The Lambourn Valley Railway (LVR) was a branch railway line in England, running from the town of Newbury, Berkshire north-west to the civil parish of Lambourn. It was opened in 1898. Fulfilling a local need, it was in financial difficulties throughout its independent life and was sold to the Great Western Railway (GWR) in 1905.
Steam railmotors and a GWR diesel railcar were used on the line, as well as steam engines owned by the Lambourn valley Railway, and Great Western Railway standard engines.
The line closed to passenger traffic in 1960, but a section between Newbury and Welford remained open for freight traffic to RAF Welford until 1972. A special passenger service operated on 3 November 1973 between Newbury and Welford Park to give the public a final trip over the line; a nine-coach train made four runs in each direction, and a special souvenir booklet was produced.
Origins
A horse tramway scheme
Lambourn had been an important agricultural and trading centre, but in the second half of the nineteenth century it was declining. Interested parties suggested a number of ways of making a railway connection, seen as important to revitalising the town, but it was left to the Engineer of the newly authorised Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Railway, E. E. Allen, to propose a realistic scheme. This was a tramway from Newbury to Lambourn; the Tramways Act 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 78) had enabled a low-cost form of railway to be constructed without some of the legal processes required for conventional railways.
There was considerable local enthusiasm for the scheme and the provisional Newbury and Lambourn Tramway Company was formed in late 1873. A 3 ft gauge single track would be laid at the side of the main road, with several short branches within Newbury. It was to be horse-drawn, the vehicle making two round trips daily at first. The cost was estimated at £30,000 and it was authorised by the confirmed by the Tramways Orders Confirmation Act 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. clxxxiii) on 7 August 1874; one year was allowed for construction. A contract for construction was let and a first rail was ceremonially fixed; the subscribers did not come forward and only shares to the value of £4,000 were taken up. The company could not proceed and at the expiry of the year allowed, it was wound up.It appears that two miles of track were laid; Cheap Street and Donnington Square are mentioned in Robertson and Simmonds, page 2; on the same page those authors give a diagram of the tramway track showing Seaton rails flush with a Tarmacadam road surface; the rails are seated on arris timbers but with no additional base timber. (Seaton rails have an inverted Y-shaped lower part, designed to sit astride the angle of the timbers.)Robertson and Simmonds, pages 1 and 2
Not quite a light railway
This was followed by a more conventional railway scheme taking advantage of the Regulation of Railways Act 1868 which, among other things, authorised the construction of a light railway—the first use of the term—subject to conditions that might be imposed by the board of Trade.Colin G Maggs, The Culm Valley Light Railway - Tiverton Junction to Hemyock, The Oakwood Press, Usk, 2006, Peter Bosley, Light Railways in England and Wales, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1990, Regulation of Railways Act 1868 An attempt to get an authorising act of Parliament failed in the 1881 session due to objections over level crossings, but a revised scheme with a shorter route and fewer level crossings was submitted for the 1883 session, and obtained its authorising act of Parliament, the (46 & 47 Vict. c. clxxvi) on 2 August 1883. The Lambourn Valley Railway Company was incorporated, with capital of £100,000. It was to be a single line built on the standard gauge; the estimated cost of the infrastructure was £80,530; it was authorised as an ordinary railway, not a light railway.Notwithstanding the directors' initial intentions for that. See Col Yorke's remarks in May 1904. Several authors (Bosley 1990, Fenton 1992, Monckton 1911, Kidner 1947) have implied light railway status or even named it erroneously The Lambourn Valley Light Railway. This may arise from the failed attempt to obtain a Light Railway Order in 1902. The engineer was John Fowler.
Actually raising the capital was now the task; the directors offered a guaranteed dividend of 5% during the construction period, money that could only be paid out of capital. They also employed a new engineer, H. O. Baldry, who produced a reduced estimate for the construction of £58,068. However, by January 1885 only £23,365 had been subscribed.
In this impasse, the company acquired another engineer, William Gregory, and a new contractor, Jonathan Edwin Billups, who it seemsUncertainty expressed by Robertson and Simmonds. was prepared to undertake the work for £110,000, but he would accept £60,000 of that in shares and £33,000 in debenture stock, only requiring £18,000 in cash. As a means of actually starting construction, this was attractive to the board, although by now they had not even the £18,000: of the £25,930 subscribed £10,000 had been spent on parliamentary costs—an extension of time had been applied for and granted—and land acquisition, and a further £10,000 was considered to be committed. Nonetheless, Billups was asked to start work, which he did on 18 June 1888.Robertson and Simmonds, pages 3 and 4
Construction
The actual construction work proceeded satisfactorily until in June 1890, when about two-thirds of the line was ballasted, a serious contractual dispute with Billups arose. The company went to litigation against him and won, and were awarded costs. Billups left the scene, leaving behind his plant and a construction locomotive Lambourn. The company now decided to progress the works directly, but with almost no money this was a challenge, and no progress was made. Authorisation for a further extension of time and further borrowing were given in the (55 & 56 Vict. c. clxiv), and the company approached the Great Western Railway (GWR) for help; the larger company was sympathetic but unwilling to lend the money.
A further extension of time was obtained, and a working agreement with the GWR was concluded, but no progress on the ground took place until the contractor S Pearson & Son of Westminster offered to complete the work for £33,000. A contract was agreed on 30 January 1897. It is not clear how Pearson expected to be paid the money.
Pearson discovered that he had to rework much of the earlier construction, including excavating 60,000 cu yd of spoil in supposedly finished cuttings, and piling the River Kennet bridge and rectifying problems on several other bridges.
Notwithstanding these additional tasks, Pearson & Son completed the work promptly and all that remained was a contract for the actual connection with the GWR at Newbury, also done by Pearson & Son but as contractor to the GWR.
Before opening to passengers, an inspection by the Board of trade inspector was required; Col. Yorke visited on 31 March 1898. His report is entirely descriptive without any adverse remarks, and he approved the opening. A coal train (not needing the official approval) may have run the following day, but the line opened fully to passengers and goods on 4 April 1898.Robertson and Simmonds, pages 5 to 12
Operating at last So the railway opened, with the GWR operating. That company provided engine power—the 2-4-0TRobertson and Simmonds (page 13) say 0-6-0T, but Reed says it was a 2-4-0T and this is confirmed by photographs in Robertson and Simmond. no 1384 at first—but coaching stock was not available, and the company chairman, Col. Archer-Houblon personally purchased four four-wheeled coaches from the Lincoln Wagon and Engine Company; he made them available to the company on a hire-purchase arrangement, the coaches carrying a plate indicating his ownership in the meantime. Eighteen goods wagons were procured on the same basis. Archer-Houblon had already made loans for some road-surfacing and other works.
The public timetable showed four trains each way daily, with five on Thursdays and Saturdays. A timetable bill shows connections to Liverpool and Manchester over the "D N S Ry" (i.e. the Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Railway, usually abbreviated to DNS) to Didcot and thence the GWR.
The traffic manager of the company was W. H. H. M. Gipps; he had been appointed some time before opening, and he was the only senior official in the company with practical railway experience, as he was also traffic manager of the Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Railway (DNS). Gipps promoted excursions from the Lambourn line to Southampton over the DNS. He had long urged the company to acquire its own locomotives and work the line itself, and Archer-Houblon once again provided the cash on a personal basis, and two 0-6-0T locomotives were purchased from Chapman and Furneaux of Gateshead, for £1,330 each. The first, Aelfred, arrived on 15 October 1898 and started work on 18 October, and the second, Ealhswith a day or so later.
The financial results of the first year of operation showed an operating profit of £954, making 19.7% of turnover. This was quite healthy, except that £857 8s 9d was due to Archer-Houblon as part of the agreed hire-purchase arrangement for rolling stock.
In 1902 J. B. Squire was appointed as managing director of the company. Commissioned to investigate economies, he recommended reducing the train service by one train daily, enabling a single engine to operate the service. All the goods work would be done in mixed trains, and there were later complaints about the delay to passengers in shunting.Robertson and Simmonds, pages 13 to 25
The search for economy Continuing to look for ways to reduce cost, the company applied in November 1902 for a light railway order under the terms of the Light Railways Act 1896. It is not clear what benefit this was expected to give them, but a hearing was held on 31 July 1903 and the order was refused.
The locomotive Ealhswith required an overhaul, and a third locomotive was procured from the Hunslet Engine Company, paying by instalments.
In 1902 the GWR made an offer to purchase the line for £45,000. At this time the company had debts of over £27,000, but they rejected the offer outright, relying on optimistic ideas of improving income on the line and the directors' willingness to fund necessary outgoing s personally. The offer was repeated in 1904 with an offer of £50,000 but was again rejected.
Unabashed, the GWR now suggested that their new railmotors would be useful on the line; specially developed to reduce costs on lightly trafficked lines, these consisted of a passenger coach with a small steam engine incorporated at one end. The railmotors could haul one or two goods wagons or a trailer coach. The Board considered this to be an attractive idea, and applied to the Board of Trade on 3 May 1904 for sanction to operate them. This was necessary because the axle load of the railmotors, at 12 tons, exceeded the authorised rolling stock weights.The reason for this limitation is not clear; light railways had an 8 ton axle load limit on their stock, but the Lambourn Valley had not been authorised as a light railway.
Col Yorke of the Board of Trade made an inspection on 7 May 1904, in which two railmotors were passed over the underbridges together; some brickwork repairs were pointed out, but the proposal was approved. Yorke made the comment that:
for all practical purposes the line is now a light railway, though neither of the clauses referring to the Lt. Rly Act of 1860 nor the Lt. Rly. Act of 1896 apply to it.Col. Yorke, Report of Inspection, quoted in Robertson and Simmonds