Messrs Stevenson submitted the following Report on letter of 1st January 1868 from Trinity House regarding Langness Light.
Edinburgh 7th January 1868
With reference to the letter from the Trinity House of 1st Inst, it seems desirable for the purposes of explanation to offer the following remarks for the consideration of the Commissioners.
The observation of the Elder Brethren as to the importance of a Light on the Chickens Rock for the purposes of general navigation are in accordance with the views expressed in our report of 22nd October last. But the opinions expressed by the Trinity House that the proposed Light on the Chicken Rock would provide ample warning for Langness “In any weather when lights could be expected to be seen” is a proposition to which we regret we are not prepared to assent. The distance from Langness to the Chickens Rock is 8 miles and in order to be useful as a guide to Langness for vessels coming from the North, it is essential that the Light should be visible for some time before the vessel approaches Langness, say 2 or 3 miles, thus giving a distance of 10 or 11 miles at which the Chickens Rock Light would require to be seen in order to serve as an efficient warning for avoiding Langness. Our experience enables us to say that it is not in state of the weather when a light is clearly and steadily visible at the distance of 10 or 12 miles that wrecks occur, and it seems to be forgotten that the loss of vessels on such a treacherous spit as Langnesss extending 2 miles from the line of coast is due to no lights being visible on account of their distance and observation but a Light of even moderate power on such a promontory itself might save a ship, when the more powerful lights situated 10 miles from the point of danger could render her no service. That is the object of the proposed Light on Langness which the Trinity House appear to us to have over looked.
That Langness Point extending 2 miles from the Coast is swept by a rapid tide way is a very formidable danger, must we think, be admitted from the wrecks that have occurred on it, and we have not been able to follow the arguments by which the Trinity House are come to a different conclusion as to the danger it presents to shipping.
The Trinity House seems to set great stress on the fact that were the Light At Langness to be erected it would be equidistant between two 1st Order Sea Light Stations, one on either side of it, at a distance of 8 miles, and that to grant it would make a precedent which it would be difficult to ignore. In this statement, we cannot for several reasons concur:
1) Because the linear distance at which Lights are separated cannot be held as applicable to every locality and we apprehend that the configuration of the coast at Langness and the amount of traffic passing it are such as to demand special provisions for safety. It is the same important traffic indeed, which passes the Chickens Rock.
2) Because the light at Douglas is not as stated a 1st Class Light but a light of a secondary character, which was devolved upon the Commissioners from the Harbour Trustees of Douglas, but which is believed to be a sufficient Light for the purpose for which it was intended and
3) Because the proximity of Lights must be determined entirely by the peculiarities of the coast and the wants of the navigation and “precedents” for Lights 8 miles apart may be found on the adjacent coast of Anglesey and many other parts of the country.
The only other point raised in the letter of the Elder Brethren which seems to demand observation is the statement that the alterations which they suggested on Derbyhaven, Castletown and Port St Mary Lights to render them useful as guides for Langness would not involve the necessity of any better building or attendance than are to be found at present. Is an occasional light, used only during the fishing season in a timber house of a temporary nature, there being no building for the permanent and efficient exhibition of a light or the accommodation of its Keepers.
Signed: D V T Stevenson
Excerpts from Minutes 8th January 1868
Letter from Trinity House arguing against a Lighthouse at Langness
Sir, I am directed to acknowledge receipt of your communication of the 13th ult enclosing two letters and a report from the Northern Lights Commissioners on the subject of marking Langness and the substitution of a Lighthouse on the Chicken Rock for those at present on the Calf of Man and in reply thereto, I am to state that it appears to the Elder Brethern the question is nearly if not altogether exhausted.
The question is whether by a change in the existing manner of lighting the South end of Man, one light can be made to do efficiently the duties which are now confessedly inadequately, performed by two viz: ….guard the dangers of the south end of Man including Langness and to assist vessels navigating between Ireland to the Cumberland Coast, along the SE shore of Man as well as the still more important duty of guarding the West side of the Island for vessels coming from the Northward including the important trade between America and Liverpool passing through the North Channel and it is therefore entirely a question to be decided by the experience of Seamen.
Before however, taking up the consideration of these questions, it may be as well to review the different stages by which the present difficulty seems to have been arrived at. Their Lordships are aware that applications for a Light on Langness have arisen from time to time in consequence of wrecks which have taken place thereon, the arguments used in its favour being that the point projected seaward of the coast line nearly 2 miles and that rapid tides ran in its vicinity, but it was not considered that these times were irregular or varied in their direction or that they constituted a greater danger to Mariners than in many other parts of the Irish Sea where the tides are known to run with even greater velocity and require proportionate care from navigators, but one of the chief grounds urged was the inefficiency of the Calf lights, from their tendency to be enveloped in fog and that from this cause at the distance of 8 miles they were inefficient to warn vessels of their proximity to Langness.
These applications however, have not received the sanction of the Trinity House and their refusal has had the concurrence of the Board of Trade on the grounds that Langness lies equidistant between two First Order Sea Light Stations one on either side of it at a distance of 8 miles and that assuming these to be efficient a Light thereon would not with ordinary prudence and judgement on the part of the navigator be required and further that to grant it would make a precedent which it would be difficult to ignore but which would if followed entail serious burdens upon Ship Owners.
On a renewal of the agitation for a Light by the inhabitants of Castletown and a direct appeal from them to the Trinity House on the loss of a large ship on or about Langness in a terrific gale from the SE with blinding snow storm in January last, the Elder Brethren again resumed consideration of the question and although entirely retaining the opinion they had all along expressed, they suggested that by removing what seemed to them as Seamen, the principal difficulty and one which under any circumstances it would be desirable to rectify viz; the inefficiency of the Calf Lights, a double object would be gained, that additional facilities would be given to the Mariner navigating both East, West and South of Man, and ample warning provided for Langness itself in any weather where Lights could be expected to be seen, and it was this combination of advantages which caused the Elder Brethren to recommend the erection of a Light on the Chickens Rock. The Engineers to the Northern Commissioners having reported its erection to be practicable the Commissioners on receipt of that report applied to the Trinity House for sanction for it in the place of the two Lights on the Calf of Man to which measure, the Trinity House have given their statutory sanction and on this point, I am to state, that after having visited Langness in the month of August last, the Deputy Master called on Mr Cunningham, the Secretary of the Northern Commissioners in Edinburgh and had some conversation with him on the subject and after stating his own view, he clearly understood that gentleman to say that there would be no further consideration on the part of the Northern Commissioners of a light on Langness until the practicability of the erecting a Lighthouse on the Chicken Rock was settled. When therefore that was ascertained to be practicable, the Elder Brethren believed that all parties were agreed, the Board of Trade having up to this time entirely concurred in these views and themselves drawn attention to the Chicken Rock. It was therefore with no little surprise that the Elder Brethren received from their Lordships a copy of a memorandum of Captain Bedford RN one of their Lordships Nautical Advisers, a copy of which being also sent to the Northern Commissioners has entirely re-opened the question.
…Captain Bedford considers that on a balance of utility the Calf of Man Lights are better at a high elevation than a low one, and that a Light on the Chicken Rock would be very costly to erect, although he expresses no opinion whether if erected, it would sufficiently guard Langness in weather when Lights might be expected to be visible and he considers it would be a better remedy and much more economical to concede that Light on Langness. ….. Northern Lighthouses letter states they have never considered the two questions from one aspect, but have regarded the proposal for the Chickens Rock as having no bearing whatever on that of Langness……Trinity House disagree with Captain Bedford regarding the elevation of lighthouses and state that it is the practice now in Lights under the Trinity House where conditions of frequency of fog exist to reduce as much as possible the elevation – the removal a few years since of the Needles Light to a lower level being an illustration in point….. The Elder Brethren have only further on this lead to point out that the Lizard Lights and that of St Anthony’s at Falmouth have always with the aid of a Buoy been sufficient to guard the Manacles Rocks lying 8 miles from the Lizard and 5 ¾ from St Anthony’s and about 1 ½ miles outside the line between these two places in a very frequented navigation and as no seaman in his senses would steer in near the Manacles without either a sight of the lights or the aid of his lead, so in like manner, no seaman should go near the Point of Langness without either sighting the Calf or Douglas Head Lights or using his lead by either of which measures his position could be assured.
For those who will do neither and disregard all precautions, no Light can be of any use, and under such circumstances, wrecks will again occur upon Langness as they have already done, and as they do in quite as large proportions in many other parts of the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland. In conclusion, I am to remark that too many Lighthouses are as great an evil as too few; they increase the difficulties of distinction and they entail a great expense on the Ship Owner, and it follows that to place three Light Establishments within eight miles of each other unless for unanswerable reasons is a question requiring very serious consideration. Were the Light placed on Langness, vessels proceeding from Liverpool to the West of Man and the Irish Channel and vice versa would under the rule of “passing or deriving benefit” have to pay toll for it, although the Ship Owners at that Port do not consider it necessary, and it does seem therefore to the Elder Brethren that taking the subject in all its bearings and relying on their own experience as Seamen, the views they advocate for the improvement in the lighting of the South end of the Isle of Man are the best as well as the most economical.
I am etc.
Robin Allen
Report on buildings and apparatus for the proposed Lighthouse and Fog Signal at Langness, Isle of Man, by D & T Stevenson, Engineers to the Board 1878
Having obtained the requisite measurements and sections of Langness Point, we have now, in terms of the Commissioner’s Remit of 26th December to submit the following Report relative to the proposed Lighthouse and Fog Signal for that place:
After a careful examination and survey of the locality and of all the information that we possess on the subject, we are of the opinion that the site shown on the accompanying plan is the most favourable that can be selected for the buildings which we propose shall consist of:
A tower 50 ft in height
An engine house for fog signal
Dwelling houses for three Keepers
Outhouses including coal cellars, Oil cellar, workshop etc.
Garden Ground amounting to about 1 ½ acres, enclosed with stone wall.
The light, as already reported, we propose should be flashing white giving a flash every 5 seconds, and we have arranged the apparatus so as to utilize the halophates and lamps which were provided for the auxiliary light, proposed to be exhibited from the Chickens Tower.
The Fog Signal, as also already reported, is proposed to give blasts of 8 seconds duration with intervals of silence of 22 seconds produced by two horns worked by two caloric engines arranged so as to work together or singly.
The positions of the tower, engine house and for signal are shown on the Plan.
The Dwelling houses are intended to accommodate three lightkeepers and are the same as regards accommodation etc. as those at other Northern Lighthouse Stations where a Fog Signal has been established.
Langness Point belongs to one proprietor and the distance from the site of the Lighthouse to the public road at the village of Derbyhaven is about 1½ miles and from thence to Castletown 1½ mile further. At present, there is no road from Derbyhaven to Langness and the purchase of land, including the forming, fencing and upholding of a cart road 1½ miles in length to the Lighthouse would prove costly. We have therefore concluded that the intercourse with the lighthouse may be best obtained by forming a landing place at the Point in preference to making a road to Derbyhaven and resorting to Castletown distant 3 miles as the place for the delivery of stores. It would, however, be desirable to form a footpath with a right of way from the Lighthouse to Derbyhaven.
Adopting these general views, we prepared in absence of working plans, the following estimate of the cost of the proposed Lighthouse and Fog Signal etc.
Dwelling houses for three Keepers with outhouses, cellarage etc. £2026
Tower £780
Lantern and Apparatus £950
Fog Signal House with Coke Store, Workshop etc £860
Walls enclosing ground, forming garden etc £380
Fog Signal engine, horns etc £1200
Landing Place £500
Road and footpath £234
Land, right of way, water etc £300
Sundries, furnishings etc £360
_____
£7590
10 per cent being £759
_____
£8349
being £8350 for the whole works
(signed) David T Stevenson, Edinburgh 18th February 1878
Inspection report 1903
Langness was next visited and found in good order. The Committee recommend that the bed-closet in the kitchen of the Principal Keeper’s house should be removed. They understand that bed-closets and box-beds are gradually being done away throughout the service, and they think that this very desirable improvement should be effected wherever necessary at the earliest possible date.
Langness Lighthouse/Fog Signal
Sir,
I am directed by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses to state, for the information of the Board of Trade, that in connection with the reconstruction and improvement of the fog signal at Langness, Isle of Man, it was found necessary to acquire a piece of ground extending to about one eighteenth part of an acre, consisting chiefly of rock which was practically inaccessible for any useful purpose until a bridge was constructed by the Commissioners.
For adjoining ground extending to about two and a half acres on which the Lighthouse Station stands the Commissioners pay Five Pounds per annnum, and they considered that they were treating the owner of the fog signal very liberally in offering him One Pound per annum, or a payment down of Twenty Pounds – which was ultimately increased to Thirty Pounds. The Proprietor however, declined to accept less than Seven Pounds per annum, and as this demand was considered exorbitant, the matter was submitted to arbitration, with the result that the proprietor was awarded the sum of Sixty Pound and the tenant the sum of Three pounds, three shillings, while legal expenses have been incurred in the Isle of Man amounting as taxed to One hundred and thirty pounds, two shillings and one penny.
The Commissioners have no option but to accept the Award of the arbitrators and I am now to request the statutory sanction of the Board of Trade to the payment of the above sums. A copy of the Award is transmitted herewith.
In view of the extravagant value attached to ground in the Isle of Man by local arbitrators, as disclosed in this case and in the recent case at Maughold Head, the Commissioners have decided to submit no further proposals for New Works on the Island before definitely ascertaining that ground required can be obtained on terms approximating, at least, to those which would be considered reasonable elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I am to add that in spite of this unforeseen expenditure the work has been completed within the estimated expenditure of Three thousand Pounds sanctioned by the Board of Trade on 18th February 1911.
Click on image to read