Irish Railway Record Society

Tullow Branch

The first plan to link Tullow with the Great Southern & Western Railway network was in 1861 when a line was planned between Carlow and Newtownbarry (now Bunclody) through Tullow. This plan was not favourably received at local level and the project was abandoned. In 1862, the Dublin & Blessington Railway was promoted to build a railway from a point 250 yards south of Sallins, through Naas, Harristown, Dunlavin and Colbinstown. A Bill was presented to Parliament in November of that year but was withdrawn shortly afterwards and re-presented in June 1863, becoming an Act in June 1864.

Nothing further happened until the GS&WR Act of 1881 authorised a line from Osberstown in the parish of Naas by a junction near Sallins Station at a point 38 yards west of the over-bridge of the Naas-Sallins public road to Baltinglass West town-land 55 yards from the North-West corner of the Methodist Chapel. The line was to be 24 miles 183 yards in length. Tenders were sought for the first section to Baltinglass and the contract was awarded to Robert Worthington of Dublin who commenced work in March 1883. On 28 March 1885, the GS&WR gave notice to the Board of Trade that it intended to open the Sallins to Colbinstown section in one month. Major C. S. Hutchinson was appointed on 11 June 1885 to carry out the inspection.

The works on the line were numerous and consisted of:

1.     Sixteen over bridges, all constructed with stone abutments; ten of these, the widest span being 30 feet, have tops composed of cast iron girders with jack arches between them; and six, widest span 30.5 feet, were either stone or brick arched type.

2.     23 under bridges, all built with stone abutments and in three cases with stone inter-mediate piers. 21, widest span 20¹/₂  feet, were cast iron girder type, and the remaining two spanning 10 feet were brick arch type.

3.     A viaduct of 5 spans of 46 feet each over the River Liffey constructed with masonry abutments and piers but arches in blue [sic] brick faced with granite.

4.     17 culverts are in masonry – widest 8 feet. There were no tunnels.

5.     There was one authorised public road level crossing at Naas. The fencing was principally of post and wire though there were a few short lengths of wood fencing. The signalling arrangements were carried out as follows:

An eight-lever ground frame was provided at the Dublin end of Sallins Station and was controlled from the junction cabin. An engine turntable was provided at Sallins and one was to be put down at Baltinglass to which place the line was expected to open in the course of two months

The Act of 1881 which authorised the line also authorised one level crossing on the branch, that in the Naas East town-land. Here the line crossed the main road from Dublin to Naas. Later however, Major Hutchinson recommended a bridge here and the company should acquire land to provide one. The company prepared plans for the over-bridge and these were submitted to the BoT on 20 November 1885.

The line was worked by Preece’s block system. Hutchinson had anticipated the opening as his report is dated 10 June 1885, the day before he was appointed to carry out the task. In his report he recorded the line as being double for 2 miles 6¹/₂ chains (Naas), then single for the remaining 14 miles 70¹/₂ chains except at stations. The only passing place for passenger trains on the single-line section was at Dunlavin. The steepest gradient was 1 in 100 and the sharpest curve 15 chains. The rail used was 74lb flat-bottom in 21, 24 & 30 ft lengths and was fixed by fang-bolts at the joint timbers and by dog-spikes intermediately. 13 inches of broken stone and gravel ballast was used but the inspection report indicated there was a shortage on the ‘platforms’ of bridges and at many points along the line. Some short comings in bridge work needed rectifying, girder bearings to be wedged up, hand-rails to be provided, and rods between girders to be fixed.

At Sallins, Major Hutchinson noted that the advanced signal, (presumably referring to the advanced starting signal), was 600 yards from the signal box and could not be observed by the signalman, but that electrical arrangements were in place to prove the position of the signal for the signalman and to detect that a train had passed it. However, it was deemed inadequate and alternative arrangements were required. Some improve-ments in the interlocking arrangements at Naas and Dunlavin were needed. At Colbinstown it was a requirement that the points for the down siding be normally held in that position until the extension southwards is opened. Adequate station name-boards and clocks needed to be provided. Gates at accommodation crossings were to prevented from opening inwards.

The most significant item was the level crossing at Naas. The 1881 Act provided for a single line of rails over the crossing, and, while the double track from Sallins finished 8 chains before the crossing there was an illegal siding across the crossing. The company laid this siding under the expectation that they would be able to close the crossing and persuade the Naas authorities that the road should be diverted. When shunting was in progress the crossing was frequently occupied by such movements. The Inspecting Officer suggested to the BoT that, the company should give an undertaking that, by the end of August, should they fail to get authority to close the crossing, they should, on or before the end of September, extend the double line to the Baltinglass side of the level crossing. They should also undertake to obtain powers in the next session of Parliament to acquire land and construct an over-bridge within one year of receiving such powers.

On 12 June 1885 the GS&WR forwarded an undertaking to the BoT in respect of Naas level crossing and, as already stated, submitted plans on 20 November. The road bridge was in place until 1953 when it was replaced by a level crossing due to road re-alignment. They also undertook that items in the Inspecting Officers report would be speedily carried out. The company was also required to certify to the BoT that Naas-Colbinstown would be worked by Train Staff combined with Preeces Absolute block telegraph system. On the 15 June 1885 the company undertook that until the line to Baltinglass was opened, speed on the branch would not exceed 25 mph. On 17 June the BoT gave permission for the branch to be opened subject to Major Hutchinson’s requirements being met. The line opened from Sallins to Colbinstown on 22 June 1885. On 20 July 1885 notice was given to the BoT that the company wished to open Colbinstown-Baltinglass and this was followed on 14 August by an undertaking to work Colbinstown-Baltinglass by Train Staff and Preeces Absolue Block telegraph.

On 15 August 1885, Major General C. S. Hutchinson was appointed to inspect the extension of the Sallins to Baltinglass line from Colbinstown to Baltinglass, a distance of 7 miles 15 chains. It is unclear on which date the inspection actually took place as Hutchinson, on many occasions throughout Ireland, had the inspections done in anticipation of being appointed to carry them out. He reported to the BoT on 21 August 1885 noting that the extension was similar to the section already open and the steepest gradient was 1 in 112 and the sharpest curve 40 chains. The stations were at Grange [Grange Con] (where there were no sidings) and Baltinglass where there was an extensive goods yard and engine turntable. There were six over bridges, five (longest span 32 feet 4 inches) having tops formed with cast iron girders with jack arches between them, and one bridge with a 28-ft span with a brick arched top. The only signal frames were at the Grange [sic] and at Baltinglass. The former contained 4 working levers and one spare while the latter had 9 working levers and two spares all properly interlocked. At Grange, Major Hutchinson required the home signals to be interlocked and a WC, urinal and clock be provided.

At Baltinglass it was required that No. 11 starting signal should apply to the down line until the extension to Tullow was open. Interlocked safety points should be provided on the up line and the points at the down (Tullow) end of the loop should be set normally for the up line. A clock was also deemed necessary.

The ballast pit points had to be removed and, subject to the aforementioned requirements, the line could be opened to passenger traffic. However, the BoT had to be informed when the items had been completed and a re-inspection might be necessary. The company must also provide the BoT with an undertaking as to the method of working.

Major Hutchinson then referred back to his report of 10 June on the Sallins to Colbinstown section, commenting that most of his requirements had been complied with except for the requirement to have clocks visible from the platforms and occupation gates that still open inwards to the railway. The subject of the best method of dealing with the up advanced starting signal at Sallins was still under discussion.

The line was opened from Colbinstown to Baltinglass, a distance of 7 miles 15 chains, on 1 September 1885.

Worthington’s contribution to the project was such that he was contracted to build the extension to Tullow. Intertest on the cost of this extension was guaranteed by the local rate-payers; a sum of £1,200 (€1,524) per annum for 35 years. The railway was 10 miles, 4  furlongs and 24 yards long extending from a terminus authorised by the Great Southern & Western Railway Act of 1881 in the townland of Baltinglass West, and the Parish of Baltinglass, in the County of Wicklow, and terminating in the townland of Tullowphelia, Co. Carlow, in a field at the north side of Knockloe Road leading from Tullow to Shillelagh. It was adjacent to the entrance to Tullow Cottage.

George Posnett was the arbitrator in making payment to the owners of land in connection with the Tullow extension. The agreed amount was £11,399 13s. 6d.(€14,475) or, approximately £1,085 (€1,378)per mile. The highest amount paid for land was to Rev. William Hume, Bawnogue, Baltinglass who was awarded £233 19s. 6d.(€297). This included a right of way through part of a second property.  By early summer 1886, the Tullow extension was ready  and on 17 May the company advised the BoT that the line was ready for opening worked by “Train Staff with Preeces block telegraph”. Rathvilly was the only intermediate station. There were eight over-bridges and seven under-bridges and a bridge of lattice girder construction across the River Slaney with stone abutments. Tullow cabin had 13 working levers and 3 spare while Rathvilly had 10 working and 3 spare. Subject to some very minor items to be addressed, Major C.S.Hutchinson RE recommended, on 24 May  that the line could open. It opened on 1 June 1886.

Approaching Baltinglass the railway and the road were parallel. In 1891, a horse on the road, near Mrs Anderson’s Slaney Lodge, took fright and bolted after a locomotive whistled. A man was struck by the shafts of the car and died in five minutes. The County Surveyor, whose office was at Bray, raised the question of the boundary wall being raised but the GS&WR did not agree they had a legal obligation to do anything.

After lengthy correspondence the BoT asked Major Hutchinson, on 22 May 1891, to visit the line and examine ways of providing a screen between the railway and Slaney Lodge. The Inspecting Officer duly forwarded his report to the BoT who forwarded it to the GS&WR on 20 July 1891 asking what the company proposed to do about the screening. Major Hutchinson had a meeting with the County Surveyor and one of the railway company’s engineers.  The  High Road on the Dublin side of Baltinglass ran about 3,570 feet between the railway and the River Slaney. There was a substantial stone wall 4 or 5 feet high between the railway and the road, and between the road and the river was a low earthen bank broken away in many places and insufficient to prevent a frightened horse bolting into the river. Recently the Grand Jury of the County of Wicklow have advised that the road/river fence be made an efficient obstacle and called upon the railway through the County Surveyor to have the wall heightened sufficiently to screen off the railway from the road. The new wall would have to be between 16 and 18¹/₂ feet high so that ‘the funnel of an engine may be unseen by a horse’. Major Hutchinson recommended a 6ft fence. The Grand Jury rejected this and the GS&WR stated it did not feel any screen was required and it was not prepared to erect one. On 21 August 1891, the GS&WR Board regarded Hutchinson’s report merely as a suggestion and felt it was of little use and there were similar situations elsewhere in the country and regarded the fence as an unnecessary expense. This was not the view of the BoT and they instructed the company to erect the fence, which they did.

The remainder of this article appears in IRRS Journal number 148, published June 2002.

Copyright © 2002 by Irish Railway Record Society Limited
Revised: January 07, 2004 .