Rother Valley Railway

Auto correct is a real pain!

 

Meeting modern station standards, I doubt that any Salehurst Halt would match our understanding of a halt. I guess that the ORR prefer full train length platforms when built as new.

 

Section 6(3)(b) of the TWAO provides powers to construct "ramps, means of access, a passing loop, and a halt at Salehurst" but I believe RVR've said they don't intend to construct the halt at present. That doesn't necessarily rule it out forever. The TWAO says nothing about a halt at the former Junction Road site, and I believe RVR did not seek powers to reinstate it.

 

Just remind me, someone- is there permission to construct a loop at Junction Road?
I just can't recall it ever being specifically mentioned.

 

No, Salehurst’s the only one.

 

The Planning Consent shows a loop at Junction Road but is to the west of road whereas the Halt was to the East. I don't remember what was included in the TWAO submission.

 

Yes, that's where the original siding was, so it would make sense. Im pretty sure that Salehurst was never mentioned for use as a passing place.

 

I would have thought a halt could be useful here because of the popular campsite nearby potentially generating traffic. Perhaps the length of time a crossing over the road would be closed to traffic while a train was stopped there was a consideration.

 

I think it might also've been an aspect of the negotiations with landowners when this section of trackbed was acquired (amicably, a good few years before the public inquiry).

 

Another section of the trackbed survey has been posted this morning in the RVR blog. Click HERE - I have to say I thought the area was more heavily wooded than it is. It mentions that spans for Bridge 25 had been recently removed and that replacements were 'in the area'. Interesting to see someone in Hi-viz lurking in the pictures.

 

I don't recall this question being asked, or perhaps someone can remind me: Which locos will be used once the extension is in use?
I support 4253, acquired for its longer legs and bigger coal & water capacities, but what will happen to the Austerities and USA tanks? Won't they be too small for the full length of the line?

 

I would imagine they will still be of use, there will be watering facilies at Robertsbridge, so they could water up, at rolvendon, and Robertsbridge, coaling will be the issue, but if a coal stage is included, then coal could be taken also, something as simple as having an dropside open wagon next to the headshunt so coal can be shoveled into the bunker, in-between arrival, and departure, and, of course the coal wagon, could always be worked into the last up working then brought back to Rolvendon to be topped up, and then worked back in the first departure the next operating day,

 

The Austerities and USAs manage three trips to Bodiam and the longer line will probably mean (some) diagrams will be two return trips so daily mileage per loco will actually drop.

 

Are you going to be on hand to shovel the coal from the wagon into the bunker, Martyn? An Austerity holds 2.75 tons of coal so should be good for about 50-60 miles. Not sure how long the extended line will be but I’m sure this will suffice. A tank full of water should do 20 miles unless a water valve is left on or an ash pan sprinkler is fitted.

 

No, he’s going to be on the ground doing the daily shunt of the coal wagon …

(Mixed trains - very Col. Stephens!)

Tom

 

FYI the linked post is currently missing from the RVR blog

 

Yes I noticed that last night - Too quick of the mark again!

 

4253, together with 5668 and 6619, should do well on the line. 1638 and the Terriers will also be fine, albeit at lower capacities. The Austerity tanks, unloved by some, are surprisingly capable, and without them I have no idea where we would be as a railway. The USA tanks have a very short wheel base, which means they tend to be a rough ride for the crews. However, on coal and water capacities, they can do the job. We are limited to 5 mk1 sets due to the length of our passing loops. I suspect that, if an owner or two wanted to bring their B1 or Manor to us, we would be happy to talk to them. At present, we accept that we have to make the best of the fleet that we already have.

 

IMHO Austerities & USA's are more appropriate for the K&ESR rather than Manors & B1's

 

At present, according to the 2023 loco strategy, there are no firm plans to overhaul 5568, 6619 or 1638.
Locomotive Strategy - Kent & East Sussex Railway (kesr.org.uk)