DOCSLIB.ORG

Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960…

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960… © A. Barrie Goldstone 2020: page 0 The Barrie Guide to Tort 2020 Volume Two Nervous Shock Private Nuisance Occupiers’ Liability Barrie Goldstone Head of the School of Law London Metropolitan University © A. Barrie Goldstone 2020: page 1 CONTENTS SECTION ONE: NERVOUS SHOCK 1 THE POLICY OF LIMITATION 2 DEFINING NERVOUS SHOCK 3 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW i. Originally there was no liability for causing someone nervous shock though negligence ii. There was liability for causing nervous shock deliberately iii. Duty owed in negligence to a primary victim only: the Kennedy Limitation iv. Duty recognised in negligence to a secondary victim v. Secondary victim duty denied to a mere bystander vi. Duty extended to secondary victims who have become unwillingly involved in causing the injuries to the immediate victim vii. Apparent inconsistency over duty to secondary victims viii. Duty extended to secondary victims who come to the rescue of immediate victims and are shocked by what they see ix. Duty extended to loved ones who see the immediate aftermath of an accident, rather than witnessing the accident itself x. Duty to primary victims subject to the ‘egg-shell’ skull rule 4 THE CURRENT LAW: Primary Victims i. The general rule of primary victims ii. Primary victims and the ‘thin skull rule’ iii. The extent of the threat to a primary victim iv. Examples of the application of the Page v. Smith rule v. Stillbirth arising from clinical negligence vi. Secondary victims and the ‘thin skull rule’ 5 RESCUERS AS PRIMARY VICTIMS 6 ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS AS PRIMARY VICTIMS 7 SECONDARY VICTIMS: Introduction 8 SECONDARY VICTIMS: Alcock v. CCSYP 9 SECONDARY VICTIMS: The Control Mechanisms © A. Barrie Goldstone 2020: page 2 10 SECONDARY VICTIMS: The First Control Mechanism i. The secondary victim must be a ‘loved one’ of the immediate victim ii. Mere bystanders iii. Mere bystanders claiming to be primary victims iv. Same sex couples 11 SECONDARY VICTIMS: The Second Control Mechanism i. The secondary victim must be proximate to the accident ii. Close in time iii. Close in space iv. Live TV transmissions 12 SECONDARY VICTIMS: The Third Control Mechanism i. The shock must have been caused by sudden horror at the event ii. Claims which failed because the shock was not a sudden reaction to the negligent act iii. Treating a series of events as a single event: exceptional cases 13 SECONDARY VICTIMS: Proposed Reform 14 SECONDARY VICTIMS: Further Limitations 15 PROPERTY DAMAGE 16 STRESS AT WORK 17 STRESS IN PRISON 18 FEAR OF CONTRACTING AN ILLNESS 19 MORTIFICATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS 20 TRYING IT ON © A. Barrie Goldstone 2020: page 3 SECTION TWO: PRIVATE NUISANCE 21 INTRODUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS 22 WHO CAN SUE FOR NUISANCE? i. The general rule ii. An attempt to overturn the general rule iii. Restoring the rule iv. The claimant must have an interest in the affected land 23 THE POSSIBLE DEFENDANTS: THE PERSON WHO IS CREATING OR HAS CREATED THE NUISANCE 24 THE POSSIBLE DEFENDANTS: THE OCCUPIER OF THE LAND 25 THE POSSIBLE DEFENDANTS: THE LANDLORD OF THE PERSON WHO IS CREATING THE NUISANCE i. Authorising a tenant to create a nuisance ii. Some quirky cases iii. Committing the nuisance in the capacity of being a tenant iv. Liability towards one’s own tenants: Caveat Lessee 26 AN UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE WITH THE ENJOYMENT OF LAND i. Noise: the racing stadium cases ii. Noise: the upstairs neighbours cases iii. Smells iv. Vibrations v. Natural encroachments vi. Sex establishments vii. Dust 27 INTERFERENCE WHICH DOES NOT USUALLY CONSTITUTE AN ACTIONABLE NUISANCE i. Interference with television signals ii. Right to a view (sometimes called ‘a prospect’) iii. Right to air-flow iv. Right to light v. Overlooking other people’s property © A. Barrie Goldstone 2020: page 4 28 THE INTERFERENCE MUST BE UNREASONABLE i. Normal behaviour ii. Duration and extent of the nuisance iii. Sensitivity of the claimant iv. Location v. The effect of planning permission on the character of a location vi. Malice by the defendant vii. Causing physical damage viii. The cost of non-abatement ix. The utility of the defendant’s conduct 29 PRIVATE NUISANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS 30 POTENTIAL DEFENCES TO PRIVATE NUISANCE i. Coming to the nuisance ii. Twenty years prescription iii. Conduct permitted by statute 31 REMEDIES FOR PRIVATE NUISANCE i. Injunction ii. Damages iii. Abatement © A. Barrie Goldstone 2020: page 5 SECTION THREE: OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY 32 INTRODUCTION 33 OCCUPIERS’ DUTY OF CARE TO VISITORS 34 WHO IS AN OCCUPIER? i. The statutory definition ii. Joint occupiers iii. Occupiers who are not in possession of the premises 35 WHAT ARE PREMISES? 36 WHO IS A VISITOR? i. Implied permission ii. Implied authority of an employee to invite people onto the employee’s premises iii. Rights of way 37 CHILDREN AS VISITORS AT COMMON LAW i. The Doctrine of Allurement 38 WHAT IS THE COMMON DUTY OF CARE? 39 AN OBJECTIVE TEST 40 ‘OCCUPANCY DUTY’ AND ‘ACTIVITY DUTY’ 41 ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE i. The slipping over cases ii. Slipping through stupidity iii. Precautions only need to be reasonable: they do not have to be absolute iv. Falling out of windows v. The occupier’s own safety vi. Visible hazards vii. Taking expert safety advice viii. Ignoring expert safety advice 42 EXERCISE OF A CALLING © A. Barrie Goldstone 2020: page 6 43 THE DUTY OWED TO CHILDREN UNDER OLA 1957 i. The additional duty owed to children ii. The limitations on the duty owed to children iii. The duty of parental responsibility 44 DAMAGE TO PROPERTY 45 THE EFFECT OF WARNINGS 46 OBVIOUS DANGERS i. The shallow water cases ii. Other obvious dangers 47 LIABILITY FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY THE FAULTY WORK OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR i. Contractors doing technical work ii. Contractors doing simple jobs iii. Contractors doing dangerous work iv. Contractors misleading the occupier as to their ability or qualifications 48 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE 49 EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY 50 OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY TO NON-VISITORS PRE-1984 51 THE OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1984 i. Who is a trespasser? ii. When is a duty owed? The three criteria 52 AWARENESS OF THE DANGER i. The child trespasser 53 KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRESPASSER IN THE VICINITY 54 PROTECTION FROM THE RISK 55 THE STANDARD OF CARE REQUIRED UNDER OLA 1984 i. Warnings to trespassers ii. Obvious dangers do not require warnings 56 OLA 1984 DOES NOT COVER PROPERTY DAMAGE 57 OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE © A. Barrie Goldstone 2020: page 7 SECTION ONE: NERVOUS SHOCK 1 THE POLICY OF LIMITATION 1.1 Where a claimant suffers physical injury, he may claim also for any mental injury under the heading of ‘pain and suffering’. 1.2 However, where he suffers ONLY mental injury without any physical injury, his claim is much more limited. This is an issue of DUTY OF CARE. For purely policy reasons, the courts have restricted claims for pure psychiatric illness (nervous shock) with a set of special ‘control mechanisms’. 1.3 It has been clear since Dulieu v. White (1901) 2 KB 669 that a negligent act or omission which causes pure nervous shock may be actionable in damages, but such actions have been severely limited in two ways. 1. The claimant must prove that he has been caused to suffer from a recognised psychiatric illness, rather than mere grief or anxiety 2. He must also prove that he was owed a duty of care by the defendant, and in nervous shock cases the courts have imposed limitations far more strict than mere ‘reasonable foreseeability.’ 1.4 In White v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 (HL) Lord Steyn explained the policy reasons for these limitations. White v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 (HL) “In an ideal world all those who have suffered as a result of the negligence ought to be compensated. But we do not live in Utopia: we live in a practical world where the tort system imposes limits to the classes of claims that rank for consideration as well as to the heads of recoverable damages. This results, of course, in imperfect justice but it is by and large the best that the common law can do. The application of the requirement of reasonable foreseeability was sufficient for the disposal of the resulting claims for death and physical injury. But the common law regards reasonable foreseeability as an inadequate tool for the disposal of claims in respect of emotional injury. There are at least four distinctive features of claims for psychiatric harm which in combination may account for the differential treatment. “Firstly, there is the complexity of drawing the line between acute grief and psychiatric harm. The symptoms may be the same. But there is greater diagnostic uncertainty in psychiatric injury cases than in physical injury cases. The classification of emotional injury is often controversial. In order to establish psychiatric harm expert evidence is required. That involves the calling of consultant psychiatrists on both sides. It is a costly and time-consuming exercise. If claims for psychiatric harm were to be treated as generally on a par with physical injury it would have implications for the administration of justice. On its own this factor may not be entitled to great weight and may not outweigh the considerations of justice supporting genuine claims in respect of pure psychiatric injury. “Secondly, there is the effect of the expansion of the availability of compensation on potential claimants who have witnessed gruesome events. I do not have in mind fraudulent or bogus claims, but I do have in mind the unconscious effect of the prospect of compensation on potential claimants.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NR05 Oxford TWAO
    OFFICIAL Rule 10(2)(d) Transport and Works Act 1992 The Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 Network Rail (Oxford Station Phase 2 Improvements (Land Only)) Order 202X Report summarising consultations undertaken 1 Introduction 1.1 Network Rail Infrastructure Limited ('Network Rail') is making an application to the Secretary of State for Transport for an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992. The proposed order is termed the Network Rail (Oxford Station Phase 2 Improvements (Land Only)) Order ('the Order'). 1.2 The purpose of the Order is to facilitate improved capacity and capability on the “Oxford Corridor” (Didcot North Junction to Aynho Junction) to meet the Strategic Business Plan objections for capacity enhancement and journey time improvements. As well as enhancements to rail infrastructure, improvements to highways are being undertaken as part of the works. Together, these form part of Oxford Station Phase 2 Improvements ('the Project'). 1.3 The Project forms part of a package of rail enhancement schemes which deliver significant economic and strategic benefits to the wider Oxford area and the country. The enhanced infrastructure in the Oxford area will provide benefits for both freight and passenger services, as well as enable further schemes in this strategically important rail corridor including the introduction of East West Rail services in 2024. 1.4 The works comprised in the Project can be summarised as follows: • Creation of a new ‘through platform’ with improved passenger facilities. • A new station entrance on the western side of the railway. • Replacement of Botley Road Bridge with improvements to the highway, cycle and footways.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C. List of Consultees
    Appendix C. List of Consultees C.1. Introduction C.1.1 This appendix provides a list of the organisations consulted under section 42, section 47 and section 48 of the Planning Act 2008 . C.2. Section 42(1)(a) Prescribed Consultees C.2.1 Prescribed consultees are set out under Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 ; these are outlined in Appendix Table A below. Any variation from the list of organisations set out in Schedule 1 is clarified within column 3 of the table. C.2.2 The Planning Inspectorate provided a list of prescribed consultation bodies in accordance with Regulation 9(1)(b) of the EIA Regulations and Advice Note three 1 (see Appendix A ), referred to as the “Regulation 9 list”. Those consultees included in the Reg 9 list are included in Table A, B and C. Those consultees that were not previously identified as a prescribed consultee as per Schedule 1 are identified with asterisk (*), and were consulted in the same way as the Schedule 1 consultees. C.2.3 The list of parish councils consulted under section 42 (1) (a) is outlined separately in Appendix Table C. The list of statutory undertakers consulted under Section 42 (1) (a) is outlined separately in Appendix Table B . C.2.4 Organisations noted in Appendix Tables A, B and C were issued with a copy of the Section 48 notice, notifying them of the proposed application and with consultation information, including the consultation brochure and details of how to respond. Appendix Table A: Prescribed Consultees Variation from the schedule where Consultee Organisation applicable The proposed application is not likely The Welsh Ministers N/A to affect land in Wales.
    [Show full text]
  • The Electric Telegraph
    To Mark, Karen and Paul CONTENTS page ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENTS TO 1837 13 Early experiments—Francis Ronalds—Cooke and Wheatstone—successful experiment on the London & Birmingham Railway 2 `THE CORDS THAT HUNG TAWELL' 29 Use on the Great Western and Blackwall railways—the Tawell murder—incorporation of the Electric Tele- graph Company—end of the pioneering stage 3 DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE COMPANIES 46 Early difficulties—rivalry between the Electric and the Magnetic—the telegraph in London—the overhouse system—private telegraphs and the press 4 AN ANALYSIS OF THE TELEGRAPH INDUSTRY TO 1868 73 The inland network—sources of capital—the railway interest—analysis of shareholdings—instruments- working expenses—employment of women—risks of submarine telegraphy—investment rating 5 ACHIEVEMENT IN SUBMARINE TELEGRAPHY I o The first cross-Channel links—the Atlantic cable— links with India—submarine cable maintenance com- panies 6 THE CASE FOR PUBLIC ENTERPRISE 119 Background to the nationalisation debate—public attitudes—the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce— Frank Ives. Scudamore reports—comparison with continental telegraph systems 7 NATIONALISATION 1868 138 Background to the Telegraph Bill 1868—tactics of the 7 8 CONTENTS Page companies—attitudes of the press—the political situa- tion—the Select Committee of 1868—agreement with the companies 8 THE TELEGRAPH ACTS 154 Terms granted to the telegraph and railway companies under the 1868 Act—implications of the 1869 telegraph monopoly 9 THE POST OFFICE TELEGRAPH 176 The period 87o-1914—reorganisation of the
    [Show full text]
  • ASTRODYNAMICS Z^S Hovercraft
    UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW Postgraduate Courses At CRANFIELD (Departments of Astronomy and Aeronautics & Fluid Mechanics) Diploma Course in Air Transport ASTRODYNAMICS Engineering Commencing October 1969 The College of Aeronautics offers a one-year Subjects of Study residential postgraduate course in Air Transport Celestial Mechanics and Astrodynamics Engineering designed for engineers and scientists of graduate standard concerned with or interested Numerical Methods and Programming in the airline industry and the transport aircraft Environmental Problems manufacturing industry. Propulsion Navigation and Stabilisation The syllabus covers the operational, engineering Re-entry Problems and economic implications of air transport together Joint Project on the Requirements of a Hypothetical Mission with the directly related aspects of systems, materials, design and propulsion. Entry requirement: Degree or equivalent in Science Full use is made of College aircraft and extensive (Astronomy, Mathematics or Physics) or Engineering. laboratory demonstration resources of all Departments to illustrate the operational aspects Duration: One Calendar Year with examination in of the subject. September 1970. Advice given on financial aid. Application forms and further information obtainable Further information and forms of application from: from The Registrar, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, The Registrar, The CoUege of Aeronautics, W2, Scotland. Cranfield, Bedford. DIRECTORATE ELECTRONICS RESEARCH AND Z^S Hovercraft DEVELOPMENT (AIR) Ministry of Technology
    [Show full text]
  • Dear [Click and Type Name]
    Colin Dunn Date: 3 January 2020 TWA Unit Enquiries to: Michael Wilks Department for Transport Tel: 01473 264064 Great Minster House Email: [email protected] 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR Your ref: TR010023 Our ref: SCC/LLTC/POST-EX/Crown Land Dear Mr Dunn, Lake Lothing Third Crossing ('LLTC') – DCO Application – Reference TR010023 Response to the Secretary of State’s consultation letter dated 10 December 2019 requesting comments from the Applicant in relation to a request for Crown authority consent in connection with the LLTC This letter constitutes the formal response of Suffolk County Council ('the Applicant') to the Secretary of State’s 'consultation letter' dated 10 December 2019, published on the Planning Inspectorate’s website and received by the Applicant on 11 December 2019. The Applicant notes that the Secretary of State has not yet received a response to its consultation letter dated 7 October 2019 addressed to DfT Estates, requesting an update on the position of that party, as the appropriate Crown authority in relation to the Applicant’s request for Crown authority consent made in respect of land proposed to be acquired and used for the purposes of the LLTC. Applicant’s request for Crown authority consent As the Secretary of State may be aware, the Applicant originally requested Crown authority consent in connection with the LLTC on 25 June 2018, in advance of submitting its application for development consent for the LLTC to the Planning Inspectorate on 13 July 2018. Since that time, the Applicant has made repeated attempts to engage with DfT Estates (including providing/re-providing a full package of supporting documentation on at least three separate occasions, with numerous follow-up communications) with the aim of securing the necessary Crown authority consent.
    [Show full text]
  • Financial Report British Railways Board 29 September 2013
    FINANCIAL REPORT BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD 29 SEPTEMBER 2013 Registered Office One Kemble Street London United Kingdom WC2B 4AN Financial Report British Railways Board (For the period ended 29 September 2013) Presented to the House of Commons pursuant to Section 6(4) of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 14 May 2014 HC 1238 © Crown copyright 2014 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v.2. To view this licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/ or email [email protected] Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication, please call 0300 330 3000 Print ISBN 9781474102575 Web ISBN 9781474102582 Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID 2640819 05/14 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum FINANCIAL REPORT BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD 29 SEPTEMBER 2013 Registered Office One Kemble Street London United Kingdom WC2B 4AN British Railways Board is a statutory corporation created by the Transport Act 1962. British Railways Board - Financial Report- 29 September 2013 CONTENTS MEMBERS………...………………………………………………………………… 3 CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT………...……………………………………………. 4 INTRODUCTION TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ................................... 5 STATEMENT OF BOARD MEMBERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES ......................... 6 MEMBERS’ REPORT ...................................................................................... 7 OPERATING REVIEW ..................................................................................... 7 FINANCIAL REVIEW ..................................................................................... 11 STATEMENT ON INTERNAL CONTROL .....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • C254 OOC XSU10 Archaeological Works
    C254 Archaeological Works at Old Oak Common Depot, London NW10 XSU10 C254-OXF-T1-RGN-CRG03-50269Rev2 C O N T E N T S Page 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Scope of Work .......................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Planning Background .............................................................................................. 7 1.3 Location .................................................................................................................... 8 2 Geology and Topography ................................................................................................... 8 3 Archaeological and Historical Background ....................................................................... 9 3.1 Reports and Documentation ................................................................................... 9 3.2 Previous Work ........................................................................................................ 20 4 Research Aims and Objectives ........................................................................................ 21 5 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 22 5.1 Methodological Standards .................................................................................... 22 5.2 Fieldwork Techniques ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mini-Competition for a Contract to Provide Property Services to the Government Property Unit Response to Brief
    Mini-competition for a Contract to Provide Property Services to the Government Property Unit Response to Brief August 2011 12 August 2011 Government Property Unit By Email J Mark Ridley E: [email protected] DL: +44 (0) 20 7409 8030 FAO Paul Mayes and Stuart Banks F: +44 (0) 20 7409 2635 20 Grosvenor Hill London W1K 3HQ T: +44 (0) 20 7499 8644 savills.com Dear Sirs CONTRACT TO PROVIDE PROPERTY SERVICES TO THE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY UNIT Thank you for giving Savills the opportunity to tender for the next phase of the implementation of the Government’s property strategy for the Civil Estate. This project is clearly of paramount importance to GPU, Central Government, and the wider UK plc. Savills was delighted to be appointed to the London and Bristol pilot project back in February. The work carried out with the GPU team over the last six months has given us critical insight into the demands and needs of your remit, and the political and property context within which you operate. I have maintained a close involvement in the work over this period and have recently met with John McCready and Robert Heskett to discuss progress. I can give you my personal assurance that the high standards of service set by the Savills team to date will be maintained across any further appointments. We understand that your principal requirement is for a market-facing advisory role to help inform your strategy, together with the implementation of this. Savills has the most extensive network of offices throughout the UK, covering all sectors and this platform gives us unique market intelligence from experienced professionals.
    [Show full text]
  • Home Information Pack For: 13 SPRING GROVE
    Home Information Pack for: 13 SPRING GROVE HULL EAST YORKSHIRE PROVISIONALHU3 1JZ 1A The Square Willerby East Yorkshire HU10 7UA Tel: 01482 223311 Web: www.hullhip.co.uk Email: [email protected] home information pack contents • Index • Property Information Questionnaire • Energy Performance Certificate/ Predicted Energy Assessment/ Sustainability Certificate (New Homes Only) • Sale Statement • Land Registry Documents • Local Authority and Water and Drainage Enquiries • Authorised Documents PROVISIONAL home information pack Index Index PROVISIONAL Home Information Pack Index 13 SPRING GROVE HULL EAST YORKSHIRE HU3 1JZ Required Documents (Inc.) - Included Date of Further information/details of steps being Home Information Pack document (N/I) - Not Included document taken to obtain documents not included (N/A) – Not Applicable Index 02/09/2009 R Inc. N/I N/A Property Information Questionnaire 21/08/2009 R Inc. N/I N/A Energy Performance 31/08/2009 R Inc. Certificate/Predicted Energy N/I Assessment N/A Sustainability Certificate Inc. N/I R N/A Sale Statement 25/08/2009 R Inc. N/I N/A Title & Lease Information (as applicable) Land Registry individual Register 25/08/2009 R Inc. N/I N/A Land Registry title plan 25/08/2009 R Inc. N/I PROVISIONAL N/A Official search of Land Registry index Inc. map N/I R N/A Deduction of title documents Inc. N/I R N/A The lease or proposed lease if a new Inc. Information has been requested and is expected to property R N/I become available within 28 calendar days. N/A We confirm this request complies with Para (1) Regulation 18 of the HIP Number (2) Regulations 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Research Forum
    Transportation Research Forum Transportation Economics: Some Developments Over the Past 30 Years Author(s): Kenneth Button Source: Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Summer 2006), pp. 7-30 Published by: Transportation Research Forum Stable URL: http://www.trforum.org/journal The Transportation Research Forum, founded in 1958, is an independent, nonprofit organization of transportation professionals who conduct, use, and benefit from research. Its purpose is to provide an impartial meeting ground for carriers, shippers, government officials, consultants, university researchers, suppliers, and others seeking exchange of information and ideas related to both passenger and freight transportation. More information on the Transportation Research Forum can be found on the Web at www.trforum.org. Transportation Economics: Some Developments Over the Past 30 Years by Kenneth Button This paper looks at the changes that have occurred since the 1970s in the types of economic tools used, the ways they have been used, and the impacts they have had in shaping the way we now understand transportation. Over the past 30 years, society’s views on transport have changed and, with this, the issues to which we attach priority have altered. Additionally, there have been important changes in our more generic understanding of economics and this has added to the toolkit of concepts that can be applied to transport matters. The tradition of transportation economics up until the late 1960s was largely one of defining ‘optimal’ pricing principles in regulated markets, in understanding market domination for mergers and similar policies, and in providing advice to engineers dealing with investment decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of British Railways' Electrical Research
    Institute of Railway Studies and Transport History Working papers in railway studies, number eleven A history of British Railways’ electrical research by A O Gilchrist Published by Institute of Railway Studies and Transport History National Railway Museum University of York Leeman Road Heslington York YO26 4XJ York YO10 5DD UK UK ISSN 1368-0706 Text Copyright A O Gilchrist 2008 This format Copyright IRS&TH 2008 i CONTENTS Text: page 1. Preface 1 2. Origins under the British Transport Commission (1960-1962) 2 3. Under British Railways Board – the Blandford House years (1963-1966) 4 4. The move to Derby (1966-1968) 7 5. The period of the Ministry programme (1969-1985) 10 5.1. Two short-lived projects 11 5.1.1. Plasma torch 11 5.1.2. Autowagon 12 5.2. Signalling 13 5.2.1. By inductive loop 13 5.2.2. By transponder 16 5.2.3. By radio 17 5.2.4. Solid State Interlocking 18 5.3. Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI) 20 5.4. Radio communications 21 5.5. Mathematics and computer science 22 5.6. Business machines 25 5.7. Electric traction 25 5.8. Maglev 27 5.9. Electrification 28 6. The final years under BR management (1985-1996) 33 6.1. The completion of SSI 34 6.2. Train detection 35 6.3. Signalling policy 36 6.4. IECC 39 6.5. Control Centre of the Future 41 6.6. CATE 42 6.7. VISION 43 6.8. Electric traction 44 6.9. Electrification 45 7. Conclusion 48 Figures (listed overleaf) are placed after the main text.
    [Show full text]
  • Sheppard 202003722 Thesis WREO.Pdf
    Transports of Delight: Pastoral, Nostalgia and Railway Travel in Post-WWII Genre Fiction Samuel John Sheppard MA by Research University of York English and Related Literature November 2020 Abstract In the mid-twentieth century, Britain’s railways underwent a range of significant developments. A transport network that, in many ways, had not changed substantially since the Edwardian period, was transformed by events such as widespread route closures, a diesel revolution, and the growing popularity of private motoring. This paper aims to examine how the significance of railways in British literature of this period changed as a result, with particular focus upon two areas of genre fiction: crime and detective fiction, and children’s literature. I am particularly concerned with the ideals of heritage and preservation which emerged in Britain in the 1950s and 1960s, and how these encouraged the presentation of railways in a more sentimental light than had previously been seen. Most importantly, the paper examines in depth the genre fiction of the mid-twentieth century, seeking to identify the ways in which the work of authors such as Agatha Christie, Enid Blyton, and the Reverend Wilbert Awdry displays a continuity with, and nostalgia for, the interwar and Edwardian periods. 2 List of Contents Abstract Page 2 List of Contents Page 3 Acknowledgments Page 4 Declaration Page 5 Introduction Page 6 Chapter 1: Page 17 Nostalgia, Anxiety and Transport in Detective Fiction Chapter 2: Page 39 Train Travel, Heritage and Adult Anxiety in Children’s Literature Conclusion Page 62 Works Cited Page 68 3 Acknowledgments I would like to thank my MA supervisors, Dr Nicoletta Asciuto and Dr James Williams, for the support and feedback which they have provided throughout my MA study.
    [Show full text]