6619

Dean Goods worked on the K&ESR during the 1940s, but only one left. 01 class worked there during the 1950s, only one left. I doubt either will come on the open market in the forseeable future, although the 01 has paid a visit. I wonder if K&ESR, after completing their first Barry wreck (4253), would fancy tackling a new build. From 1910 into the 1930s they had two LSWR Ilfracombe Goods 0-6-0s, would something like this be suitable for modern traffic? Don't worry, I'm not starting a Facebook group - just Sunday morning musing.

 

Have you got one for sale?

 

It was more an inference that an 0-6-0 tender engine would perhaps be more appropriate than the current recruitment policy. Has anyone from the KESR looked into a loan deal for 31065?

 

I could do a very good deal on a part restored 38xx!

 

It has visited once but I doubt Bluebell could ever spare it for very long. I believe attempts were made at various times to secure it for the KESR, where it had worked in the 1950s, before it finally went to the Bluebell.

 

31065 was restricted to 100 tons on Tenterden bank when on the K&ESR a couple of years ago, possibly because of it's condition. Any 0-6-0 tender engine would have to be capable of taking 175 tons up there day in day out. 6619 is easily powerful enough.

 

Be warned; these GWR 0-6-2 tanks can suffer from extreme drawbar periodicity problems. I rode behind one recently and at certain speeds it was akin to a dog shaking a rat!

P.H.

 

Mind you, 6619 may look like a 56XX, but she's had a quarter of a century of being souped up by her owners. Among other things, she has a Kylchap blastpipe. Think of her as a hotrod.

 

While a tender engine, such as an LMS 4F, would be very nice indeed, we have certain practicalities to observe. At Rolvenden, for example, we have a passing loop that is 5 coaches plus one 80xxx/ 42xx long. A tender engine could lead to us actually being unable to pass trains, given the current set-up. Mind you, if someone would wish to bring us a nice tender engine or two, I'm sure that P Way could be bribed with enough tea to sort something out!

 

You don't have to come off if you take it at Rolvenden with the current track layout or even better it would be a good idea to have a coal pile and digger at Robertsbridge to coal locos during run rounds maybe?

 

Has she been re-balanced as well? Believe me, if she is as bad as the one I sampled, there will be complaints galore.

P.H.

 

AFAIK, 6619 never suffered problems in that respect, which is probably more to do with valve events than balancing. It was/is a cracking loco and great to crew, once you've suffered having to oil it up and then dispose, that is!

I'll never understand why the 56XX/66XX were classed as a class 5, though. Definitely not up to that level of performance.

 

Sadly, 2516 is not available

 

I am very much at the limit of my knowledge now! Correct me if I am wrong but I believe these GW locos were balanced on the Stroudley system where the inside cranks were aligned with the outside pins. Stroudley claimed this reduced wear and tear on the axleboxes and this was adopted on the 0-6-2 tanks due to their problems in this respect. The disadvantage was the need for very large balance weights .

When some Stroudley E1s were converted to 0-6-2Ts for use in North Devon, passengers complained about being shaken about and the Southern Rly. "cured" the problem by rebalancing the engines in a conventional way. However, other Stroudley designs gave no problems and I do know of one narrow gauge loco which suffers similarly (but not to the same extent) where valve setting is suspected as the cause.

 

There will be three Southern Moguls on the market at the end of 2014. Mind you, 31625 will need a lot of work, 31874 even more, and 31806 won't come cheap. It would be great if one of these ended up on the K&ESR, notwithstanding the issue with the passing loop at Rolvenden. Still, that's a way ahead yet. Great that 6619 will be making a move south before too long.

 

To be honest, I am not sure what our intentions are with regards to future steam. It is clear we cannot go on with the engines we have at present if we extend to Robertsbridge. However, the last thing we would want is to find a couple of 9Fs flattening Tenterden bank! We are a light railway, and there is something really rather nice about a set of Maunsells, with a Terrier on each end.....

 

Well I don't know about that-there is a new wave of motive power interest on the KESR-and the mere requirement to lengthen run-rounds I guess would not temper it- a 9F could happen if a Mogul could. Incongruity on preserved lines pays the bills-and quite rightly the Terriers would present the KESR heritage brand with absolute effect when required.

 

Potty. A 9F would look silly, and be completely unnecessary. We are talking about a loco that can take the equivalent of 15 coaches up a 1 in 60 from a standing start, without drama (just a lot of noise).

The Moguls might look ok on the KESR, but I'd have thought that even these are possible a little large and modern for the ambience. A 4F 0-6-0 would be ideal if there were one about.

There is also a massive assumption that the Moguls will be for sale in 2014.....the one person who knows isn't saying yet what will happen!

 

No it is coachloads of OAPs and families that pay the bills and judging from my trip on the KESR recently they have only minimal interest in what is at the front end. Benighted gricers such as myself are a different matter but what proportion of the bills they pay is open to question.

Actually this benighted gricer has serious concerns that the KESR is in danger of losing it by becoming neither a "typical" light railway on the one hand nor a "typical" branch line a la Bluebell or Isle of Wight on the other. There is no particular USP evident there.

P.H.

 

Not to mention that we can't get a 9F tender chassis round Orpin's curve without serious modification to one or the other....