Kent & East Sussex Railway

I wholly agree that the K&ESR does need larger locos and appreciate that the GWR tanks are probably ideal... at the same time, as I have commented before, I'd be sorry to see the motive power on this route become almost entirely Swindon-built... there are so many other places you can enjoy rural GWR steam.

The name John Bunch jumps to mind... I don't know much about him except that he appears to have fallen out with a few people, but the relevance here is that I understand he has a handful of Southern 2-6-0s that are in an unrestored state... is there potential for a deal there?

 

Since the effect of Covid, engineering staff have been reduced drastically.
4253 group are making steady progress, not just with 4253, but also preparing to work on 5668 and 6619. They also do contract work for others.

Since heavy repairs are effectively in the hands of volunteers, I don't think they currently would be able to take on other unrestored locos.

I think for the foreseeable future KESR will be likely to run as the Kent & East Swindon Railway.

I think also that Austerities/18"Hunslets, despite being not ideal, will remain necessary. Even having a "USA" tank keeps the service running, despite the effect on the track.


I do wish I could win the Lottery (some hopes) and pay for the Terriers and P class to be quickly brought back into service, either as attractions for special occasions, or for light traffic days.

In the meantime, having access to a loaned cl20 diesel has been a great help during the drought/fire risk.

 

In the "wouldn't it be nice" category would be a small/medium tender engine. I always liked the Norwegian 2-6-0.
Incidentally, the late John Miller (one time K&ESR chairman) had back of envelope sketches for Austerity conversions to a 0-6-0 tender engine ( as has been done elsewhere since) or a 0-6-2 side tank. The thought was they'd look more interesting and be kinder to the track.

 

I seem to recall that JB is in the midst of a 25 year agreement with the Swanage for those, so probably not.

 

You could have stopped typing at that point.

 

.....but wrong!

 

I have been lucky enough to ride on the Norwegian (only as 3rd man), most enjoyable. However I believe she is only able to work trains of up to four MK 1 coaches (or equivalent).

 

Yup, any useable loco needs to be able to haul 5 coaches up Tenterden bank.

 

I recall, probably 15 yrs ago, an occasion when the A set was hauled by two Terriers.
Can't remember why.
What I do remember was that after the first trip UP the bank, the driver came in to a classroom where a signalling course was in progress. He asked if there was a possibility of one of the trainees were qualified to work Cranbrook Rd gates, and might be spare for that duty.
Basically he was saying that 2 Terriers could get 5 MK 1 up the bank OK, but restarting train twice (once for guard to alight, once to rejoin) on the bank was a struggle and was not doing the locos much good.

The course was only booked for the morning, so it was resolved.

Similarly pannier 1638 was allowed to work the full set, but I recalled it struggling sometimes on the Pullman when Cranbrook Rd was unmanned.

 

So we can agree that the K&ESR needs larger locos for today's services, and both the USA and J94 tanks give the track gang too much grief, so in an ideal world, would something like a schools or an L1 class be more suitable? Or even a BR standard 3MT or 4MT Tank? just saying

 

Although not blameless, the Austerities don't give the track anything like the grief the USA tanks do. A Schools or an L1 would suffer from large driving wheels with not that much weight over them. A standard 4 tank has proved to be ideal in the past, but they don't grow on trees, not least because they have been proved to be ideal on most preserved lines!

 

What would be ideal and what I (not neccecarily the Bluebell Railway) think should happen is that 80100 (currently dumped at Horsted Keynes in Barry condition) should get a restore and run deal with another line. Possibly the KESR??? Basically they can have the engine, overhaul it, run it for, say 5 or 6 years, then it goes back to the Bluebell to see out the remainder of its ticket.

I don't know if 80100 will run again, but it won't be at the Bluebell any time soon. They don't want to get rid of it as, as has been acknowledged, it's a perfect loco for a preserved line. But I feel in the medium term it would do better somewhere which has the time to restore it. Not sure if the KESR would be suitable?

 

Restoring 4253 has cost something in the region of £300k. If you figure the same amount to restore 80100, then having it for 6 years, that would amount to the equivalent of £50k a year in steaming fees. I am not sure of the current rate of steaming fees, but even taking £500 as a base line for a day, you'd be talking 100 steaming days a year. That's rather a lot, and doesn't allow for things like washouts and repairs. I think you'd have to go to a full ten year deal to make it economically viable, but then what's in it for the owning railway? They get an engine back that is easier to overhaul than the restoration would have been, but it has 10 years of use on it, so you're still in six figures to overhaul.

You also have to factor in that the KESR does not have the manpower to do a restoration like that. 4253 Ltd is a separate group, and they already have 5668 (and some of 6619) queued up behind 4253 and 4270. In practice, you'd be looking at ten years before 80100 could be started, by which time 4253 is likely to need an overhaul.

It's a good idea basically, but the practicalities of it, in my opinion, rule out the KESR. I'd love to be proved wrong, and to have a standard tank at the line, but I just don't think it's feasible on the basis suggested.

 

I think that your figures are a bit way off in todays terms. I don't know what condition 80100 is in and I don't know how much is available in terms of non-ferrous bits and pieces but I'd be surprised if it could be put back in traffic for less than £700K unless there is a lot of skilled volunteer labour available. In terms of hire costs, an industrial 0-6-0 will probably set you back that £500/day you suggested. Probably at least double for a BR standard, probably a good bit more.

 

Photos of 80100 if anyone is interested, as an aside. Sorry we're not quite on the KESR but I feel discussing motive power options is somewhat relevant.

https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/80100-2/

 

happen 80100 should join the que at the ESR after 80064 it would be running by 2028

 

I know this is going back a few years, but didn't a group suggest batch-building a series of new 4MTs?

 

If you're going to use any locos not currently in use, what else might be available to 'borrow' from Margate?

 

Of course, if you want to be considered totally bonkers, then why not look to buying one of the larger remaining 3 ft 6 in gauge 2-6-2T, then bring it back to the UK and use all the components to build a new standard gauge 2-6-2T.

Several narrow-gauge outfits have shown how it can be done by buying in locos that are not to their gauge; the only thing which may put people off is the fact that it would be a much bigger in size project. But you could end up with a boiler, frames, wheels, hornblocks and cylinder castings etc to start with, which would be cheaper to use rather than having to raise the money to have them produced in the first place; here in the UK you might also just end up with a cab and other bits of useful platework.

I would also suggest that if such a project were to be considered, then I would suggest building it away from the railway, such as that place in Sheffield, as an example and paying for someone to carry out the rebuilding work and getting it done within a reasonable time frame.

 

Well, apart from that idea being completely nuts and nothing to do with, you know, preservation ...

What you suggest would end up being more expensive than a traditional restoration, because you'd have all the expense of a normal restoration, but also all the additional expense of design work and rebuilding the frames (complete sets of new frame stretchers, for example, and in the end you'd have a loco with no provenance to the line, little interest to most British enthusiasts and a woefully undersized firebox rattling between frames that are now 14 inches further apart than they were! Very little of what existed on the donor could end up on the rebuilt loco without major surgery first. (New axles, new frame stretchers, new brake shafts, new weigh shaft, new cab ...)

But anyway, keep smoking the good stuff.

Tom