Kent & East Sussex Railway

I will say as the author of said post, while not innocent in fanciful tangents, I was continuing a discussion on odd loco rebuilding. This included the regauging of locos from abroad and rebuilding of 6 coupled locos to something more KESR suitable so was not on the everyday KESR track at that point already

 

An 0-8-0T Bagnall, designed for heavy slow movement within a steelworks, is unlikely to have been built for sustained running at 25mph.

I have no data on the design, but suspect it might be just as rough on the track as the two USA tanks on the KESR. (even if the cylinders were in-gauge for KESR platform edges, even the Norwegian used to barely fit)

 

I have been doing a bit more digging on this loco, and I have now been told the reason why it never came back was that it is out of gauge for most of the UK heritage railways

 

Presumably it will be Meths fired with a Smithies boiler?

 

Now that depends on which side of the boiler wars you stand on: LBSC's or Greenleys

 

The conclusion of that debate was decided a century ago.

Sent from my SM-A356B using Tapatalk

 

Getting back to the railway, I see this has appeared. Well done to all concerned and those who have been involved

https://rvrailway.blogspot.com/2026/09/section-5a-track-laying-connected-up.html

 

How about this ex Port Talbot Railway as a new build

 

What makes Austerities hard on track? Are they harder on track than other 0-6-0 tanks of similar power like, say, a 5700 or a Jinty?

 

Short wheelbase. On the Mid Hants we called 196 'The Puddlejumper'. It used to weave its way up the line.
Pat

 

I don't know, but guess as follows:-
They are about 15% more powerful than a Jinty
Wikipedia says (so it must be true...) that jinties could reach speeds of 60mph. They were certainly used on, and AFAIK designed to allow for, use on passenger trains and goods trains.
Austeries were designed as pure shunters.
Jinty's had a 16' wheelbase compared to an austerity's 11'

So I assume it's a combo of being that bit bigger and more powerful on a shorter wheelbase and differences in wheel balancing.
I wonder if the saddle tank put the centre of gravity up higher as well?

 

I believe the LMS 3F tanks were used on passenger trains out of Broad Street and maybe elsewhere.
It would be interesting to know whether the "Douglas" Austerity conversion to a tender engine was any kinder to the track?

 

If, as Dunfanaghy Road says, it's down to the wheelbase, it probably won't be because, as I understand it, the wheelbase wasn't changed

 

The axle loading will be several tons lighter - 5 1/2 tons of water and 2 1/2 tons of coal aren't being carried for a start. @3855 might know how much the loco weighs compared to a standard Austerity.

 

All those points will contribute to making a Jinty a better ride than an Austerity. The wheel dia is greater on a Jinty, too, at 4'-7". At 360 RPM (which was a standard design maximum speed for stationary steam engines back in the day) that equates to 59 mph. With an Austerity that would equate to 51 mph. I know from experience that at 40 mph an Austerity footplate is not a place you'd want to be (I didn'!) and that would be down to the balancing, high centre of gravity and short wheelbase all combining to make it a very lively ride. And that's before we consider the state of the track.

 

The ride on Douglas is nicer than a standard Austerity with the loss of weight and particularly the overhanging rear bunker and frame section the loco glides over dipped joints rather than plunge in and out. With regard to weight the std austerity wouldn't keep a full water tank and bunker for long. I work on the basis Douglas is about 10 tons lighter than the saddletank version.

 

The original point made was that an Austerity was "hard on the track", whereas a lot of the subsequent discussion has been about ride quality, particularly from the footplate.

Are the two synonymous? In other words, an Austerity - with a very short wheelbase - is likely to make you profoundly aware of any dipped joints etc. But does that equate to the loco being harder on the track - in other words, if you did the parallel experiment of running only an Austerity or only a Jinty, would there be a noticeable difference in track condition?

Tom

 

The S&D Jinties had screw reversers for use on passenger trains

AFAIK after the LMS took control of the S&D loco stock they were transferred away for passenger use.

There were some 'auto fitted' Jinties according to my 1964 Combined Volume and I have seen photos of them on passenger trains from Broad Street

So yes definatley a mixed traffic loco

 

My guess would be slightly more. 5.35 tons water, 2.5 tons coal, about 2.25 tons for the tank and 0.8 tons for the bunker/ cab back = 10.9 tons. Has it ever been weighed?

 

Well, Newton's Third Law says that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction; so, if the passengers in the cab are feeling forces, the track will be getting equal and opposite forces. (To get perfect equality, of course, one has to assume that the locomotive itself - the thing between them - is perfectly rigid; it's not, but its deviation from perfect rigidity is small enough that its contributions to variance from perfect 'equal and opposite' are second order, and can be ignored.)

Noel