Talk:Chattenden and Upnor Railway

Original gauge
The article's lead states that the railway "was built in 1873 as a 18 in (457 mm) gauge railway, converted to 2 ft 6 in (762 mm) gauge around 1885" and the first paragraph says it "was originally laid in 1873 to  18 in (457 mm) gauge, as a training exercise for the Royal School of Military Engineering". Both statements are uncited. Mitchell & Smith (2000) (picture 47 ff) state "The lines from Sharnal Street to Lodge Hill and to Kingsnorth were standard gauge, as was the first railway between Upnor and Chattenden. This was short lived ... its trackbed was used for a 2ft 6ins gauge line...". Colonel Nowers, writing in "Steam Traction in the Royal Engineers" (North Kent Books, 1994) states: "These engines [steam sappers number 9 and 12] had wheels at 4ft $8 1/2$in gauge and were used on the mile military tramway running from the powder magazines at Upnor to the River Medway". The steam sappers were converted traction engines (see Aveling and Porter) and so an 18" gauge seems impossible. The date for the conversion of number 9 is 1873 and that for the ordering of number 12 is 1877.  It appears therefore that the original line was not 18", but 4'$8 1/2$" with the line being reduced to 2'6" in 1885. This is a pretty major change, so can anyone sort this out please? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not straightforward as there is not much official information about the early years and previous writers have come to different conclusions. But there seems to be more evidence in favour of standard gauge for initial construction. Col. Nowers quoted above seems to bear this out, but it should be noted that the magazines at Upnor were not half-a-mile from the river but right beside it, with their own pier -Grin Low (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Locos


Has the "Hornsby-Akroyd internal combustion engine locomotive of the 2ft 6in gauge Chattenden & Upnor Railway (works No. 6234)" ever worked on this line? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes it did, but not very much. The REs found it underpowered (hardly surprising on the 1 in 26 gradient), prone to overheating, very noisy and difficult to start. Given this it probably never went into regular service but no facts are available about its disposal. It was probably written off as an interesting experiment. The other five H-A locos built worked at Woolwich Arsenal for 15-20 years as the only locos allowed in certain explosion-risk areas, and there were no gradients to speak of. -Grin Low (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)