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.