River Tummel Grayling

Cap'n Fishy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
25,211
Location
Embra
I think the time I parked in the lay bye was the same year that accident happened. Nasty stuff...
Was there an accident at that level crossing? :eek: I was just imagining one happening and it being a trout fisher using it unauthorised. Like I said upthread, it is quite scary using it on your own, eh?

I know that big lay-by well - stopped there a few times over the years on the way down from Orkney, etc.

Col
 

fruinfisher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2014
Messages
234
Location
West central Scotland
On a lighter note “ fishtummel.co.uk “is the East Haugh website. Although I’ve never done it, you can park at the bridge at Ballinluig at the bottom of the lower tummel beat as well. Although it’s salmon fishing , FishPal ( Tummel) should have more info about access.

- - - Updated - - -

On a lighter note “ fishtummel.co.uk “is the East Haugh website. Although I’ve never done it, you can park at the bridge at Ballinluig at the bottom of the lower tummel beat as well. Although it’s salmon fishing , FishPal ( Tummel) should have more info about access.
 

kreid

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
1,687
Location
crieff, perthshire
Seems a bit elitist if you are allowed through on a salmon permit, but barred on a lowly trout and grayling permit!
This is not unique, if you fish at Stanley on the Tay there is a car park down at the waters' edge....for Salmon anglers only. Trout / Grayling ...you have to park your car in a car park several 100 yards away ( up a hill)
 

feroxgordon

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
13
I’m a bit late to this thread, but if anyone’s still reading it I’d like to pass on some info. As a River Tummel fisher, I can tell you that there has been at least two different accidents at Moulinearn level crossing which have resulted in fatalities, one included a very young child and an adult when a Range Rover wad hit by a train (they were not anglersbut we’re supposed to be attending a social event). There have also been numerous close calls, which resulted in Atholl estate threatening to withdraw the right of all trout fishing Accessed by the crossing, this included members of Pitlochry angling club. My understanding is that the club after negotiating with the estate, gained an agreement whereby they continued to allow fishing but not vehicular access. This of course does not apply to the salmon anglers who book directly with them. Again my understanding is that the negotiations were extremely delicate and could have gone either way and have led to the complete withdrawal of the right to fish for trout on Estate owned water. A situation in no ones interest, so I would advise the OP and anyone else to stick to the rules and not jeopardise the fishing for everyone regardless whether you feel it’s a class issue or not.
PS the sign at the crossing distinctly says that it is a private crossing
 

LukeNZ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
1,977
Location
Hawkes Bay, NZ
I’m a bit late to this thread, but if anyone’s still reading it I’d like to pass on some info. As a River Tummel fisher, I can tell you that there has been at least two different accidents at Moulinearn level crossing which have resulted in fatalities, one included a very young child and an adult when a Range Rover wad hit by a train (they were not anglersbut we’re supposed to be attending a social event). There have also been numerous close calls, which resulted in Atholl estate threatening to withdraw the right of all trout fishing Accessed by the crossing, this included members of Pitlochry angling club. My understanding is that the club after negotiating with the estate, gained an agreement whereby they continued to allow fishing but not vehicular access. This of course does not apply to the salmon anglers who book directly with them. Again my understanding is that the negotiations were extremely delicate and could have gone either way and have led to the complete withdrawal of the right to fish for trout on Estate owned water. A situation in no ones interest, so I would advise the OP and anyone else to stick to the rules and not jeopardise the fishing for everyone regardless whether you feel it’s a class issue or not.
PS the sign at the crossing distinctly says that it is a private crossing
Who owns the Atholl estate?
 

feroxgordon

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
13
Don’t know for sure but my understanding is it’s a charitable trust which was set up when one of the dukes died a number of years ago. I assume it was set up that way for reasons of avoiding tax associated with his death.
 

aenoon

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
11,665
Location
Linlithgow, Scotland and anywhere i can wet a line
Don’t know for sure but my understanding is it’s a charitable trust which was set up when one of the dukes died a number of years ago. I assume it was set up that way for reasons of avoiding tax associated with his death.
Yep, was in 1996, and was to alleviate the outrageous death duties due to be paid to Westminster


regards
Bert
 

LukeNZ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
1,977
Location
Hawkes Bay, NZ
Yep, was in 1996, and was to alleviate the outrageous death duties due to be paid to Westminster


regards
Bert
Thanks Bert.
I think what I am driving at is the motive of whoever it serves best to remove public fishing for trout?

Is it likely that there is some convenient elitism being exercised, and if so by whom?
Does anyone get to fish there now, or just people who have the land rights (being presumably the trust), and who are those beneficiaries?

That was always the one thing that annoyed me most about Britain, it is the notion of a class system and all the bull-dust that goes with it, a lot of pretensions both ways..

Why can’t something like the queens chain system be exercised for all rivers and lakes, as it is in NZ and many other places around the globe. So that all have access to fish lawfully, abiding by local rules and regulations without exception?

Licensing, the same price paid by all, would surely help to ensure the preservation of rivers and feeder stream systems, with every license holder effectively vested in ensuring the ongoing quality of waterways.

The revenue from such schemes are way in excess of private ownership of rights.
 

aenoon

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
11,665
Location
Linlithgow, Scotland and anywhere i can wet a line
Thanks Bert.
I think what I am driving at is the motive of whoever it serves best to remove public fishing for trout?

Is it likely that there is some convenient elitism being exercised, and if so by whom?
Does anyone get to fish there now, or just people who have the land rights (being presumably the trust), and who are those beneficiaries?

That was always the one thing that annoyed me most about Britain, it is the notion of a class system and all the bull-dust that goes with it, a lot of pretensions both ways..

Why can’t something like the queens chain system be exercised for all rivers and lakes, as it is in NZ and many other places around the globe. So that all have access to fish lawfully, abiding by local rules and regulations without exception?

Licensing, the same price paid by all, would surely help to ensure the preservation of rivers and feeder stream systems, with every license holder effectively vested in ensuring the ongoing quality of waterways.

The revenue from such schemes are way in excess of private ownership of rights.
Aint got anything to do with not being able to fish for trout/grayling as feroxg has explained, Pitlochry club has explained.
Access and permits to fish said waters are available. Many parking places/Access points are available, at no risk.
The sticking point is the railway level crossing on a private road within the estate. Insurances and indeed right of access determine the estates viewpoint of use of said access.
Pre booked salmon anglers are a determined risk, as numbers are known, and access is controlled through same crossing.
Season ticket/day ticket trout/grayling anglers are not, and therefore have differing guidlines for access to same areas.
Is not elitism, nor class bull dust, just balanced insured risk.
regards
Bert
 

Cap'n Fishy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
25,211
Location
Embra
Another thing that struck me as well-dodgy with using that level crossing...

When I used it last year, I was there to photograph a party of salmon anglers up from the south. They were all staying in a lodge to the north, and they all had their own cars. So, there was a car each for them, a car for their guide, and me in my car - at least 5, possibly 6 vehicles. I had gone up to their lodge to meet them, and so we were all driving in convoy and had to do a right-turn at Moulinearn. So, we had a line of 5 or 6 cars all wanting to turn right off the A9 dual-carriageway and onto the entrance to the road at the level crossing. But there really isn't room for 5 or 6 vehicles to stop at the level crossing, and there really isn't room for the ones that can't fit on to queue at the turn-off on the dual-carriageway.



We all got off the road OK, but it was one of those things you think back on and realise it could have been dodgy.
 

feroxgordon

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
13
I suspect the reason for the closure of the level crossing to members of the public (anglers included) was a near miss reported by a train driver which led to British Transport Police’s involvement, who then contacted the estate office as the responsible landowner. Knee jerk reaction takes place and estate factor says no fishing on that stretch of water. TBH all level crossings where there is potential conflict between vehicles and trains are bl**dy dangerous because people don’t follow the rules. As a point of interest,prior to the level crossing at Moulinearn becoming self service as it were, the lady who lives in the house just over used to operate the gates after being summoned by a bell with a button being placed on a convenient post. Maybe not so convenient for her maybe being summoned at some god forsaken hour in the height of summer because an angler was determined to catch the very late evening rise 😜
 

aenoon

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
11,665
Location
Linlithgow, Scotland and anywhere i can wet a line
Ah that old chestnut....liability insurance,what a con.
If I book salmon fishing through the estate, I am given access and covered by estates insurance, to estates waters, including crossing said contentious crossing.
If I book trout fishing, on any of the local clubs permit systems, I am not covered.
Cant be much more simpler than that.
regards
Bert
 

aenoon

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
11,665
Location
Linlithgow, Scotland and anywhere i can wet a line
I suspect the reason for the closure of the level crossing to members of the public (anglers included) was a near miss reported by a train driver which led to British Transport Police’s involvement, who then contacted the estate office as the responsible landowner. Knee jerk reaction takes place and estate factor says no fishing on that stretch of water. TBH all level crossings where there is potential conflict between vehicles and trains are bl**dy dangerous because people don’t follow the rules. As a point of interest,prior to the level crossing at Moulinearn becoming self service as it were, the lady who lives in the house just over used to operate the gates after being summoned by a bell with a button being placed on a convenient post. Maybe not so convenient for her maybe being summoned at some god forsaken hour in the height of summer because an angler was determined to catch the very late evening rise 😜
Knee jerk reaction or otherwise, but there has been several accidents, and several liable actions, taken in last 30 years, regarding this level crossing.
Hardly surprising the Athol estates get uneasy with unregulated use of the crossing.
regards
Bert
 
Top