• 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

Russel

Established Member
Joined
30 Jun 2022
Messages
5,389
Location
Lichfield
I went down a bit of a rabbit hole last night and watched a lot of this couples videos on YouTube, most of which just confuse the situation even further.

Has it actually been established what the boundaries of their land are as I found it odd that they are suggesting that they own the land the rail line is built on...

Sorry if it's been covered in one of the previous 70 pages!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,743
I went down a bit of a rabbit hole last night and watched a lot of this couples videos on YouTube, most of which just confuse the situation even further.

Has it actually been established what the boundaries of their land are as I found it odd that they are suggesting that they own the land the rail line is built on...

Sorry if it's been covered in one of the previous 70 pages!
Boundaries as far as Station Cottage goes - seem to be a complete mess, having randomly changed over the years. The latest title registered for Station Cottage is what it is unless someone disputes it.

Ownership of the platform, railway line to who knows how far - seems to have been settled by the couple not turning up in court to progress their case (29 May 2025, case dismissed, ref WCK-A10-24) with costs awarded to Network Rail. There was an attempt to re-open the case (11 November 2025) but, on that day, there were three cases involving the couple and they left the court never to return after the first hearing.

I think!
 

ajwffc

Member
Joined
30 Sep 2023
Messages
64
Location
Scotland
part of me thinks they have read something wrong or just assumed they had ownership, are now in way to deep, and their personalities won't let them backdown and just keep digging
 

Russel

Established Member
Joined
30 Jun 2022
Messages
5,389
Location
Lichfield
Boundaries as far as Station Cottage goes - seem to be a complete mess, having randomly changed over the years. The latest title registered for Station Cottage is what it is unless someone disputes it.

Ownership of the platform, railway line to who knows how far - seems to have been settled by the couple not turning up in court to progress their case (29 May 2025, case dismissed, ref WCK-A10-24) with costs awarded to Network Rail. There was an attempt to re-open the case (11 November 2025) but, on that day, there were three cases involving the couple and they left the court never to return after the first hearing.

I think!

Thanks, it does seem a rather complex situation, no doubt manufactured by the couple in question.

part of me thinks they have read something wrong or just assumed they had ownership, are now in way to deep, and their personalities won't let them backdown and just keep digging

Indeed, that is the impression I'm getting.
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,743
Thanks, it does seem a rather complex situation, no doubt manufactured by the couple in question.
I do think that is part of their strategy.

Throw enough mud and some of it may stick. Or at least get overlooked and not responded to.

Also lots of overlapping issues, multiple cases involving the same individuals, sometimes as pursuant, others as defendant. Then the other way round. Issues for case A being mentioned in case B and so on. Plus we only get to pick up part of the story through the actual hearings themselves and not the many interventions / submissions / motions outside of the published hearing dates.
 

Russel

Established Member
Joined
30 Jun 2022
Messages
5,389
Location
Lichfield
I do think that is part of their strategy.

Throw enough mud and some of it may stick. Or at least get overlooked and not responded to.

Also lots of overlapping issues, multiple cases involving the same individuals, sometimes as pursuant, others as defendant. Then the other way round. Issues for case A being mentioned in case B and so on. Plus we only get to pick up part of the story through the actual hearings themselves and not the many interventions / submissions / motions outside of the published hearing dates.

What is their desired outcome though?

Also, in one of their videos, they told a Scotrail driver they were going to erect a fence across the line to prevent trains from running, what was the outcome of this, does anyone know?
 

Lockwood

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2013
Messages
1,243
Is there some law about who can own a piece of railway track that the public has access to?

Ie can Fred Bloggs legally own active track mileage without being registered with ORR/DfT/Santa?

Or, if it is assumed that the land belongs to one party that can then lease the land to a rail operator for their use and their ability to use it, is there potential liability for the landowner?

Ie Fred Bloggs owns the land which NR pays to have their track on, which FooRail run services on. The land floods, eroding the track so services cannot run and FooRail look to reclaim lost earnings. Is Fred (or Fred's insurers) liable for that cost if it can be shown that their drainage was to blame?

If either of these are true, why would anyone want that headache?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,590
Location
Scotland
Is there some law about who can own a piece of railway track that the public has access to?

Ie can Fred Bloggs legally own active track mileage without being registered with ORR/DfT/Santa?

Or, if it is assumed that the land belongs to one party that can then lease the land to a rail operator for their use and their ability to use it, is there potential liability for the landowner?
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a result of getting an act of Parliament to build a railway was that the company gained the power to compulsorily purchase land that they needed. I can't see why they wouldn't have done so and leased(?) the land instead.
 

Morayshire

Member
Joined
6 Feb 2019
Messages
299
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a result of getting an act of Parliament to build a railway was that the company gained the power to compulsorily purchase land that they needed. I can't see why they wouldn't have done so and leased(?) the land instead.
They would do so to keep the construction cost down by saving on the land purchase costs?

Now, I have a memory of reading about something like this happening in the history of the Great North of Scotland book by David Ross. In that book, I'm sure he refers to that railway company opting to "feu" (note - term might be wrong) the land for certain railway lines as opposed to purchasing it outright to keep costs down.

It has been a good while since I read that book (and I can't remember where my copy is either) so I might not be remembering that correctly.
 

Falcon1200

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2021
Messages
6,504
Location
Neilston, East Renfrewshire
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a result of getting an act of Parliament to build a railway was that the company gained the power to compulsorily purchase land that they needed. I can't see why they wouldn't have done so and leased(?) the land instead.

Indeed, and if the land was actually leased rather than owned, despite the changes of ownership since construction there would surely be records of the agreement and the rental costs, which presumably would have increased, like everything else, since the 19th century!
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
9,309
Location
Somerset
and the rental costs, which presumably would have increased, like everything else, since the 19th century!
Not necessarily - think of all the peppercorn rents that exist.
It may be a family myth, but an elderly relative of mine who died in the late 70s in her late 90s was still occupying a flat overlooking Hampstead Heath at the rent agreed when she moved in some time just after the First World War.
 

oldman

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2013
Messages
1,340
I don't think either side has suggested that any of the disputed land is leased. Their claim to own the land underneath the railway (including the level-crossing), described in their 'long-awaited solum video', is based on a reading of an earlier disposition which is to me, as a layman, far-fetched (put politely).

There is a pedestrian right-of-way across their land to the station, but quite likely not a vehicular right. They have sometimes argued that NR staff are not covered by the pedestrian right, but I think that is wrong. If there is a right-of-way across your land, you don't get to decide who uses it.

Vehicular use of the land they undoubtedly own might be a matter for negotiation, but the situation is muddied by their wider claims.
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
6,083
Re ownership of land upon which railtrack is laid. Who therefore owns the land on which level crossings cross public roads - the Council or Network Rail?
 

Lockwood

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2013
Messages
1,243
I was asking about a hypothetical with Fred Bloggs, rather than any specific case that is ongoing.

Putting leasing to one side, if Fred Bloggs does own the land then again don't they have liability obligations?

So instead of disputing the land ownership it is in the private citizen's interest to say "Nope, you can have it!"
 

Reiver

Member
Joined
12 Nov 2025
Messages
13
Location
Borders
In Scotland the feu system was abolished over twenty years ago and the land became to property of the "leaseholder" ie Railtrack in this case at that time.

Correcting Styles' excellent summary. NR (or ScotRail) were also prevented by the couple from erecting a request kiosk and associated solar power system which still remains undone. The closure of the station was for the safety of staff and passengers as some of the couple's behaviour during the access-blocking incidents had caused serious concern. The tactile paving wasn't an issue until it came into play with the re-opening.
 

Russel

Established Member
Joined
30 Jun 2022
Messages
5,389
Location
Lichfield
The closure of the station was for the safety of staff and passengers as some of the couple's behaviour during the access-blocking incidents had caused serious concern. The tactile paving wasn't an issue until it came into play with the re-opening.

Watching some of their YouTube videos, Scotrail made the right call here.
 

aar0

Member
Joined
13 Sep 2016
Messages
611
There is a pedestrian right-of-way across their land to the station, but quite likely not a vehicular right. They have sometimes argued that NR staff are not covered by the pedestrian right, but I think that is wrong. If there is a right-of-way across your land, you don't get to decide who uses it.
Potentially not relevant because this is in England, but I’ve had issues recently doing work from a right of way, and instead of having to get land owners permission, even though I won’t deviate from the right way. This has been enforced by the client, a public body
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
9,309
Location
Somerset
Potentially not relevant because this is in England, but I’ve had issues recently doing work from a right of way, and instead of having to get land owners permission, even though I won’t deviate from the right way. This has been enforced by the client, a public body
Indeed, AFAIK, “right of way” applies (in English law) exclusively to “pedestrian passage”. Even stopping to take a photograph of the view strictly speaking requires permission.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,590
Location
Scotland
I'm not so sure, if you have an isolated station that is occupied by a couple who are not acting rationally, minimising staff and passenger exposure is probably a wise move.
I think the pun was that Scotrail "made the call" to have trains "not call" at Altnabreac.
 

oldman

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2013
Messages
1,340
Potentially not relevant because this is in England, but I’ve had issues recently doing work from a right of way, and instead of having to get land owners permission, even though I won’t deviate from the right way. This has been enforced by the client, a public body
Network Rail might say that they are not working on or from the right of way but using it to get to their own land (the station). What they do when they get there is their business.
 

styles

Established Member
Joined
7 Dec 2014
Messages
4,641
Location
Gwynedd
Indeed, AFAIK, “right of way” applies (in English law) exclusively to “pedestrian passage”. Even stopping to take a photograph of the view strictly speaking requires permission.
It's a bit more complicated than that in England & Wales, as it's been the subject of much case law. You can stop to have a sandwich, admire the view, etc providing you don't stray from the PROW or cause an obstruction for others. You cannot however use a PROW as a destination to sit and watch the nearby horseracing circuit all day.

But yes, depending on the type of PROW, vehicles are usually not allowed:
  • PROW footpaths are for pedestrians only, though a pram/buggy/wheelchair is also fine so 'footpath' may be a little misleading :D
  • A bridleway is for pedestrians, bicycles including e-bikes, and horses.
  • A restricted byway is for the same traffic as bridleways but also horse-drawn carriages (good luck on a lot of restricted byways!).
  • Finally byways open to all traffic (aka BOATs, or 'green lanes') are open to all of the traffic of a restricted byway as well as motorised traffic, so they can be popular with off-road bikes and Land Rover drivers.
For the green laning, there's a map of byways here, and you'll notice they're sparse, concentrated mainly into a few areas, and not much of a connected network (though obviously you can join many of them up by normal roads): https://www.bywaymap.com

In Scotland, ScotWays maintains a database of documented rights of way. It's a paid-for service (https://scotways.com/crow/) though they also have a publicly-accessible map of historic paths: https://scotways.com/heritage-paths/map/ - you can even filter it to just show paths originally used by smugglers :D

The way in which rights of way are documented in England & Wales is different to Scotland owing to how the legislation has come about over the years.

In England & Wales it's easy to think that you just look at an Ordnance Survey map and look for the green (1:25k) lines. But the Ramblers have had a project for a while called Don't Lose Your Way - https://dontloseyourway.ramblers.org.uk/. It is a map of paths which they believe are PROWs but not marked on the local authorities' 'definitive map', which in turn means they aren't on OS maps and landowners might not even know they have responsibility for them. Of course, some of them are now useless, because they cross through things which have been built on top of them since, such as this one which goes through a few living rooms and bedrooms in Roehampton:

1786383406118.png

The government had previously set a deadline for claiming these 'lost' rights of way, so the Ramblers were keen for people to login and add details and priority ratings for many of them so they can be added to the definitive maps before the deadline. Note that the PROW legislation excludes the 12 inner London boroughs.

Scotland is more on the side of just 'discovering' these rights of way through historical research then retrospectively adding them.

Relevant to this thread, is this right of way https://scotways.com/heritage-paths/map/#zoom=15.840&lat=58.383766&lon=-3.711080 / https://scotways.com/heritage-path/HP292/. It is a Drove Road / Medieval Road as ScotWays describe them. It goes over the level crossing. But, as mentioned, this doesn't necessarily confer any motorised vehicular rights. The driveway to the station cottage is a bit different because it relates more to the title deeds of the property and the way the land has been split up over the years. In the EE case the couple were going to introduce evidence obtained from the title deeds of the neighbouring old schoolhouse, which has been sold recently, but they then dropped this. I'd be interested to know what this evidence was going to be.

On an unrelated note, my favourite public right of way is one called The Broomway. It is a byway open to all traffic which leads to Foulness Island, which is a military island usually closed to the public, with just a couple of road access points where QinetiQ will turn you away. The Broomway goes across Maplin Sands, and is tidal. So you can walk across it, maybe even make a horse suffer for a while, or drug some sort of dune buggy across it at low tide. Once you get onto Foulness, there are some PROW footpaths and bridleways, however if you've somehow managed to take a motor vehicle across to the island, there's basically one byway open to all traffic which doesn't even form a loop. Because you can't just stop on PROW footpaths for hours on end or camp on them, I imagine that if you misjudge the tide times and find yourself waiting for the next low tide, you'll be picked up by some military personnel and escorted over the road bridge. There used to be a general store on the island but I think it may have closed now. And there is/was a heritage centre which had some classic one-day-a-month opening. There are some guides who provide safe walks across though: https://thamesestuaryman.co.uk/products/the-broomway-guided-walk
 

Top