Talk:Nickey Line/Archive 1

Archive 1

Marlowes viaduct

crossed the lower end of Marlowes over a viaduct, demolished in 1959. Can someone point to a source for the '1959' as I recall the viaduct still being there in the early 1960s, being then demolished to make way for the new BP building wich straddled Marlowes in almost exactly the same alignment as the viaduct had. Something around 1963 would seem more accurate. --Vamp:Willow 13:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Straw plait trade

I find it incredible that a railway line needed to be built to carry straw plait from Hemel Hempstead to Luton. Was HH manufacturing so much that it needed to be delivered by the train load? Is straw plait so bulky and heavy that it could not be transported by horse and cart? I suggest that there were broader economic reasons for the building of this line. Hemel had missed being directly connected to the NW railway and the Midland saw a chance to get its hands on most of Hemel’s trade. There is also evidence that house building began around the midland station soon after it was built and that the line generated new commuter traffic. I think the straw plait story is a bit of a fanciful tale. Lumos3 23:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you, but that's what the only two books published on the topic say! Don't forget though that at that time Britain was in the grip of "railway mania" just as it had been in the grip of "canal mania" a century prior. Building lines was far cheaper than it is today as labour was dirt cheap, and wasn't hamstrung by endless public enquiries, etc. If there was even the slightest need for a line, it was built. The builders looked on it as an investment, and knew it would generate further development, etc. Disentangling cause and effect is difficult; the straw plait trade was probably just the excuse to build it, but the investors knew that it would generate other opportunities that would make it profitable. Transport infrastructure is not handled in anything like the same way today, which is why it might seem odd. Graham 00:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Good points. Hemel Hempstead was the largest grain market and milling centre north of London during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries and the turnpike (old A41) was notorious for being damaged by the heavy carts carrying grain which used it. The transport of grain may be a more likely economic cause for the line. See this from 1797[1] Lumos3 11:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff - I never knew Hemel was such a centre for grain. Logically I guess the straw plait trade was a spinoff of this - a use for the stalks. Your theory sounds very plausible. It might be possible to dig up some of the original proposals for the line which could shed some light - since they needed an act of parliament it's probably recorded somewhere. Unfortunately I read the two cited books in Hemel library, I don't own copies, so I can't check with this in mind (and I live in Australia so just popping back down there is going to be hard!). Are you local? Graham 11:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I live in Boxmoor. I'll see what I can find.Lumos3 21:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

References

What idiot put up the "no references" banner? There's a whole section called "References" that lists all known books about the line. It's not exactly a topic that has libraries brimming you know. Sheesh. 121.216.148.48 (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Why the name?

Could someone please add a crucial bit of missing info: why this line is called the "Nick(e)y Line"? 109.151.2.199 (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Links at the Hemel Hempstead end

Someone is going to have to decide whether there was a link at the southern end to the main line or not. If there was an occasional freight train what did it travel on? Did it go into a separate yard? If the goods train only went to the gasworks as the line went no further the article does not make this very clear. The Disused Stations page has a map that describes a link as having been removed "circa 1916". Is this true? The diagram is not right anyway as the lines should almost meet. I will do some digging. Britmax (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The short answer is "not exactly". According to the main book on the line (Woodward, Sue; Woodward, Geoff (2002) [1996]. The Harpenden to Hemel Hempstead Railway; The Nickey Line (Locomotion Papers No. 197). Usk, Mon.: The Oakwood Press. ISBN 978-0-85361-502-6.), the Acts authorising the line did not grant a licence to carry passengers between Boxmoor (now Hemel Hempstead) and the Midland's Hemel station. A connection of sorts was laid to the LNWR's goods yard at Boxmoor where a short spur led to a turntable connection with the station sidings, but it is not clear whether this was ever fully operational as newspapers at the time of opening in 1877 speak of a "half-completed junction". A Midland trespass notice on the Hemel side of Roughdown Road bridge indicated that this was the limit of its ownership. As for goods traffic, there is no evidence of through workings from Boxmoor. A gasworks linked by a siding near the Hemel end of the line applied in 1933 for a siding connection to Boxmoor but this was refused; it was indicated that the main line at Boxmoor was only 21 chains from the end of the Nickey line. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Sounds about par for the course in the wacky world of Victorian railway politics. Britmax (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)