Rother Valley Railway

.......................Long Live The Colonel

 

As someone else has posted, treated water is used and its highly likily that a plant would be installed at Robertsbridge, if not with treated water at Rolvendon, low level treatment would be ok, because the main watering point is Rolvendon, but with the increased distance, that might change, with robertsbridge services taking water at Northiamin and tenterden services watering in the loop at Rolvendon,
As regards locos, You have to use what is availible, and not what might be historicly correct, remember a terrier is limited to two mk1's, so an Austerity, or GWR tank, are the only type 5( 5 bogies) that will be availible, the USA could, but they are really not suitable, limited coal and water space,
Had the line survived , it would certainly have gone over to DEMU most likily working London, headcorn, Tenterden Robertsbridge then Hastings,

 

I doubt that - it'd always have remained a self-contained branch, maybe with a 3D shuttling between Headcorn and Robertsbridge.

 

The K&ESR is in quite an unusual position for a line which was able to obtain some locos direct from BR in having to get hold of some larger ones so many years later. Let's remember that when Barbara Castle ruled out running beyond Bodiam back in the 1960s, no one would have ever thought that the revived K&ESR would have to consider using motive power suited to a 27 mile round trip. Thankfully, there will still be the Terriers to provide a link with the pre-preservation era K&ESR (although both are out of action at the moment) and rough riding as they are, at least one "USA" is currently under overhaul. I am quite sure that if ex- SR locos had become available, these would have been preferred to GWR types Let's remember, however, that by the time the RVR was launched in 1991, there wasn't even anything left in Woodham's at Barry. It has very much been a case of making to with whatever is available. I'm just pleased that it won't be that long before we'll be able to do something which would have seemed impossible not many years ago - to travel from Robertsbridge to Bodiam and Tenterden. I for one won't be complaining in the slightest if a 42xx, 16xx or 56xx is hauling the train.

 

What, no spoiler alert? And shouldn't this be on the obituary thread?

 

We'd happily give a home to a U or two. In fact, we did - at one point. Early in the KESR movement, there were those in authority who decided that the railway would not be a home to "scrapyard" engines. (Anyone who saw Rolvenden in the late 70's or early 80's probably wonders where that edict went wrong....) As a result, the KESR was very late to the party in trying to get engines that were suited to a medium length run. Austerities were perfect for plodding to Wittersham Road and back. The trains were shorter, and more frequent. One one occasion, the last train of the day was scheduled to be the P Class, Charwelton and four mk1's. The Wittersham signalman was slightly surprised when the P Class turned up on it's own, with a single coach. That really evoked the Stephens days.

Sadly, the commercial reality is that, now, we have to use engines that can move 5 mk1's up the hill to Tenterden. We have cut our rake to four, and even three, to save on coal (and wear and tear), but the engines need to be able to cope with our busiest days. It is a sad reality that many railways really want the same engines. With a few exceptions, 8F's and 9F's are probably overkill for most railways. Ditto Merchant Navies. At the other end of the scale, while Terriers are lovely, we need to tie two together to get that hypothetical train up the bank. The stuff in the middle is the holy grail, but is increasingly owned by railways or societies, so the chances of buying them are minimal (unless you can bid "silly" money, like some lucky people).

When the previous owner indicated that 4253 was for sale, we put a group together to restore an engine at no cost to the KESR. 6619 later became available, and we were able to buy it, due to our association with the owners. 5668 came to us as part of possibly the most lop-sided deal I can think of, and we hope to get started on that about a week after 4253 is released to traffic. Had Woodhams been in Kent, we would now be staring at Southern shaped rust, but they weren't. That's just the way things are.

 

In the years, following reopening the K&ESR was also affected by a very low axle loading. This meant that even locOS that haD been on the line such as the H class, the U class and even the RSH ‘Ugly’ 0-6-0ST were sent away as being unsuitable. I believe when 1638 was purchased. This was thought to be the only type of pannier tank that was suitable.

Bearing in mind that the line has been in the custodianship of the preservationists longer than it was under the Colonel/BR I see no issue with the line adapting to current needs. I’m sure had it remained open and using steam traction, 2MT 2-6-2T’s would have been considered as they were for other clients with similar restrictions, such as the Isle of Wight and Lyme Regis

 

Almost, but not quite. The H was never formally on the line, merely stored at Robertsbridge. The U's departure had a lot to do with axle loading. However, the Ugly's departure had more to do with... how can I put this.... differences of opinion between the owner and the railway, as I understand it. 1638 was bought because it was the only Pannier tank available at the time. However, we had already had 7752 on loan from Tyseley, so we knew that heavier Panniers would be fine.

 

The Colonel would surely have wanted to run whatever kind of train could be made useful and profitable.

If he was around now, surely he would have been happy to run larger locos and longer trains, on better permanent way, given that this is a requirement that (at least at the moment …!) seems to best match and exploit current operating conditions. Key points about these conditions are a railway part-supported by outside funding and volunteer manpower; a need to convey substantial trainloads of people who want a comfortable day out; opportunities to cater for other traffic of well-heeled folk wanting fine dining on the train; and lots of families hoping for exciting large steam locomotives to view and enjoy.

Of course that is a view from 2019. We can hope that disposable incomes return to the then norm, and that other factors like coal supplies and costs don’t preclude a return to the heritage railway scene pre-Covid. If things do get tight, railways like the KESR might find themselves returning to something more like the Col. Stephens era. But I hope not.

 

Given the precarious nature of some heritage railways, the KESR/RVR may not have to wait too long both alternative locomotives and other rolling stock to become available.

 

Apologies. I knew less about the comings and going is on the line after I stop volunteering in the mid-1970s (last thing I did was help demolish the abutments to the old Newmill Bridge), but thought that the ugly (56) had been deemed too heavy to go south of Rolvenden. I hadn’t realised that 7752 had been on the line so early.

 

Long live the Colonel! (OK, I was beaten to it! Nevertheless, we do still see idiosyncratic aspects on the railway today. Long may it continue!)

 

There is a 4 page article in the July Trackside Magazine about the granting of the TWAO. It has however changed the name of North Bridge Street to George Hill Lane which confused me

 

I see the headline is that it will cost £9m.
I have been looking at the proposed reinstatment from Bere Alston to Tavistock. This is 5 miles of track and Tavistock station would be a new, single platform bus shelter affair. Most of the land has already been bought. So why is that projected to cost £93m (2019 prices too!). The new Marsh Barton station, two platforms, has cost £20m. We really sure bring ripped off by the consultants and architects on these sorts of projects. No wonder so few of them happen.

 

off thread, but the emergency Nuneham bridge works are said to have cut out three years of planning, and construction has been cheaper as a result. (The downside is that it being unplanned, NR has to pay compensation for trains that couldn’t run.)

Project Speed at Okehampton found something similar in project cost. Portishead is an example the other way.

The relevance to projects like Tavistock - a no brainer - IMO is the GRIP and post-GRIP project planning is too long and inflates project cost.

 

I would assume a great part of the 9m costs is the land acquisition, and bringing in ballast, as there is track already stored for the extension, which was purchased in almost new condition from LU, after it had to be replaced after a very short use, i believe somehow the ends were damaged, but of course. once cut off, you had virtually new lengths of rail.

 

The article states that some of the money has been spent already - There have been costs in obtaining the TWAO - with many consultants and lawers being involved. I don't think that the land costs will be that great but there are embankments to re-instate along with culverts and bridges needed where the line crosses the flood plane.

 

What concerns me is the station. Should the line not run back into Tavistock South? (Demolish any encumbrances slowing what will eventually be required to link with Meldon. OK, I know that Devon CC have offices across the required right of way but their enthusiasm for the Tavistock link should be demonstrated by a willingness to 'get out of the road'! Oi!!)

 

That's an awfully long extension from Bodiam...

Are you sure you're on the right thread?

 

Think I got a little carried away...