Cancelling a Level Crossing

[Andy873]

I've come across some details regarding a level crossing that in the end was cancelled by one of the main local land owners.

It seems that early on at planning stage the local landowner stipulated that a public road level crossing would be required. At the location where it was to be at the time was open countryside but it's clear plots of land were being drawn out for new houses and streets etc. All of this happens between 1869 and 1874 and here I'm talking about the town of Padiham, Lancs.

In 1872 the eldest son inherits Gawthorpe Hall, Padiham when his mother dies and it seems later in 1874 he has a change of mind over this level crossing. After taking advice from his solicitor a draft agreement is written releasing the L&Y from their obligation of providing the crossing but instead he wants a bridge wing wall / abutment altering instead which will be at the L&Y's own expense not his.

This draft agreement is dated mid January 1875 which for me is extremely late in the day as goods trains started running 1 July that year.

Questions:

1. If you have a public level crossing, don't you need a box next to it to control the gates and necessary signals?
2. As built, on this section of line there were two signal boxes either side of the station, built by Saxby & Farmer. If you do need a box for the crossing and two for the station, wouldn't the L&Y order all three together?
3. What would have been a reasonable amount of time from ordering boxes to installation and testing? Three months? six months?

 

[Gloster]

1 - You might have a crossing keeper in attendance or it might have been an occupation crossing where the users’ operate the gates themselves and look out for themselves. An occupation crossing usually only applied to pre-existing roads, so it would depend on the status of the new road.
2 - The timing would be all important, if they had a box.
3 - If they had a box it might depend on how much business S&F had on hand at the time.

 

[Rescars]

In response to (1), this seems most likely, but the actual arrangements would depend on the location of the crossing in relation to the siting of existing boxes controlling block sections, as well as the scope of station limits.

Re (2), if there were to be boxes at each end of the station, perhaps one would be intended to control the crossing. This could have been resited to make operating the station easier if there was no need to control a crossing.

 

[ThirteenArches]

I'm suspecting this is Pendle St, which is continuous on the level either side of the Greenway (the old line). There are underbridges a couple of hundred yards either side of this, so perhaps the solicitor decided that the time saved by a crossing would be small compared to the disadvantage of not having one, which I suppose would mostly accrue to people walking to and from work, pubs or shops. And he saw an opportunity to replace some embankment spread with retaining wall as a quid pro quo, which would have opened up space for building on, and hence future income.

By the way there seems to be a fine collection of colliery tramways in the area, is there a history of them?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Sep 2025 ==

And I notice that there a footbridge appeared on Pendle St sometime between the 6" 1890 survey and the 1910 survey.

 

[Andy873]

1 - You might have a crossing keeper in attendance or it might have been an occupation crossing where the users’ operate the gates themselves and look out for themselves. An occupation crossing usually only applied to pre-existing roads, so it would depend on the status of the new road.

I hadn't considered a keeper for this, it's certainly a possibility but with the land being marked out for new streets and houses, the area was going to be much more busier and so I think it merited a box next to the crossing. As stated, this was to be a public road crossing not an occupational one.

The timing would be all important, if they had a box.

Thanks for confirming what I was already suspecting.

In response to (1), this seems most likely, but the actual arrangements would depend on the location of the crossing in relation to the siting of existing boxes controlling block sections, as well as the scope of station limits.

Re (2), if there were to be boxes at each end of the station, perhaps one would be intended to control the crossing. This could have been resited to make operating the station easier if there was no need to control a crossing.

More good points. I can only state what was actually built, Padiham Station East box was placed on the left hand curve for the station, and I don't think a signaller would have had a complete view of this crossing. But as you say, East box's location might have been different. It's quite clear to me and has been for some time now, with regards to most railway lines that were built, what you see isn't always what was planned.

I'm suspecting this is Pendle St, which is continuous on the level either side of the Greenway (the old line). There are underbridges a couple of hundred yards either side of this, so perhaps the solicitor decided that the time saved by a crossing would be small compared to the disadvantage of not having one, which I suppose would mostly accrue to people walking to and from work, pubs or shops. And he saw an opportunity to replace some embankment spread with retaining wall as a quid pro quo, which would have opened up space for building on, and hence future income.

@ThirteenArches, As always, you seem to zero in on my thinking. I had a virtual "walk" around the area and the only practical place to put such a crossing is the short stretch between Graham St and Pendle St, so yes I agree, it must have been planned somewhere around there.

By the way there seems to be a fine collection of colliery tramways in the area, is there a history of them?

Well spotted. History of these tramways is hard to come by, but I can tell you the following... In 1866 the L&Y's bill as submitted to Parliament included a short branch line off the loop line close to Green Lane over bridge. It was to swing north and stop inside the grounds of Gawthorpe Hall. Parliament passed the Padiham to Rose Grove section but scratched out this short branch, reason unclear, probably objections from the Local Board. In 1869 and 1871, the Shuttleworth's try again and ask the L&Y to consider it but to no avail. This short branch was to have a tramway meet it inside the estate and connect up with the existing colliery tramway. The internal estate colliery tramway is clearly shown on the 1844 OS map.

And I notice that there a footbridge appeared on Pendle St sometime between the 6" 1890 survey and the 1910 survey.

This footbridge was opened on 30 March 1896. Padiham UDC wanted this but didn't want to pay for it, neither did the L&Y. In the end Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth dug deep and donated the £200 needed.

Side question really - How on earth do you pronounce Ughtred please?

 

[Gloster]

I hadn't considered a keeper for this, it's certainly a possibility but with the land being marked out for new streets and houses, the area was going to be much more busier and so I think it merited a box next to the crossing. As stated, this was to be a public road crossing not an occupational one.

Recently the question came up on another forum as to what was the difference between an occupation crossing and an accommodation crossing. It seems that an occupation crossing is one where an existing public road is crossed by the line, while an accommodation crossing is one that connects two parts of a property that has been divided by a new line. They are physical near enough identical and neither automatically needs a signal box or crossing keeper.

A lot might depend on whether the new road was formally in use when the railway arrived. If it was in use, then the railway was statutorily required to provide a crossing: whether it was staffed or not would depend on the Board of Trade Inspector’s opinion and the amount and type of usage. If the road was not yet in use or built, then the expense of providing a crossing is likely to fall on the landowner as, as far as I can see, the railway is not normally responsible for the cost of subsequent additions.

All this must be taken with a bit of care as no 100% definite answers were reached in the other forum’s discussion.

 

[ThirteenArches]

It's hard to see; the earliest (1844-6 survey) 6" map is, infuriatingly, damaged in the area of interest. The 1" map is poorly detailed and may well have survey inaccuracies, and the NLS has had trouble georeferencing it. BUT there is a road existing in the area, and the survey seems to be displaced slightly south compared to the imaging, so the road could well have crossed at about Pendle St, but at about 45° to the railway. If it did, and the railway may well have been pleased to drop that one.

As for the pit railways, they predated the loop by many years, but seem to have rather dwindled after its coming. The 6" map shows a line right into Padiham, plus another crossing it at right angles, and heading south east across the river, crossing it by a bridge which can't be far from the modern footbridge a little east of the main river crossing. But if the modern bridge is the heir to the tramway bridge, there's no sign of it on maps inbetween.

 

[Rescars]

More good points. I can only state what was actually built, Padiham Station East box was placed on the left hand curve for the station, and I don't think a signaller would have had a complete view of this crossing. But as you say, East box's location might have been different. It's quite clear to me and has been for some time now, with regards to most railway lines that were built, what you see isn't always what was planned.

As regards the location of a box, AIUI, the nature and physical operating requirements of gate controlling mechanism was such that the box would need to have been sited adjacent to the crossing it was controlling. Whilst it would have been preferable for a box to have been sited near to points under its control, longer pulls were possible if other siting considerations needed to be taken into account. So much more flexibility about where to place the box if there was no crossing to be included in the mix.

 

[Andy873]

Recently the question came up on another forum as to what was the difference between an occupation crossing and an accommodation crossing. It seems that an occupation crossing is one where an existing public road is crossed by the line, while an accommodation crossing is one that connects two parts of a property that has been divided by a new line. They are physical near enough identical and neither automatically needs a signal box or crossing keeper.

All this must be taken with a bit of care as no 100% definite answers were reached in the other forum’s discussion.

Well, based on what you've said we can never really know what type of crossing this was to be, it's anyone's guess.

It's hard to see; the earliest (1844-6 survey) 6" map is, infuriatingly, damaged in the area of interest. The 1" map is poorly detailed and may well have survey inaccuracies, and the NLS has had trouble georeferencing it. BUT there is a road existing in the area, and the survey seems to be displaced slightly south compared to the imaging, so the road could well have crossed at about Pendle St, but at about 45° to the railway. If it did, and the railway may well have been pleased to drop that one.

Isn't it one of those things that the very small part of a map you're interested in is the damaged part. There is a one inch version surveyed 1842-49, it doesn't show as much detail of course but you can see that road that comes off the Padiham - Burnley road to Stockbridge House / Farm, it then turns right and stops in the fields. Using markers and switching to the 1909 map the road is certainly in the area of Pendle St on the Rose Grove side. This existing road looks to be the one for the crossing.

As for the pit railways, they predated the loop by many years, but seem to have rather dwindled after its coming.

Yes, as time went on and for example one owner ends up with several pits close to each other these pits become connected underground. If one of these pits has say decent sidings along the East Lancs line then this is where coal from the other pits emerges, hence the tramroad decline.

longer pulls were possible if other siting considerations needed to be taken into account.

Just out of interest, how long could a pull be? For example, if Padiham Station East box was indeed to control the crossing and it was to be at Pendle St, you're talking around 770 feet, is that doable?

If it did, and the railway may well have been pleased to drop that one.

Agreed! If it was to have been a public road crossing which needed to be staffed I would have thought the L&Y would have taken that any day even though they have to alter an abutment of Green Lane under bridge at their own cost, which was part of the deal regarding dropping the crossing obligation. Reading an appendix to an early 1880's WTT, Both Rose Grove Junction box (obviously) and the station's east box were staffed 24/7, with this crossing being between them then, the same would have applied here (if a box was needed), all that costs money.

Questions: 1. If you are a contractor who has seen the plans, the drawings for the bridges etc and you've submitted a tender based on that and won the job, wouldn't you charge more for any additional works based on the rates agreed in that tender? For example, after the contractor (Jonas Gregson) is already on site and proceeding with the works, a new clause is added insisting on a road under bridge and a cattle creep for Stockbridge House / Farm.

2. Wouldn't this cancelled level crossing have already be in situ by late 1874? By mid 1875 this section opens for goods.

 

[Belperpete]

A local landowner has no right to insist that a railway company provides a level crossing. Any requirement to provide a level crossing will have been specified in the railway's authorising Act of Parliament. Local landowners would of course lobby for such mitigations to be included in the Act, and if powerful enough could prevent the Act from being passed if they weren't satisfied.

What does the Act of Parliament approving the railway, and the accompanying deposited plans, have to say on the matter? Surely if the act or the plan says that there has to be a level crossing, then there has to be a level crossing? That would surely be the case for a public level crossing. When BR first started replacing gates with barriers, it had to get the relevant acts amended, as they explicitly specified gated crossings (nowadays any change to a public level crossing requires authorisation by means of a Crossing Order from the ministry). It wouldn't be up to the railway company and the local landowner to agree between themselves changes to a statutory level crossing.

If the railway company and the landowner have agreed that the crossing isn't needed, then it sounds like this is an accomodation crossing. The landowner would have been given the right to such a crossing in the act, usually because the railway has severed his land. However, the landowner can waive that right. I believe that there are also situations in which that right can be deemed to have lapsed, such as if the lands either side of the railway come to be separately owned.

When a railway company considered that their railway was ready to open to passengers, they would notify the ministry, and one of the ministry inspecting officers would be sent to inspect it. I have seen cases where the officer reported that a railway hadn't complied with its Act, so I presume that this is one of the things that they would check for. Once any remedial work was done, and usually another inspection made, would the ministry then authorise the line to carry passengers.

Prior to that, the line was free to carry goods. Theoretically it would have to comply with any conditions laid down in its Act, but if it didn't, someone would need to take them to court with a claim for damages.

 

[Andy873]

A local landowner has no right to insist that a railway company provides a level crossing. Any requirement to provide a level crossing will have been specified in the railway's authorising Act of Parliament. Local landowners would of course lobby for such mitigations to be included in the Act, and if powerful enough could prevent the Act from being passed if they weren't satisfied.

What does the Act of Parliament approving the railway, and the accompanying deposited plans, have to say on the matter? Surely if the act or the plan says that there has to be a level crossing, then there has to be a level crossing? That would surely be the case for a public level crossing. When BR first started replacing gates with barriers, it had to get the relevant acts amended, as they explicitly specified gated crossings (nowadays any change to a public level crossing requires authorisation by means of a Crossing Order from the ministry). It wouldn't be up to the railway company and the local landowner to agree between themselves changes to a statutory level crossing.

If the railway company and the landowner have agreed that the crossing isn't needed, then it sounds like this is an accomodation crossing. The landowner would have been given the right to such a crossing in the act, usually because the railway has severed his land. However, the landowner can waive that right. I believe that there are also situations in which that right can be deemed to have lapsed, such as if the lands either side of the railway come to be separately owned.

When a railway company considered that their railway was ready to open to passengers, they would notify the ministry, and one of the ministry inspecting officers would be sent to inspect it. I have seen cases where the officer reported that a railway hadn't complied with its Act, so I presume that this is one of the things that they would check for. Once any remedial work was done, and usually another inspection made, would the ministry then authorise the line to carry passengers.

Prior to that, the line was free to carry goods. Theoretically it would have to comply with any conditions laid down in its Act, but if it didn't, someone would need to take them to court with a claim for damages.

Some very good points raised here, thanks.

To begin with, I have a copy of the act and it does not mention any specifics regarding things like crossings or bridges, these I think would be in the plan / drawings for the contractor to follow. Unfortunately I don't have copies of the plan / drawings so I can't answer that.

What I can say is things here aren't as simple as black & white. It seems the L&Y have inadvertently put pressure on themselves as the contract has already been awarded and workers are now on site and as such the L&Y want the sale of the land done a.s.a.p.

Because of this urgency the Shuttleworth's are able to have a new clause inserted in the sale agreement for a bridge (known as Dryden St bridge) and a cattle creep (which was known as Shakespeare St). These were known by line inspectors as Shuttleworth's No 2 & 1 respectively. Now if you are able to insist during land sale negotiations two "structures" then why not a level crossing? If, later in (1874/75) the railway company isn't happy with this crossing and you feel that it won't inconvenience too many people (and you own the land and the road) then you're free to say okay, but it's going to cost the railway company x number of pounds in compensation, which is what happened, £200 in fact.

A side note, Lady Janet Shuttleworth who retains ownership of the Gawthorpe estate and who married Sir James Kay (hence the Kay-Shuttleworth name for the children) decides after having five children with him to disappear to Europe, mainly Italy. The London solicitors dealing with the sale of the land to the L&Y are concerned about the security of post going through France, as this is the time of the Franco - Prussian war (1870-71). This is why I love history, for no apparent reason you can suddenly bump into world events miles away from what you're researching locally.

 

[Belperpete]

To begin with, I have a copy of the act and it does not mention any specifics regarding things like crossings or bridges, these I think would be in the plan / drawings for the contractor to follow. Unfortunately I don't have copies of the plan / drawings so I can't answer that.

They would have been shown on the plans that were deposited when the Act was presented to parliament. These plans often had to be amended as the Act worked its way through parliament. Plans would only be produced for the contractors once the Act had been passed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Sep 2025 ==

Because of this urgency the Shuttleworth's are able to have a new clause inserted in the sale agreement for a bridge (known as Dryden St bridge) and a cattle creep (which was known as Shakespeare St). These were known by line inspectors as Shuttleworth's No 2 & 1 respectively. Now if you are able to insist during land sale negotiations two "structures" then why not a level crossing? If, later in (1874/75) the railway company isn't happy with this crossing and you feel that it won't inconvenience too many people (and you own the land and the road) then you're free to say okay, but it's going to cost the railway company x number of pounds in compensation, which is what happened, £200 in fact.

That is a possibility. However, any crossing of a public highway will have been covered in the Act, or accompanying plan. So any such extra crossing would almost certainly be an accomodation crossing.

 

[Andy873]

These plans often had to be amended as the Act worked its way through parliament.

Thank you. You've explained about these which, if Parliament decide yes to one thing but no to another then these plans have to be amended so they match up with what Parliament is going to pass.

This explanation solves a puzzle for me, in the November 1866 bill (Passed 1867) it was proposed to actualy build two "branch lines". No. 1 was the Padiham to Rose Grove section, and No. 2 which was to be a short line coming off the Padiham section on the Rose Grove side of Green Lane railway bridge. At this point it was to swing north east and stop just inside the private grounds of the Gawthorpe estate itself, a distance of just over 1 furlong. The plan from the estate was to then continue the line as a tramroad which would connect to an existing tramroad which led from Gawthorpe colliery.

Parliament so no to this short line, someone somewhere didn't like this idea, perhaps it was the local council or maybe the trust who ran the Burnley - Whalley turnpike road which would have had to been crossed by this short line.

What's really being made clear to me is the plans and contractor's drawings are not necessarily the original ones but (if needs must) the revised / amended ones to match up with the act as passed.

If the railway company and the landowner have agreed that the crossing isn't needed, then it sounds like this is an accomodation crossing.

It looks more and more likely then it was an accommodation crossing where the public were left to open and close the gates themselves. Some of the local board in 1894 recall this crossing and said it was a source of danger, you could imagine during the section's construction earth wagons rolling down the 1 in 40 hill with some workers involved in breaking on the way down. I remember an episode of What the Victorians did for us and they re-enact wagons from a slate mine in Wales running downhill to the coast. There are several people riding on the wagons and they have horns to blow. The experienced person tells them a set of horn blows as to when to apply the brakes, and more to the point they are all told to blow the horns as they approach a crossing, this one I think was a farmer's crossing. Perhaps this is what happened in practice?

I know construction workers did sometimes ride these wagons, I have proof on the Great Harwood section of one poor guy who after helping to load some earth railway wagons tried to jump on one of them as they were moving, unfortunately he slipped off, went under the first wagon. He was killed by the third wagon as he tried to escape. This happened in Sept 1876.

If these earth wagons were indeed rolled down the 1 in 40 as described and you didn't know when they might be coming of course, then you as a member of public would indeed be taking your life in your hands crossing it. For what ever reason, the L&Y didn't like this crossing and in the end they were happy to pay £200 compensation (£20,000 in today's money) to the land owner for closing it, alter a bridge for free, and pay all the legal fees on top just to get rid of it.