Talk:His Majesty's Railway Inspectorate

Factual Issues
This article has a number of factual issues, not the least of which is its heading "Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate". It was only very briefly known by this title and for the vast majority of its existence was simply know as the Railway Inspectorate of the Board of Trade/Ministry of Transport/Department of Transport, whatever. It was placed on a statutory footing by the 1871 Regulation of the Railways Act. I would recommend The Railway Detectives: 150 Years of the Railway Inspectorate by Stanley Hall as a Primary source.

TJ (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Empowering Acts
Looking over the acts - Railway Regulation Acts 1840/42/71 I have come to a realisation regarding some details that may be the cause of misunderstandings... The 1840 Act empowered the "Lords of the Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council appointed for Trade and Foreign Plantations." to appoint inspectors. It was at this point, the same time as it was created, that the RI gained a statutory basis, but not as appointees of the Board of Trade. ????? I assume therefore that those books that assert that it gained statutory authority through the 1871 act (not Hall) have been confused by the fact that the authority was switched from the above committee to the Board of Trade?????

I cannot find in any of these acts a statement along the lines of "there shall be a body called the Railway Inspectorate of x,y,z". Picky point but it seems there never was any formal creation of a body known as such, but only authority of the above mouthful of a committee, and latterly the Board of Trade, to appoint inspectors.

TJ (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Addendum; it seems that that mouthful is the official title of the Board of Trade![ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Trade

TJ (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * hi, I'm wondering if what the books mean is that before the 1871 act, the inspectors might have had a legal basis for existing, but they didn't have statutory powers to do very much? Even after the BoT gained the right to refuse that a new rail route be put into service until it had met their standards, neither the inspectors nor the Lords of the board of trade had any further veto on the route after it had opened. They couldn't insist that their recommendations were put into action. Quite a lot of their reports from those early decades complain that an accident has happened again, caused by the same defect that they pointed out in previous years. In exceptional cases, sometimes the inspectors recommend that the BoT attempt to stop the granting of licences for running of additional excursion trains, with clear implication they thought there should be some sanction against bad rail companies, but equally clear recognition that the BoT had little power (and they, as inspectors, none). I can't make an encyclopaedia-appropriate comment on this, but I think maybe expecting the railway inspectorate to have a proper legal origin is imposing a 21st C expectation on a 19th C situation. Railways were just another new bit of industry, jostling with factories, canals, bridges, etc. for attention; so they were already, and automatically the responsibility of the board of trade (without recourse to legislation), and if the board of trade wanted someone to take a look at what was going on, it was only natural they should commission a convenient Captain from the Royal Engineers. Their legal position would, of necessity, only be sorted out when the ad hoc situation proved inadequate. Not sure how this affects the article though! It's not something easy to source, unless Hall happens to agree? Elemimele (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)