Talk:Hull and Selby Railway

Mileages

In the mini-RDT at Hull and Selby Railway#Description of the line, the mileages - other than those of Selby and Wressle - are all shown as x.65 - quite apart from the fact that we don't know if this is decimal miles (0.65 miles = 1144 yards) or chains (65 chains = 1430 yards), it seems an odd coincidence that the fractional distances should all be the same. I have found that Whishaw (p. 165) gives those exact distances, so WP:V applies, but could Whishaw have made an error? The modern mileages, measured from Hull (Paragon) are: Selby 30:79 (i.e. 30 miles 79 chains); Cliffe level crossing 28:02; Wressle 24:79; Howden 22:27; Eastrington 19:23; Gilberdyke (formerly Staddlethorpe) 16:76; Brough 10:38; Ferriby 7:42; Hessle 4:64; Hull 0:00. The fractions are not just different, they vary widely. --Redrose64 (talk)

The original mileages would either have been from Hull Manor House Street (which by 1914 was close to what on the Clearing House diagrams is the Kingston St Goods depot ) or from Selby. If the former, by a very rough calculation from the Clearing House diagrams ( see RJD 37 at Commons), using Hessle Jn as a transfer point, The original Terminus (by backtraking) would be approx 3 miles east of whats shown as Hessle Jn. ( with the mileages from there being about 20 chain (1/4 mile) chains different from the Paragon figures.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Using the National Sectional Appendix (which puts Heessle (E) Jn. at 3;21; the difference is around 18 chains. This should provide a reasonable basis for updating the figure in the mini RDT.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: The problem is not that the zero point has changed - a change in zero point would affect all the mileages to the same degree. The problem is that the intervals between stations are inconsistent. According to Whishaw, which seems to be the source used here, the intervals are:

• Selby (0) to Cliff (2.65 miles) = 2.65 miles
• Cliff (2.65) to Howden (8.65) = 6.00
• Howden (8.65) to Eastrington (11.65) = 3.00
• Eastrington (11.65) to Staddlethorpe Broad Lane (14.65) = 3.00
• Staddlethorpe Broad Lane (14.65) to Brough (20.65) = 6.00
• Brough (20.65) to Ferriby (23.65) = 3.00
• Ferriby (23.65) to Hessle (26.65) = 3.00
• Hessle (26.65) to Hull (30.65) = 4.00

These intervals - with the exception of Selby to Cliff - are all whole miles, and most are exact multiples of three miles. According to

• Yonge, John (September 2006) [1994]. Jacobs, Gerald (ed.). Railway Track Diagrams 2: Eastern (3rd ed.). Bradford on Avon: Trackmaps. map 38A/B/C. ISBN 0-9549866-2-8.

the present-day intervals are:

• Selby (30 mi 79 ch) to Cliffe LC (28 mi 2 ch) = 2 mi 77 ch
• Cliffe LC (28 mi 2 ch) to Wressle (24 mi 79 ch) = 3 mi 3 ch
• Wressle (24 mi 79 ch) to Howden (22 mi 27 ch) = 2 mi 52 ch
• Howden (22 mi 27 ch) to Eastrington (19 mi 23 ch) = 3 mi 4 ch
• Eastrington (19 mi 23 ch) to Gilberdyke [Staddlethorpe] (16 mi 76 ch) = 2 mi 27 ch
• Gilberdyke [Staddlethorpe] (16 mi 76 ch) to Broomfleet (14 mi 36 ch) = 2 mi 40 ch
• Broomfleet (14 mi 36 ch) to Brough (10 mi 38 ch) = 3 mi 78 ch
• Brough (10 mi 38 ch) to Ferriby (7 mi 42 ch) = 3 mi 78 ch
• Ferriby (7 mi 42 ch) to Hessle (4 mi 64 ch) = 2 mi 58 ch
• Hessle (4 mi 64 ch) to Hull Paragon (0 mi 0 ch) = 4 mi 64 ch

Even if these distances are rounded to quarter-miles (20 chains = 1⁄4 mi), the intervals are still irregular and not a neat progression of three- or six-mile gaps. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Subsquent to the above I used the RJD's at Commons and NESA to update the mileages. (NESA is an official publication. The RJD is how I got Cliff(aka Hemminborough).ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The route you want in the NESA is LN898 in the London North Eastern section ( Module LN6 or LN7.) The linke tothe NESA front page is on the

WikiProject UK Railways talk page. In updating the figures I adjusted for the 18 or so chains difference between Paragon and Manor House Street.

You might also want to check against the figures in MIcheal Oakley's publication (but they claim copyright/database right)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It would seem Wilshaw is using a very crude approximation. :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hull and Selby Railway (1836)
miles (Leeds and Selby Rly.) Selby railway station 0 River Ouse Cliff 2.65 River Derwent Wressle (?) Howden 8.65 Eastrington 11.65 Market Weighton Canal Staddlethorpe Broad Lane 14.65 Brough 20.65 Ferriby 23.65 Hessle 26.65 Hull 30.65 Humber Dock
Sources:

(reindent - reply to original/all) I think the .65 s in Whishaw must either be a typsetting error, of, some sort or archaic notation. The info from the RCH and Network Rail Sectional Appendix are not relavent to the 1840 line - though they do appear to show there is something wrong with the figures. It might be best to leave the numbers out - until the .65 is made sense of.

NB the figures quoted are from Selby - but the trackwork was modified c.189(7?) when the new bridge was changed - this won't have changed the figures by a lot - but the track was on a different route out of Selby so the "chains" will be out.

(The original bridge was a bascule -see the Bray article, or the image. Both swing and bascule bridges can be counter balanced)Prof.Haddock (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC) I couldn't find an appropiate icon for the bascule bridge - the only I could find was the "wrong way round".Prof.Haddock (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the mileages - it's clear there is somehting odd or wrong with Whishaw's numbers. I've left the original route (left) here for reference. Prof.Haddock (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Prof.Haddock: see next section which began yesterday on my talk page. There is another related discussion at Talk:Wressle railway station. Re the bascule bridge icon: all of those that have been created so far have the movable span going left-right and the watercourse running top-bottom. See c:Talk:BSicon/Icon geometry and SVG code neatness#Drawbridges. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hull and Salby

Moved from User talk:Redrose64 § Hull and Salby

 – Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input.

Shame there's no easy way of getting a definitve answer out of Network Rail/National Railway Museum. Presumably the LNER ended up with the original paperwo0rk and thence the NRM?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: I have a theory regarding those odd mileage intervals.

Before the railway was opened, the company would have prepared a prospectus, and in that, gave approximate positions for the stations as: first station four miles from Hull; second and subsequent stations every three miles after that (7 miles, 10, 13 etc. to 28 miles). They then chose the real station sites to be more conveniently situated as regards settlements and existing roads. When Whishaw was compiling his book, he was unable to get the exact final distances, so he used the approximate distances from the prospectus, but for some reason subtracted them all from 30.65 to give distances from Selby instead of Hull, hence 0, 2.65, 8.65, 11.65 etc. On that basis, there is a gap at 5.65 miles from Selby (25 miles from Hull), which corresponds to Wressle - whose present-day distance is 24 mi 79 ch from Hull Paragon according to Trackmaps.

I don't know if that's a true explanation or not, but it seems to fit. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

That sounds entirly pluasible. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

And in relation to the bridge at Selby - http://www.transportheritage.com/find-heritage-locations.html?sobi2Task=sobi2Details&sobi2Id=808

says that the 1839 bridge was indeed a bascule based one. One wonders how accurate Wilshaw really is ;) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Whishaw doesn't explicitly state that it was a swing bridge; he says "an opening balance-bridge", which could mean either a bascule bridge or a swing bridge. I've now been able to check Tomlinson, and on p. 339 he says

The principal engineering feature on the line was a cast-iron bascule bridge over the River Ouse (1837-40), 191 feet 6 inches in length and 24 feet 1 inch in width over all. The movable arch, allowing a clear waterway of 45 feet, consisted of two flaps, with counterpoised tail ends. Each flap, weighing 92+3⁄4 tons, was raised and lowered by means of a quadrant and rack worked by hand, the time necessary for either operation being from 50 seconds to a minute. The movable arch was first raised to admit the passage of a vessel on the 13th of February, 1840.

Tomlinson gives a ref for the first sentence, as Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers, vol. 4, p. 86 (with illustrations). Facing that description (on p. 338) there is a photo which clearly shows a bridge with two spans, one of which is a double bascule; it's captioned "Bascule Bridge, Selby". So yes it was a bascule bridge as built; the swing bridge, so well associated with Selby, must be a later replacement, perhaps dating from the time of the opening of the line between Selby and York, or that between Selby and Market Weighton. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The Institution of Civil Engineers article is out of copyright (1845) - available here http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0XcMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA86 Prof.Haddock (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Article updated? Now to find out when the swing bridge was builtShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It was (as guessed above) added sometime after Selby became part of the ECML (around 1891 I think). See https://archive.org/stream/minutesproceedi13unkngoog#page/n217/mode/2up Prof.Haddock (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Leasing and amalgamation

The section Hull and Selby Railway#Lease to the York and North Midland and Manchester and Leeds Railways (1845-1854) is at variance with

• Marshall, John (1969). The Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway, volume 1. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. ISBN 0-7153-4352-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

On 28 December 1843 the M & L [Manchester & Leeds Railway] held a special meeting to consider amalgamating with the Hull & Selby Railway and working under one management on a joint account from 31 December. ... From 1 January 1844 the business of the M & L and the Hull & Selby was so conducted as to allow of it being back-dated as soon as parliamentary powers had been obtained for amalgamation. However, when the Hull & Selby discovered that it was expected to share in the absorption of the Manchester & Bolton, the Wakefield Pontefract & Goole and also the proposed Leeds & West Riding Junction, it withdrew from the agreement and became associated with the Y & NM [York & North Midland] from 30 June 1845, amalgamation following under the Act of 27 July 1846. (Marshall 1969, p. 58)

The "absorption of the Manchester & Bolton, the Wakefield Pontefract & Goole and also the proposed Leeds & West Riding Junction" referred to here is the amalgamation by which the Manchester & Leeds Railway became the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway. Marshall does not mention the Hull & Selby again, and so it is unlikely that the M&LR (or LYR) exercised its powers to lease the Hull & Selby. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Is the issue that you think the M&L didn't actually enter the (joint) lease?

The evidence looks that way - there's evidence for the Y&NMR raising money, and contemporary documents (eg Herapth) list the H&S under the Y&NMR

It's possible that the L&MR was a minor partner? Or just that the Y&NMR offered a higher price

It's not clear to me why an act of parliament was required at all - a lease seems a purely business to business agreement.

However I found this in House of Commons papers (railway commissioners) v.31 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V3oSAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA327 quote: (added underlining)

"The Hull and Selby Railway is to be leased to the York and North Midland and Manchester and Leeds Railway Companies for 1,000 years, subject to the yearly rent of 66,000/., until 1853, and afterwards of 70,000/., with power to purchase the Line absolutely, with all debts outstanding, at the price of 1,575,000/. at any time after 1850. The two Companies are equally interested in the lease and purchase. But it has been arranged that the Line shall be worked by the York and North Midland Company, until the Manchester and Leeds Company choose to assume their share in the management, which they may do on giving six months' notice, when the Line is to be managed by a joint committee. In the meantime, the York and North Midland Company indemnify the Manchester and Leeds."

The interpretation of "equally interested in the lease and purchase" is subjective without more info. The working by the Y&NMR may explain why the association is made with the Y&NMR and not the M&LR.

I haven't found anything yet to suggest a joint working committee was formed. I assume the M&LR paid rent and got running powers in return.

I also have read reports of legal proceedings between the successor companies at the time of the formation of the NER (1923) - these seemed to make it clear that the H&S felt that the L&S had some responsibilty at that time (from then on the NER became sole interested party)

With as much as I know now I think the M&LR did take up the lease, but am not 100% certain. But I would like more certaintly. I would guess the M&LR's yearly reports (or accounts) would have a 100% certain answer.

I change to section heading to better represent that the Y&NMR worked the line.

Currently the article is ambiguous - it doesn't state either way who paid. If this can't be resolved then it will need a note on that.Prof.Haddock (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this the answer - the annual (total) rent on the H&S was £66,000 (10% of share total capital of 700,000 with adjustments for some shares only giving 5%) (see Y&NMR report no.3 p.3 or House of Commons - Railway Commissioners v.31 p.5 - but in the Y&NMR report no.2, p.58 (1849) the accounts show that they paid on 33,000 rent to the H&S. Half - but the account is for "half year ending June 1849" - so it looks like the Y&NMR was paying all the rent.Prof.Haddock (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

(nothing wrong with the above, but struck through as unneccessary)

Bradshaw's Shareholders manual.. (1855) is explicit [1] - despite the equal nature of the agreement, and an extra act in 1852 - the Y&MNR "The York and North Midland are now, and have been, in exclusive possession of the railway since the lst of July, 1845, and have paid the rents reserved under the agreement of the 30th of June, 1845. regularly up to the 1st of January last. [1854] ".

Article updated.Prof.Haddock (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hull and Selby Railway/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

. Requires photographs Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates Requires category for East Riding of Yorkshire Wikilinks for station articles Keith D 11:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 18:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hull and Selby Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160506172138/http://www.railnorth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/EFT_Final_Report_FINAL_web.pdf to http://www.railnorth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/EFT_Final_Report_FINAL_web.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)