DEPOSITED PLANS

C/QD/U/DP

DEPOSITED PLANS

An explanation of the factors which prompted and guided the compilation of this new index may not be out of place. Apart from their obvious value to the Railway and Economic Historian, the Parliamentary Deposited Plans find a certain amount of current use in establishing statutory obligations with regard to the status of road crossings, etc., particularly in view of the increasing frequency of accidents at unguarded level crossings, many of which have seen traffic increase out of all proportion to the facilities originally provided. More widely known, however, these Plans might well become a valuable addition to the Inclosure and Tithe Award Plans as contemporary records of property ownership and occupation. Unfortunately, from the aspect of the general student with no prior knowledge of railway development, it has not always been easy to locate such information amongst the vast mass of these plans, especially in the case of lines which were not effected, or to determine which of several near identical applications carried statutory weight. An attempt has therefore been made to include details of related projects and to furnish details of both authority and construction wherever possible. The Records Office does also maintain a comprehensive series of the related Local Acts which should be consulted for further detail. Particularly during the 'mania' period, these requirements have necessitated some departure from the previous shelf classification, though without disturbing the strict chronological sequence and the obvious errors in the previous system have been rectified.

Considerable thought has been given to achieving these objects by suitable indexing and rather than a direct reference to specific line sections or particular railway companies, thus pre-supposing an intimate knowledge of railway geography, an index by the parishes as they were affected has been compiled. Students of a particular area may thus refer to any specific group of parishes, while enquirers of a particular scheme should seek any known point along its route. A system of cross-reference within the text should then enable complete abstraction of the information required. In presenting the accompanying diagrams, care has been exercised to preserve contemporaneity as far as possible by differentiating between working and unfinished lines at the beginning of each new Session. Where the plans do not conflict or depend upon one another, however, several Sessions have been compressed into the same diagram and a compromise necessarily effected. Reference to the text will, it is hoped, serve to iron out any inconsistencies thus arising, especially where the construction powers were kept alive for considerable periods before lapsing. No attempt has been made to illustrate this last aspect comprehensively although wherever possible authorised lines appear at least once before their final omission or completion. While the text does include some details of the manner in which certain of the larger projects affected the County itself, recourse should generally be made to the diagrams upon this point, the text dealing briefly with the entire schemes. A considerable portion of them naturally overlap into the neighbouring Counties but in the absence of comprehensive information upon the self-contained competing schemes of those areas an incomplete picture must naturally result. Illustration has thus been confined to the immediately adjacent areas, except where it is useful to show the linkage of schemes which otherwise mainly affected Nottinghamshire.

It should be borne in mind that, for reasons which will be found in the Introduction, the plans were always deposited in the November preceeding the relevant Parliamentary Session and in order to avoid any confusion which might arise from this procedure the Sessions are referred to throughout in terms of the period between November and August, eg. 1845/6 etc, while the actual date of deposit is given in the text together with, wherever applicable, details of the relevant Act. While in many cases the several works of one company appear in the same colour, the use of red lines being generally confined to those of the Midland Railway and its successor, during the 'mania' period in particular when the number of companies in the field together far exceeded the available colour range, such an arrangement cannot be maintained throughout and the coincidence of colour should not be taken as any proof of common ownership.

The Origin and Development of the Deposited Plan itself

It was not long before the absence of a regular method of securing publicity for these public works led to trouble. Extending over quite wide areas, much hardship and injustice were often occasioned by their interference with property ownership and the full effect was seldom evident until it was far too late to oppose and generally hopeless to attempt to repeal the measures. Such distressing results induced the House of Commons to draw up Orders in 1774 requiring that Notice of intended inclosure, drainage and improvement Bills be posted on Church doors and proclaimed in open court at Quarter Sessions. Turnpike Bills were in addition to be advertised in the press and, such general Notice being by itself considered insufficient, canal promoters were at the same time further required to make specific application to everyone whose property might be affected to determine whether or not they would favour the measure. The results of such enquiries were to be listed and TOGETHER WITH A PLAN OF THE ROUTE presented to Parliament with the Petition to bring in a Bill, the idea being to give the earliest opportunity for objection. Just complaints were made of the expense and inconvenience of an examination of the Plans at Westminster, so much that in 1813 Parliament called upon the promoters of all second class Local Bills to deposit Plans, Books of Reference and Sections, with Clerks of the Peace, Parish Clerks and other officials throughout the district to be traversed, a General Act, 7 William IV & 1 Victoria cap.83, requiring such persons to take receipt of these documents. They were to "make a memorial in writing" upon them, denoting the time and date see copy for inspection and retaining the duplicate sealed until called for by order of Parliament.

Although this system is, basically, still in operation, after prolonged experience and inquiries by innumerable Standing Order Committees, it has frequently been modified in detail, especially in its application to railways. Until 1824 the period for giving Notice and depositing Plans was limited to the months of August and September (see items 1 and 2 of the chronological index), so that before one Session closed it was often necessary for promoters to be busy with preparations for the next. In 1824 the period was extended to October and November and it is now confined to the latter month. Although this still applied to other Bills, in 1836, against the advice of almost every Engineer of note, Notice of Railway Bills was also ordered to be given twice in each of the months of February and March and the Plans to be deposited at the same time referred not to a Bill to be brought into the Session then beginning but one to be introduced nearly twelve months hence. Once again the professed object was to give objectors ample time to prepare their cases, to check immature projects and ensure completeness in the schemes when they were eventually brought before Parliament and also to give Committees examining rival lines knowledge of further schemes projected for the following Session. In practice the effects were most inconvenient; surveys often had to be made while the ground was covered with snow and engineers were already busy preparing for the immediate Session. As a result surveys were hasty and often crude (see particularly items 12-18) and during the Autumn it was generally necessary to make a final resurvey, frequently involving deviations in the course of the line. The promoters were allowed to proceed with such amendments, not exceeding one mile, providing suitably altered Plans and Sections had been deposited with all the relevant authorities by the end of November and unsuccessful applications might also be renewed by the same process.

In the general scramble between rival projects at this period, each desirous of being first in the field or at all events abreast of competitors, imperfect surveys under the imposed conditions became a source of chronic complaint in the House. Conclusive proof of the inadequacy was supplied in July 1840, when the promoters of the Chester and Holyhead line requested indulgence for the Plans and Sections which should have been forthcoming in February and March. The requisite Notices had been published in the press but it had been found impossible to complete the Plans and Sections, which they sought to deposit in November with a view to the introduction of their Bill during 1841. As they had secured a report in favour of their line from the Commissioners appointed to consider competing projects, they appear to have thought their claim a strong one. But the Committee to whom the case was referred was of the opinion that such recommendation was not in itself sufficient to entitle an exemption from Standing Orders and declined to advise any relaxation. The company's Act was not ultimately secured until 1844, by which time the objectionable clause had been removed; it was omitted in 1842 when railways were brought into line with other second class Bills. The limiting date for deposition of Plans was advanced to 20th November in 1930.

The Select Committee which was appointed in 1836 to consider the "conditions which it may be advisable to recommend for introduction into" Railway Bills, besides calling for the odious March deposit, made certain other recommendations to unify the content of the Plans. A minimum scale of four inches to the mile was henceforth required, with enlargements to a minimum of a quarter-inch per hundred feet of any house, yard or garden within the limits of deviation. In order to avoid the duplication involved by these requirements, the later plans were generally drawn to a scale approaching 25 inches to the mile, which removed the necessity for enlargements of any portion. From 1844 the Plans had to show distances marked every furlong from one of the termini and details of any curvature less than one mile radius. In 1846 correlation of the different schemes was greatly facilitated by the required provision of a suitably edited published key map to a scale of at least one half-inch per mile, restricted to the one-inch Ordnance Survey as soon as it had been completed in 1871. In December 1941, when such maps were in short supply, photographic copies were accepted, providing there was no reduction in scale. Thus was made readily available to the students of today a prolific source of the different editions of these maps, of particular note being the half-inch sheets published by J.W. Wild of Charing Cross which were used extensively by the Great Northern Railway before 1850.

Until 1840 it had been necessary to indicate the extent of embankment and cutting on the plan itself, while separate sections to a minimum vertical scale of one inch per hundred feet had also been required since 1836, indicating the clearance at any road, canal or other railway intersection. In 1847 it was Ordered that road and footpath deviations should be shown with detailed cross sections to horizontal and vertical scales of at least 1:3,690 and 1:480 if their levels were to be altered. As early as 1814, in connection with canal Bills, the ascent of public roads to bridges was limited to one foot in thirteen, suitably protected by a four foot fence. In 1836 the rate of ascent was further limited to 1 in 30 for turnpikes and 1 in 20 for other public carriage roads, except upon a special report from the Board of Trade. The place of turnpikes in this Order was successively taken first by "main" roads in 1899 and finally by "classified" roads in 1929/30.

Together with the Notices to individual landowners, Standing Orders had originally required promoters to send out before the end of the year a schedule showing the manner in which their property would be affected. It was difficult to correct them and to prepare the large number required in the time allotted; even when correct they were frequently misleading in their isolation. As the cost of their preparation averaged 15 shillings and 8,000 of them were required for the Midland Railway's extension into London in 1863, the expense of schedules in this single case amounted to £6,000. When the London and York Railway was projected in 1845 it passed through 300 parishes and the cost of the Notices was enormous. In 1863 a Committee of the House recommended that in lieu of the schedules a tracing of the Deposited Plan and Section should be sent, suitably coloured to distinguish each property. Even this was a troublesome process which often gave insufficient information and ultimately Standing Orders were altered so as to require that the schedule briefly describe the affected property and simply give its number on the Plan. As the attached notice indicated the nearest place where the Plans were deposited for inspection, it was easy enough for the receiver to determine exactly how his property would be affected. The limiting date for the delivery of schedules was advanced to 15th December in 1846 and to 5th December in 1930. With the rise of the popular press more reliance was placed upon advertisements and the regulations governing Notices were materially relaxed over the years. Those attached to Church doors were dispensed with in 1847.

The system now in operation thus requires the deposit by 20th November of Plans, Maps, Books of Reference and Sections with the Private Bill Office, with local authorities and certain Government departments. The Plans must indicate by number each separate property on the line of the work and within the limits of deviation. The Book of Reference must contain the name of each owner, lessee and occupier where applicable of every property and give a brief description of the state of its development. Before 5th December every person so described must receive a Notice indicating the most convenient deposit, together with a schedule quoting the number of their plot. A printed, stamped and addressed postcard is enclosed for recording the owner's assent or objection and is returnable to the promoters' solicitor. Thus was streamlined the extremely cumbrous system which existed in 1825 when no written notices were issued. In 1863 G.P. Bidder, a Civil Engineer of some repute, recalled in evidence before the Commons Committee on Private Business that as a young man he had personally waited upon landowners to explain new projects and to solicit their favour.

ORDERING DEPOSITED PLANS

The core reference for ordering deposited plans is as follows:

C/QD/U/DP/

If you want both the plans and the book of reference where these exist separate document request slips are needed with the suffix:

1 for the plans

2 for the book of reference

Hence C/QD/U/DP/1/

or C/QD/U/DP/2/

This is then followed by the reference for the specific item(s) needed. This is a letter indicating the type of deposited plans and then the number of the item within that sequence:

H for roads

M for drainage, bridges, improvements, boundaries

R railways

T tramways, light railways and trolleys

U utilities, gas, water and electricity

W canals and waterways

Hence, the full reference will be, for example:

C/QD/U/DP/1/H2 for a plan

and C/QD/U/DP/2/H2 for a book of reference if there is one.

English

For a considerable period Parliament had exercised, through its minor legislation, an increasing measure of control over both personal interests and the powers of local authorities and of the trading corporations which made such vast developments possible during the Victorian era. For a better evaluation of the content and purpose of the Deposited Plans, some knowledge of the development of Standing Orders of the two Houses of Parliament which brought about this control is required. Beginning in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries with sea fisheries, river weirs and highways, Parliament had to move on to deal successively with ports, municipal improvements, water supplies, land reclamation and drainage, river floods, inclosures, regulation of certain industries, canals, railways, street tramways, river tunnels, gas and electricity supplies and lately pipeline development, beside a host of other matters. During the latter half of the eighteenth century the Legislature's experience of canal development served to establish an acceptable pattern for the control of railways in the following one.

The Growth of Railway Legislation

Long used to convey coal and other minerals from the pits to a convenient place of shipment, many early railways were built upon rented or leased way-leaves over neighbouring property and only crossed public roads by consent of the local authority. Some canal Acts empowered the building of railway feeders and they first came under the notice of Parliamentary Standing Orders in 1799 when they were several times referred to as "dram roads" and treated in the same fashion as canals. Incorporation of the first completely independant Surrey Iron Railway in 1801 was followed by the establishment of approximately one new railway in each year up to 1824, though there were in addition several amending statutes applying to lines already sanctioned and designed chiefly to relieve those companies from financial difficulties. The eighteen new lines sanctioned in the next two years were followed by an average of five more every year until 1836, when powers were obtained for the construction of 29 and in the following year a further 15 new projects. In 1838 the 490 miles open for traffic in England and Wales, together with about 50 miles in Scotland, had cost £13,300,000, Nottinghamshire being represented by the 7¾ miles of the Mansfield and Pinxton Railway, for which £22,800 was authorised, although the Midland Counties Railway was already under construction.

Upon the discovery that almost every line was exceeding its estimated cost, speculation slowed and reaction set in. It seemed that railway enterprise had almost spent itself, few fresh projects appeared while numerous amending Acts were passed to extend the time set for completion of the works or conferring larger captital powers. Some progress was made and at the end of 1843 2,036 of the authorised total of 2,390 miles had been opened for traffic, with £66 million of their aggregate £82,800,000 capital already secured; 11½ miles of the Midland Counties Railway had been added to Nottinghamshire's total complement of 19¼ miles. By the close of 1844 these figures had increased to 2,235 and 3,090 respectively, controlled by 104 companies excluding those already absorbed by others; the total aggregate for all Acts since 1821 was 3,524¼ miles, reduced by omitting those lines abandoned or for which the powers had lapsed. Notwithstanding the large increase over estimated construction costs, the leading companies derived far more than a proportionate increase over estimated revenue and in 1844 the Liverpool and Manchester, Grand Junction, London and Birmingham and the York and North Midland dividends were 10-12%, while the Stockton and Darlington Railway paid 15%.

When such large profits became generally known shares in nearly every railway company rose to high premiums and an increasing number of new projects was designed to open up new districts or by the building of competitive lines to share the traffic on the existing trunk routes. The established companies made strenuous efforts to hold sole possession of their ground, first by alleging vested interests; their capital had been spent upon the implied condition that Parliament had granted unequivocal rights which were not to be prejudiced, even in part, by similar concessions to competitors, except upon clear proof of neglect or inability to accommodate the traffic offering. They very wisely did not entirely rely upon such negative defence and actively sought powers for subsidiary branches and extensions, chiefly intended to block out the intruders, but they paid dearly for such protection. Their possession and a command of almost unlimited resources gave them great power in the Committee Rooms, although it did not always have the desired effect and competing lines were often sanctioned as the best protection against complete monopoly. As a result some 50 new lines, totalling over 800 miles, were approved in 1844, with capital powers amounting to £20½ million, this single year producing an authorised mileage and outlay exceeding that of all lines completed during the first forty years of the century. This was only the first installment of a vast mass of projects which Parliament was asked to consider and the story of the madness which seized upon all classes of society lives in satire as well as in the sober history of the period. Its results in legislation were truly remarkable.

In 1845 118 of the 248 Plans submitted were sanctioned for 2,700 miles (Lewin says 2,816¼) of new lines, to cost £56 million. Before the next Session opened 815 Plans had been lodged for examination by the Board of Trade under Gladstone's new requirements. They involved the construction of a further 20,687 miles and capital powers of not less than £350 million. Some of these projects quickly proved abortive, but more than 700 were presented at the Private Bill Office and after the immense labour involved in considering them and having dismissed a large proportion, Parliament sanctioned another 270 lines which mounted to 4,538 miles and an investment of £132,600,000. The following Session added a further 190 lines, 1,354 miles to cost £39,460,000. The natural result of such excessive speculation was financial disaster and at the end of 1847 a General Act, 11 Victoria cap.3, was passed on 20th December, extending the time set for making certain lines. This relief was far from sufficient and in 1850 another Bill facilitated the abondonment and dissolution of further lines. Of the 8,590 miles sanctioned during the years 1845-7, no less than 1,560 miles were authorised to be abondoned under this second Act, 13 & 14 Victoria cap. 83, and 2,000 miles with the associated £40 million capital were abandoned without consent. Nevertheless twenty years later the exact process was repeated over Branch lines with no less disastrous results. In 1865 the aggregate amount of share and loan capital proposed to be raised by the railway and other Bills then introduced was £216,440,000 and in the following Session £175,490,000.

This pattern is to be seen in the number of plans deposited with the Nottinghamshire Clerks of the Peace. Beginning in 1813, the first year of local deposition, 19 plans had been received by the end of 1843. In the following year 10 schemes were presented for the 1845 Session, to be followed by 34 for 1846 and 10 for 1847. Only 15 of this total were authorised and they were not completed in their entirety. The next four Plans presented for 1848 were solely deviations and amendments sought by the established companies and no further plans were received until 1850. It was not until 1860 that any really fresh projects were launched, reaching a much lower peak of 6 schemes for the 1865 Session. Apart from the rather busy Session of 1872, for which 9 plans were received, progress settled down to not more than 5 applications per Session, with fewer independent projects, gradually falling off after 1920, since which date only 25 plans have been deposited out of the grand total of 281. The mileage involved falls off rapidly as the applications become more concerned with connecting links and additional property to facilitate increased traffic.

Although Parliament had placed a restriction upon the creation of further level crossings as early as 1836, the Committee, or from 1852 the Board of Trade, could recommend a relaxation only upon specific grounds. Nevertheless many heavily trafficked lines were built well into the forties and fifties over level ground with a continuous succession of gated crossings. Some attempt was made to rectify this situation during the early sixties but the great majority of crossing replacements occurred during the eighties. Coincident with the new bridges many road improvements were undertaken by the railway companies and a spate of plans was devoted entirely to this purpose, in addition to the many applications made for widened lines.

This introduction has been freely adapted from Frederick Clifford's "History of Private Bill Legislation" in two volumes published by Butterworth's of London in 1885-7, amended where necessary according to O.C. Williams' 'Historical Development of Private Bill Procedure and Standing Orders in the House of Commons", also in two volumes published by the Stationery Office in 1948-9. Much historical detail has been obtained from the standard railway histories, which should be consulted for further study.

Canals in the County

Because, as explained in the Introduction, local deposition of Plans was not enforced until 1813, canal development is less well represented and a brief word must suffice. At its maximum development in 1800, the local canal system is indicated on diagram i. Based very largely upon the River Trent, which had been navigable up to Burton since 1700 and was later improved and modified by canal competition, only the Nottingham, Grantham and Chesterfield Canals passed through the County for any distance, with short sections of the Erewash and Cromford Canals at Langley Bridge, Eastwood. The extent of the feeder tramway system is also indicated with detail from George Sanderson's 1:25,000 survey of the "30 Miles Around Mansfield". This most informative map was produced between 1830 and 1835 at the height of tramway development and the very beginning of the railway era; it shows the early route first projected for the Midland Counties Railway in items 5 and 6. As explained in the Introduction, no specific powers were obtained for these tramways, apart from the general facilities to neighbouring manufacturers contained in some of the canal Acts and the unique example in the County promoted by an independant body which forms the subject of the first item in the Chronology.