with them in order to build a compound there in connection with work on the station.

6. Connors’ solicitors due diligence – informed funds for the purchase of Station Cottage are the proceeds of Appleby’s “father in laws” estate. Presumably this means David Howe (Elizabeth's father).

7. Described by Appleby as a trafficked woman being escorted by two builders, by others as Booth taking a holidaymaking couple to the station after a stay at one of his holiday cottages. This was filmed before, but published after, the interdict preventing Appleby harassing Booth’s family. Another – undated – clip by Appleby (VS-E) shows a woman - identified by others as Booth’s partner - and a girl (her daughter?) walking into the station. As this is undated it is not known whether this breaches the interdict.

8. Survey (v31,32) appears to confirm driveway is within, but platform without, 7726. (The actual boundary is not clear, but is certianly much nearer the house than the platform edge, possibly actually about 40cm inside the house, if A&H's own survey is accurate!) However, there is a “burden” in the deeds of 7726 granting NR the right to access their property via the driveway. “Reservation in favour of [BRB] us and our foresaids of a heritable and irredeemable servitude right of access for vehicular and pedestrian traffic”
But see the 27/2/26 edit above - the actual 1969 disposition shows the NW boundary to be outwith the house (by a couple of feet or so) but the driveway tio be outside the NE boundary

9. Booth was the only witness called – I understand Scots law requires two

10. A visitor to the station took a video showing equipment was still installed on the platform in Sept 2023, so it had been removed after that date. Appleby confirms in one of his videos that he removed it, as it had been installed without his permission, on what he claims to be his property

11. The travel ban is mentioned most often, but the other two limbs are more relevant

12. Sherriff can be heard in video saying “"can't object to NR &c using it" and "’Members of the Public’ includes NR"”

13. Booth appears to have been in custody before the hearing, but not returned to prison until remanded on Nov 26th

14. Identified as a 25 year old doctor, the girlfriend of Booth’s son. If that is the case, the filming is a breach of the 2023 interdict. The CCTV monitoring areas to which the public have access (whoever owns the land) may also be in breach of privacy laws if there are no signs. This is the only video A&H have produced of anyone arriving at the station.

  • EDIT 27/2/26 - a commenter on "Altnabreac Towers" has shown there is an anomaly between the 1969 Disposition under which BRB transferred ownership of Station Cottage to the Sinclair family, and the Registered Title plan of CTH7726 (and CTH7265 and CTH5589 from which it was split). This suggests that BRB never sold the driveway but only granted a "Servitude right of Access" for the proprietor of Station Cottage to use it, but it was erroneosuly shown in the Title Plan as part of the property, rather than only having a right of access over it.

  • If the Title Plan for CTH7726 is correct, it shows the eastern boundary to be spaced several metres from the building, but the northern boundary to be at or very close to the building line. Thus the driveway is within, but the platform is outside, the boundary.
    • There is a burden in the deeds of CTH7726 in favour of BRB and its successors in title, to allow pedestrian and vehicular access to the station over the property.
    • Moreover, there is a pedestrian public right of way along the driveway, and the sherriff specifically stated that NR and its contractors were not excluded from the definition of “public”
    • NR’s staff were therefore entitled to use the driveway. BTP and the railway staff were acting in good faith, on legal advice they should have been able to rely on
  • To identify what land is owned by Network Rail, we can refer to the map they sent to Appleby, noting that there is an annotation stating that NR no longer owns that part of the pink area that is part of CTH 5589 (or the parts later split off from it). So we compare the area shown in pink on the NR map with that shown on CTH5589 – if it is only pink in the NR map it remains NR property.
    • Neither map shows Station House to be part of the area, as that was excluded from NR’s land by the sale in 1969.
    • 5589 is shown in two parts, separated by the trackbed, so NR own the trackbed.
    • The NR map shows the area east of Station House in pink, but CTH 5589 does not – therefore that (“Washing Line Hill”) is also NR property.
    • Likewise, CTH5589 only extends to the western boundary of CTH7726, and therefore it does not include the platform either

  • Appleby’s claim to title to a larger area seems to rest on the words “together with” in the disposition made between two members of the Sinclair family in 1979. There is however no reason to suppose that, just because Station House was conveyed in that document “together with” four other listed items, that all five are irrevocably bound together for all time, or that ownership of one of those items (whether Station House or one of the others) automatically gives the owner any rights over the other four.
    • The claim to the trackbed of the railway seems to be based on the phrase “may have” in the same disposition. This is not a statement that Sinclair had any such rights, but only that he might, and it certainly does not follow that the owners of any one of those properties had any rights over the other four. This would appear to relate to the fact that all the land in the area was subject to a "feu disposition", until such things were abolished in 2004 and the feudal tenants became outright owners.
    • There may have been a pre-emption right reserved by Sinclair when his land was bought to build a railway – the former feudal owner being given first refusal to buy back any land that became surplus to the railway company’s needs, for example because the railway was never built, or was closed at a later date, or individual buildings (such as Station House) became surplus to requirements. None of this applies to the actual track bed of the Far North Line, which is still very much in use.
  • Station House and the quarry adjoining it on the west side are separate titles sold off by the railway at different times (the 1969 map shows the quarry as having been owned by the BRB but not the house) but in 2019 it would seem they were both owned by Connors. It was expressly stated at the time of sale of CTH 7726 that the sale of the house did not include the quarry. In 2019 NR arranged an access agreement with Connors to use the quarry. In 2023 it arranged a similar agreement with its new owners, CFIL. This has nothing to do with the driveway on the east side of CTH7726
  • Appleby and Howe seem to think that it was improper for the Court of Session to send copies of the illicit recordings to Sherriff Wilson. However, both parties to a case, and the judge hearing it, have to be able to see and hear the evidence being cited. The recordings are cited as evidence in two legal cases the sherriff is involved in, one as judge (the action for Contempt of Court in a case in which he was presiding) and the other as defender (in the case brought against him by Appleby and Howe) “Evidence obtained unlawfully is not automatically inadmissible in Scotland.”
  • Elizabeth Howe owns no property at Altnabreac.
    • Although the funds to buy Station House were declared to have come from David Howe’s estate, of which Elizabeth was the executor, Ian Appleby is the sole owner of the property. (She may have some rights in his property if she is legally married to him).
    • It has been suggested Elizabeth Howe should have shared her father’s estate with her three siblings instead of gifting it all to Appleby. Any such misappropriation would be a matter for the Irish courts. The proceeds are no longer owned by Howe, and no longer in Ireland, so any legal action taken against her in Ireland is unlikely to result in their recovery.
    • Noted that Appleby, not Howe, is named as the vendor of the house in Ireland, meaning that at least that part of the estate was transferred to Appleby whilst still within Irish jurisdiction.
EDIT to correct two entries. No "press to hail" equipment was installed in March 2025. The quarry and adjcent old sidings were part of CTH5589, but only the sidings were previously BRB land
 
Last edited:

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,770
Please tell me you didn't subject yourself to that torture!

Thanks for the extremely comprehensive timeline regardless.
Perhaps with the AI assisted cartoons from another, newer, Youtube channel interspersed for some light relief. Those now up to episode nine.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

The culpable and reckless conduct criminal case had been delayed due to weather, availability, and mutually agreed delay due to new evidence on the Crown's part (~90 minutes of CCTV footage). This has apparently now been shared and there's enough time before their next hearing to account for it. They've posted videos seemingly of the incident in question now to YouTube, as they feel persecuted by the legal system. I can't see how there could be any further delays at this point, perhaps an appeal to the decision of oppression, but the couple do have a skill in delaying proceedings. The weather has been improving, trains are calling at the station, and it seems like the legal avenues to delay it have been close to exhausted, so this case also appears to reaching the end of the road.
The comments online elsewhere suggest that four trains were held up and that the videos uploaded by Appleby/Howe relate to incidents earlier in the day rather than the specific (final) one which resulted in their arrest and a weekend in the cells in Inverness. I see from the clip upthread that the train driver has her mobile out, hopefully recording that incident.
Correction: The hand holding the phone more likely belongs to a third party, not the driver.
 
Last edited:

styles

Established Member
Joined
7 Dec 2014
Messages
4,967
Location
Gwynedd
The comments online elsewhere suggest that four trains were held up and that the videos uploaded by Appleby/Howe relate to incidents earlier in the day rather than the specific (final) one which resulted in their arrest and a weekend in the cells in Inverness. I see from the clip upthread that the train driver has her mobile out, hopefully recording that incident.
Correction: The hand holding the phone more likely belongs to a third party, not the driver.
The description of the videos say they are recordings from 1st March 2024, which is the date of the offences they're charged with. It's possible the couple are lying of course, but I think it would be an odd lie.

Edit: just re-read what you said. Yes the videos may be of different events the same day. They do say they stopped four trains and have uploaded footage of two so far.
 

styles

Established Member
Joined
7 Dec 2014
Messages
4,967
Location
Gwynedd
According to their latest video, ScotRail visited this morning and put up a sign telling passengers how to use a request stop. If that's based on the Saturday videos, that's quite a quick response to feedback! It took them longer to even acknowledge my recent feedback that the Smartcards they're issuing refer to the Conditions of Carriage (instead of Travel) with an outdated web address!
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,760
Location
Scotland
I dare say that anything related to Altnabraec currently gets more attention in ScotRail HQ than a station of its size and prominence would typically warrant.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
114,003
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
According to their latest video, ScotRail visited this morning and put up a sign telling passengers how to use a request stop. If that's based on the Saturday videos, that's quite a quick response to feedback! It took them longer to even acknowledge my recent feedback that the Smartcards they're issuing refer to the Conditions of Carriage (instead of Travel) with an outdated web address!

Where is this video, sorry?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
114,003
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Ah, thanks. Sorry, I thought it was a ScotRail video, not another one of the couple's, so was looking in the wrong place.

I wonder does he need a poster telling him how to flag a bus or taxi down too? Mind you, very few buses or taxis around there.
 

alex397

Established Member
Joined
6 Oct 2017
Messages
2,043
Location
UK
I wonder if ScotRail had to pay extra to any staff who had the misfortune of having to go there!
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,742
Location
LBK
Ah, thanks. Sorry, I thought it was a ScotRail video, not another one of the couple's, so was looking in the wrong place.

I wonder does he need a poster telling him how to flag a bus or taxi down too? Mind you, very few buses or taxis around there.
Perhaps a 14 minute video would help, as they seem to prefer media which is inordinately long to deliver information which could have been a few sentences.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
4,568
So, their argument is that standing on a level crossing with a train approaching was not reckless, because there was no sign at the station telling them exactly how to request a train to stop?

And if there's no sign at a station telling you how to request a train to stop, then it would only be reasonable to assume that going to a level crossing some distance away, and standing on the tracks waving, counts as a "request stop"?

In the video he talks about it being a "request stop area", I suppose to imply that trains can be requested to stop anywhere within this designated area? But as far as I can see there's no such thing as a "request stop area". There are simply stations that are or aren't request stops.
 

norbitonflyer

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2020
Messages
5,862
Location
SW London
It would seem Driver No 3 had less patience than the first two - possibly because the first two had reported what was going on so he knew what to expect and was aware that there was probably no actual emergency. But of course he couldn't just carry on and ignore Appleby, even if he hadn't been standing so close to the track - we all know what eventually happened to the boy who cried wolf, and Appleby had said he was going to obstruct the line at some point.

Appleby says the third driver drew right forward to the crossing, rather than stopping short as the first two did. Appleby interprets this as intimidating, but it may have been that, following the reports from the first two drivers that Appleby was threatening to obstruct it, he wanted to inspect it from the safety of his cab before proceeding.

Nevertheless, standing in the way of a moving train (whether or not actually in the four-foot) is dangerous. Unlike the driver, you don't know how good its brakes are and whether it can stop in time.
 
Last edited:

Egg Centric

Established Member
Joined
6 Oct 2018
Messages
2,920
Location
Land of the Prince Bishops
In the video he talks about it being a "request stop area", I suppose to imply that trains can be requested to stop anywhere within this designated area? But as far as I can see there's no such thing as a "request stop area". There are simply stations that are or aren't request stops.

It's very common with these types to have a "magic words" approach to the law and regulations. Hence freemen on the land and so on.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,144
Location
Redcar
Appleby says the third driver drew right forward to the crossing, rather than stopping short as the first two did. Appleby interprets this as intimidating, but it may have been that, following the reports from the first two drivers that Appleby was threatening to obstruct it, he wanted to inspect it from the safety of his cab before proceeding.
Wouldn't really blame them to be honest! You've heard reports from two colleagues there's a couple of people who seem to be, from their perspective, of dubious mental stability (that's a matter of perspective, I'm not attempting to imply an actual mental issue at all) and have threatened to block the crossing. No-way am I exiting my nice secure train whilst they're nearby unless it's absolutely unavoidable. Drawing slowly forward directly to the crossing and having a good look out the front window seems much safer!
 

Mainline421

Member
Joined
7 May 2013
Messages
922
Location
Aberystwyth
So they're now filming this thread. They also repeatedly claim that none of the drivers told them they were doing anything wrong, when you can see in their own video that they were informed they were trespassing.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
114,003
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
So they're now filming this thread. They also repeatedly claim that none of the drivers told them they were doing anything wrong, when you can see in their own video that they were informed they were trespassing.

If they don't realise that standing on a railway line obstructing trains and getting them to stop in locations that aren't stations when there isn't an emergency isn't OK, then one really does wonder.

I mean, personally, I hope the book is thrown at them as hard as possible eventually, and that they're forced to sell their home to pay for the costs of it all. But if they carry on with this particular ruse they're going to get themselves killed, and I don't wish that on anyone, let alone the poor driver who would be party to it.
 

Singlespeed

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2025
Messages
15
Location
Inverness
13 June 1969 BR sell station House (0.34 acres) and quarry (5589) to R Sinclair, and quarry later sold on to Fountain Forestry (v43, v66)
The quarry to the Southwest of station house was not part of the Railway Board sale.
Relevant station house sasine register entry and deeds of sale in here

The quarry area lays to the south of the deer fence which seperates the quarry and disused sidings area.
The quarry wouldn't have been part of the 1876 disposition to the Sutherland and Caithness Railway Company and would have been part of the land owned by various Sinclairs prior to Forestry company ownership. Hence it being unquestionably (in my opinion) part of the CTH5589 title. However there's no evidence anywhere as far as I have seen for another sale of railway land, for the disused sidings to the south of the line, or the disused goods yard to the north of the line. So I believe these are a manifest inaccuracy in the title plan of CTH5589. Much like the addition of the station access road being added to the same title and subsequently giving rise to this saga.
 

norbitonflyer

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2020
Messages
5,862
Location
SW London
The quarry to the Southwest of station house was not part of the Railway Board sale.
Relevant station house sasine register entry and deeds of sale in here

The quarry area lays to the south of the deer fence which seperates the quarry and disused sidings area.
The quarry wouldn't have been part of the 1876 disposition to the Sutherland and Caithness Railway Company and would have been part of the land owned by various Sinclairs prior to Forestry company ownership. Hence it being unquestionably (in my opinion) part of the CTH5589 title. However there's no evidence anywhere as far as I have seen for another sale of railway land, for the disused sidings to the south of the line, or the disused goods yard to the north of the line. So I believe these are a manifest inaccuracy in the title plan of CTH5589. Much like the addition of the station access road being added to the same title and subsequently giving rise to this saga.
Thank you - I will amend. The BRB/Railtrack map disclaims anything within 5589. Whether Railtrack or its antecedants sold the sidings or not, they do not form part of CTH 7726. (Whether Connors owned the quarry or not is immaterial - even if they did own it they expressly said it wasn't part of the sale (and if they didn't, that would explain why it wasn't theirs to sell in the first place). By February 2023 CFIL apparently owned it - at least, that's who NR sought an access agreement from - so presumably if Connors had owned it at any time he had sold it by then.

Happy to take further amendments
 
Last edited:

Singlespeed

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2025
Messages
15
Location
Inverness
The deeds to CTH7726 show the eastern boundary to be spaced several metres from the building, but the northern boundary to be at or very close to the building line. Thus the driveway is within, but the platform is outside, the boundary.
The northwest boundary line, as confirmed by Applebys surveyor means that 0.40 to 0.49m of Station Cottage is actually outside of their registered title boundary.
Screenshots here from one of his videos
 

Top