A railway that never was: Richmond to Reeth

There was a seventy year history behind attempts to get a railway to Reeth – these proposals ultimately foundered when the First World War broke out. Had the railway been built Marske, and perhaps also Hudswell and Marrick, would surely have had stations!

1846: Richmond gets a railway

The railway reached Richmond in 1846, via a 10-mile spur from what is now the East Coast Mainline between Northallerton and Darlington at Eryholme Junction near Dalton¹.  The opening of this railway cut the cost of transporting lead from Swaledale to Stockton by one-third.  After opening there were four passenger trains per day between Darlington and Richmond, as well as weekend excursion trains to places such as Redcar².  From 1854 the railway was owned and operated by the North East Railway, who had a near monopoly in the region³.

Railway mania and Swaledale

The “railway mania” of the 1840s included the first proposals to link Richmond to either Hawes or Kirkby Stephen.  The plans were buoyed up by the prospects of transporting lead, and supported by mining entrepreneurs.  The plans were turned down by Parliament as being impractical.  More plans were again developed in 1868/9, again by lead mining interests.  The North Eastern Railway (NER) was not overenthusiastic about playing a role, local support fell short of expectations, and again nothing came of the plans⁴. 

1880s:  Richmond – Hawes Railway

A scheme for two stations in Richmond

In 1878 the railway through Wensleydale linking Northallerton, Leyburn and Hawes to the Midland Railway at Garsdale Head was completed.  This railway was owned by the NER as far as Hawes and the Midland Railway beyond⁵.  This development led to sense that Swaledale was losing out.  Plans were developed in 1882 for a railway between Richmond and Reeth running entirely on the north side of the Swale.  (Ultimately the objective was a railway to Richmond and hence the map book is titled “Richmond and Hawes Junction Railway”.)  These plans included a second terminus station at Richmond, near to Sylvio House (now 10 Hurgill Road), and an inconvenient half mile from the North Eastern Railway’s Richmond Station^6,4,7!  It was not ideal to be planning a second station on the opposite side of the town – but this solution was driven by the fact that terminus of the railway into Richmond from Darlington was “pointing” towards the hill on which the town is sited!  A through route would have required either a costly tunnel under the town, or alternately a route along the south of the Swale which would have required at least one bridge.  The promoters in the 1880s avoided these issues by proposing that Richmond should have two stations.

Strong local support from landowners

By 1882 nearly £1000 had been raised locally towards the preliminary expenses for the “Richmond and Hawes Junction Railway” from local landowners⁶.  The supporters included the Earl of Zetland and those with land holdings in Upper Swaledale beyond Grinton. The Hutton’s of Marske were not reported as contributing to the development funding⁹.  A hand drawn map carefully documents which of the John Timothy D’Arcy Hutton’s tenant farmers would have been affected by the railway¹⁰ – maybe the Hutton’s were confining their interest to taking a “watching brief?

Tempting the upper classes away from foreign holidays

The Ripon and Richmond Chronicle in December 1882⁶ gives an interesting account of the meeting held by the Richmond Town Council to give their blessing to these plans.  The Mayor opened a meeting expecting unanimity.  Councillor Raine noted that the railway in Wensleydale had brought middle-class people into the area on trips from Hartlepool, Sunderland and Newcastle, and suggested that better railways serving “charming” Swaledale would bring the upper class who used to come to Richmond but now went on holiday to Scotland and foreign countries!  However the unanimity was broken by Councillor Young, a Richmond brewer, who was worried local businesses would not be able to “command their trade” if the railway was built.  It is a bit puzzling that a railway to Reeth and Hawes could not have given Cllr Young too much to worry about.  However, he said he could not compete with larger breweries, and shaded his arguments against the railway with the idea that these breweries were not honestly brewing from malt and hops, and used quantities of chemicals in their beer!  The Mayor was clearly having none of it – and extolled Cllr Young to sell as good beer as the other breweries!  One suspects that William Cameron, a large Hartlepool brewer, who settled in Marske Hall in the 1890s, would have been on the side of the Mayor.  The Town Council gave their assent to the plans.

Engineering difficulties

Despite the support of the Richmond Town Council and local landowners it was engineering difficulties that caused the plans to be abandoned⁴.  The nature of these engineering difficulties is unknown – but they may have been related to attempts to create a railway connection within Richmond to the NER station. Had such a railway had been built it is likely that a halt would have been provided within the Hutton Estate lands to serve Marske. 

1912: A railway to Reeth via Marske?

The Light Railway Act and a new way forward

Despite the engineering difficulties, the waning fortunes of the lead mining industry, and the track record of previous plans yet more proposals were developed from 1895.  These proposals were spurred on by the 1896 Light Railway Act¹¹ which had been designed to save time and cost in developing railways, especially in rural areas.  An order by the Light Railway Commissioners was all that was necessary to secure the powers needed to build the railway, and the railway could also be built to cheaper reduced standards (e.g., level crossings without gates, and basic signalling).  And HM Treasury would consider applying state funds if the Board of Agriculture believed there were benefit to farming.  The plans in Swaledale were led by Mr JW Close¹², who had chert quarrying interests at Fremington, and a number of other local landowners including JT D’Arcy Hutton from Marske¹³.  The plans moved slowly, and it was 1912 before a final push was made to secure the necessary approvals and funding. 

A better approach to engineering?

The light railway plans attempted to address one of the deficiencies in the previous plans by creating a connection at the North-Eastern Railway station in Richmond – rather than having two disconnected stations in Richmond. However, if the plans were to avoid a tunnel they required the railway to run on the south side of the Swale towards Reeth – adding costly bridges of the river¹⁴.  The railway was to have three stopping places and it is safe to assume Marske would have been one¹⁵!  Excerpts from the plans are shown below – including where the railway would have passed Marske.

Inquiry in Richmond

The scheme had to gain the confidence of the Light Rail Commisioners, and the culmination of their process was an Inquiry in Richmond in February 1912¹⁶.  The case was made by the Leeds South MP, and solicitor for the scheme, William Middlebrook¹⁷, who argued for the new railway in terms of agriculture, lead mines, chert quarries, and the opportunities to attract more visitors to the area.  In the summer of 1911 9,000 visitors had been “posted” up the dale from Richmond to Fremington (so perhaps 50 to 100 per day).  Mr Middlebrook was also quoted as saying that the railway followed practically the same course as that developed 40 years previously; this was clearly not the case – and one wonders if he was glossing over the material, and costly, differences in the new plans. 

The engineer who had designed the scheme, Sebastian Meyer, noted to the Inquiry that the capital costs were £40,307.  The expected receipts were £4,200 per year, resulting in a margin of £1,200 on the working expenses of £3,000 per year.  The Treasury had been asked to provide a grant of £20,000 – with other costs being funded locally.  The discussion at the Inquiry revealed problems with the design of the junction with the North Eastern Railway (NER) at Richmond.   

The Commissioners gave their general approval subject to Treasury and Reeth Rural District Council providing “needful” financial support¹⁸.  The mood of those at the Inquiry was buoyant. 

Going off the rails

However, in the background Treasury was finding that its budget for light railways in the England, Scotland and Wales was becoming stretched.  In modern parlance their financial commitment to the Reeth railway was an example of “over-programming”.  They had also experienced cost increases, with some exasperation, in respect of a scheme for a railway between Dingwall and Cromarty in Scotland¹⁹

Engineering, archaeological and commercial difficulties

It was against this backdrop that emerging problems with the junction design at Richmond led to the promoters asking for 50% more money from Treasury.  Various practical options to resolve the junction designs at Richmond station would have led to “passing over the foundations of an ancient abbey” (maybe we should reflect on the positive fact that avoiding St Martin’s Priory was an important consideration!).  As an alternative to this cultural descecration designs were drawn up that instead included destroying parts of the North Eastern Railway’s good yards, creating new facilities for the NER, and paying the NER compensation.  These changes, when taken together with other cost increases on plans prepared in 1868 (!), led to a 40% increase in the total costs to £56,000^20,21.  The Light Railway Committee used sparse language in criticising this reliance on 46-year old plans saying it “was an unsatisfactory way of drawing up plans and estimates, and should be discouraged by those in authority”. They also felt the promoters were being squeezed by the NER – as doubtless they were²².  After consideration of the “sketchy estimates of receipts”, the guaranteed minimum annual payment of £3000 to the NER for operating the railway, and interest on capital invested, it looked very likely that the railway would run at a deficit²³.

Finance breaks the scheme

The financing of the scheme ultimately became the breaking point.  Treasury was persuaded to offer an increased loan of £25k so long as loans provided by the local authorities were on terms that did not put Treasury on a lesser footing²⁴.  Reeth and North Yorkshire were not prepared to accept this, which cannot have inspired confidence in their belief in the value of the scheme²⁵.  Treasury felt the local authorities were acting as no more than banks, and were not accepting the benefits the railway would mean locally²⁶.  However the local authorities had probably over-extended themselves already.  Between Reeth Rural District Council and the North Riding County Council they had been prepared to loan £20,000 – supposedly offset by reductions of £7000 in road maintenance²¹.  Whilst the parallel road to this day has high maintenance costs due to subsidence, it is unlikely that a new railway would have removed the need for much of that maintenance.  Furthermore the North Riding was also assuming Marske, Marrick and Hudswell Councils would chip in about £800 each – given that those parish councils hardly have that amount of money in their bank accounts in the 2020s, let alone a hundred years ago, this seems to have been a heroic position!  All-in-all the financial underpinnings had become fatally shaky. 

More trouble than it is worth

The final letter making the case to Treasury for the promotors came in late September 1914, two months after the commencement of World War One²⁷.  Treasury’s internal file note attached to this letter starts with the words “This line is pretty obviously more trouble than it is worth”, and notes that the money could be better spent elsewhere to relieve distress.  Their formal letter to William Middlebrook three weeks later was uncompromising and put the scheme to rest for ever²⁸.  In a tidying up exercise the file was closed after the First World War in 1924 – and the chance for Reeth and Marske to get a railway was lost forever²⁹.

WW1 brought a different railway to Swaledale

Ironically though it was the First World War that brought and expansion of railways to Swaledale – in the extension of the Richmond branch to the new Catterick Camp in 1915³⁰.  This involved the trains from Darlington reversing at Catterick Bridge, not far from the Farmers Arms pub there.  This line closed and Wikipedia records, perhaps unsurprisingly, that in actual practice most servicemen were instead bused from Richmond to Catterick!  See pages on Feldom and Catterick for the impacts in World War Two of Catterick Camp on the area. 

20th century railway fortunes

During the twentieth century the number of trains increased on the Darlington-Richmond branch, and by 1960 the service was roughly hourly.  The last passenger train ran to Richmond in 1969 when the line was closed. The last train had run to Catterick Camp in 1964³⁰.  Today the X26 and X27 buses ply the route between Darlington, Richmond and Catterick Garrison.  Perhaps surprisingly they provide just as good a service the railway ever did, being more frequent and just as fast.

Return to History pages

1. Wikipedia.  Richmond branch line.  Accessed 2023.[↩]
2. Fieldhouse, R and Jennings, B. 1978. A History of Richmond and Swaledale.  Page 460.[↩]
3. Wikipedia.  North Eastern Railway.  Accessed 2023.[↩]
4. Fieldhouse, R and Jennings, B. 1978. A History of Richmond and Swaledale.  Page 461.[↩][↩][↩]
5. Wikipedia.  Wensleydale Railway – History.  Accessed 2023.[↩]
6. Ripon and Richmond Chronicle.  23 Dec 1882.  The Richmond and Hawes Junction Railway.  Viewed at The British Newspaper Archive (BNA website).[↩][↩][↩]
7. Fraser, J. and Sons, Engineers.  1882.  Richmond and Hawes Junction Railway.  Plans and Sections.  NYCRO MC 2001[↩][↩][↩][↩]
8. National Library of Scotland. Six Inch copy of 1911 Ordnance Survey maps.[↩]
9. Ripon and Richmond Chronicle.  29 Aug 2021.  The Champion Racehorse Richmond and Hawes Junction Railway.  Viewed at The British Newspaper Archive (BNA website).[↩]
10. Hutton Archive in NYCRO.  Hand drawn, undated map, c1880.  NYCRO MC 2001/230[↩]
11. Wikipedia.  Light Railways Act 1896.  Accessed 2023[↩]
12. Light Railway Commission. 1914. Swaledale Light Railway Order 1914. JW Close is the leading individual named – he and Sebastian Meyer were to be Directors of the Company[↩]
13. Fieldhouse, R and Jennings, B. 1978. A History of Richmond and Swaledale.  Page 461.[↩]
14. National Archives RAIL 1037/543.  After 1909.  Ordnance Survey map:  Richmond (Proposed Richmond-Reeth Railway inserted).  Scale 6 inches to one mile.[↩][↩][↩]
15. National Archives T/11686.  Nov 1911.  Light Railway Commission. Swaledale Light Railway. Estimate of Cost of the proposed light railway.[↩]
16. Yorkshire Post.  23 Feb 1912.  Swaledale Light Railway.  Official Inquiry at Richmond.  Commissioners Approve the Scheme.  Viewed at The British Newspaper Archive (BNA website).[↩]
17. Wikipedia.  William Middlebrook.  Accessed 2023[↩]
18. Yorkshire Post.  23 February 1912.  Swaledale Light Railway.  Accessed 2023.  BNA reference.[↩]
19. National Archives T/11686.  16 Nov 1911.  Notes filed by Treasury alongside letter from Mr Meyer (Promoter’s engineer) asking for support.[↩]
20. National Archives T/11686.  28 Feb 1914.  Letter from Mr Meyer (Promoter’s engineer) on changes in scheme costs.[↩]
21. National Archives T/11686.  20 Apr 1914.  Third report of Light Railway Grants Committee – to Treasury.[↩][↩]
22. National Archives T/11686.  27 Apr 1914.  Memorandum by Secretary of Grants Committee – to Treasury.[↩]
23. National Archives T/11686.  24 Jun 1914.  Internal Treasury file notes attached to letter from Mr Meyer(Promoter’s engineer).[↩]
24. National Archives T/11686.  15 May 1914.  Letter from Treasury (Sir J.K. Heath) to Mr Meyer (Promoter’s engineer).[↩]
25. National Archives T/11686.  24 June 1914.  Letter from Mr Meyer (Promoter’s engineer) to Treasury (Sir J.K. Heath).[↩]
26. National Archives T/11686.  24 Jun 1914.  Internal Treasury file notes attached to letter from Mr Meyer (Promoter’s engineer).[↩]
27. National Archives T/11686.  29 Sep 1914.  Letter from Wm Middlebrook (Promoter) to Sir Thomas Heath (Treasury).[↩][↩]
28. National Archives T/11686.  22 Oct 1914.  Letter from Sir Thomas Heath (Treasury) to Wm Middlebrook (Promoter).[↩]
29. National Archives T/11686.  17 Jan 1924.  Ministry of Transport letter to Treasury.[↩]
30. Ludlam, A.J.. 1993. The Catterick Camp Military Railway and the Richmond Branch.  Oakwood Press.[↩][↩]