Jump to content
 

A "might have been" terminus in North East Kent


whart57
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have been taking part in an interesting discussion that started as a request for help in devising a timetable for a fictitious terminus station on the North Kent coast. As the discussion developed the fictitious location settled on Reculver, once a key location in Roman Britain, the entry point for Christianity into Anglo-Saxon Britain, but since the time of King Ethelbert, a bit of a backwater. More accurately, the back of a backwater.

 

However railway modellers can always rewrite history, and the potential of an alternative history for Reculver creating a railway terminus providing interesting and complex operation in several eras seems to me worthy of its own discussion thread.

 

First of all, where are we talking of? Well, NE Kent, deep in SECR territory for the pre-group guys, NSE in pre-privatisation years and South Eastern now. And recently also blessed with Javelin trains. A map might help. This one is public domain (off Wikimedia Commons) and shows the rail network just before WW1. The red box marks the territory this discussion will concentrate on.

 

map_of_kent_railways.jpg.72d3b406ba45c44b21e536888db2f202.jpg

 

 

One unusual thing about Kent railway maps of the past is that there is actually a present day line missing, namely HS1, but that doesn't really affect us. This map also does not have the rambling East Kent Light Railway, one of Colonel Stephens' more ramshackle affairs, on it either but as that lies outside the area under discussion that's not really relevant either. Though as pedants will no doubt point out, the EKLR did propose on line that would have skirted through the area if it had ever got beyond a field near Wingham.

 

This however is a "might have been" suggestion, and for that we need to have a factor or two from which we can create an alternative history. My suggested alternative history concerns the settlement at Reculver.

 

In reality Reculver barely counts as a hamlet. Part of its problems stem from the fact it is on a clifftop that has eroded hugely over the centuries, but possibly sea defences could have been better, or the tidal surges flow in a slightly different direction. But Reculver is old. OS maps show its Roman name of Regulbium and that there are the remains of a Roman fort there, and the most significant landmark for miles around are the ruined towers of Reculver's 12th century church. The vicar of Hillborough obtained permission in the early 1800s to demolish the church and use the stone to build a better church at Hillborough. a mile or so inland. However Trinity House insisted the towers were retained as a landmark for shipping so they have survived into the present day.

 

So the first bit of our alternative history is to re-imagine Reculver at the start of the railway age as being a settlement with a functioning church, a small harbour for barges and fishing vessels where the North Stream and one of the arms of the Wantsum flow into the sea, and thus a small population of a similar size to its neighbour Herne Bay, which then too was little more than a few houses on the sea shore.

 

Just about big enough then to attract a branch line if it was easy to build and there was the traffic to justify it. So let's bring up a map of what the area was like in 1840-50 when the SER built its first lines.

 

reculver_1840s.png.0fab8df8d1ed96b62e3602684c2014d5.png 

 

The terrain is actually quite railway friendly. This is because the route to Reculver could follow the old Roman era shoreline. To the west the land rises to over 100', possibly 150' and has a number of transverse valleys. This is why there was never a branch line from Canterbury to Herne Bay and why the Canterbury and Whitstable railway had one of the first railway tunnels, fearsome gradients and was originally designed for cable haulage.

 

To the east the land is flat and wet. There are a lot of drainage channels, and the area was open sea in Roman times, and then Thanet was truly an island.

 

In 1846 the South Eastern Railway opened its line from Ashford to Ramsgate. This followed the River Stour and the SER opened a station where there was a ferry across the river, Grove Ferry. In 1846 the Stour was still theoretically navigable as far as Fordwich, Canterbury's medieval port, but only the smallest barges could do it.

 

If Reculver had been big enough, or had a backer prepared to put in the money, then there would have been a relatively simple route from Grove Ferry to Reculver. Gradients would have been minimal though probably it would have been wise to climb the 20' or so to get out of the marshes. With the harbour at Reculver providing a means of shipping coal and grain to Canterbury - the reason why the Canterbury and Whitstable was built - then there would have been the economic justification.

 

So let's say our alternative Reculver was blessed with a single track branch of the South Eastern Railway in 1847.

 

reculver_branch-1.png.5052f76991e02f856a45539113ce45df.png

 

What would happen next?

 

Edited by whart57
Restore pictures
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I love the fact that the map is French! 

 

The history of Kent railways is dominated by the attempts by the SER and LCDR to bankrupt each other. These endeavours were so successful that the 1901 Amalgamation, SECR and the Joint Management Committee were a necessary way of calling a truce before both went belly up! Accordingly, the Chatham's design for its route from Faversham to Thanet would have taken account of the Reculver branch in some way, possibly with a station of its own, offering a shorter journey to London. 

 

This is good fun, as David Bell says.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The Wikipedia entry on Reculver includes the following:-

 

"In 1884 the South Eastern Railway proposed building a branch line from its station at Grove Ferry on the Ashford to Ramsgate line to join the London, Chatham and Dover Railway's Chatham Main Line at Reculver, thereby linking Canterbury and Herne Bay. The Canterbury and Kent Coast Railway Bill was presented to a select committee of MPs in January 1885: the London, Chatham and Dover Railway objected to it, particularly the junction with their main line at Reculver, so the Bill was rejected and the line was not built"

 

Thus you might find there is an actual surveyed route buried in Parliamentary documentation.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this, I might try and look into that just out of interest. This proposal was for a junction out in the marshes and it is hard to see what the LCDR would have got out of it. I don't think that was the only time railway planners looked at the 5 or 6 miles of flat - and cheap - land between Reculver and Grove Ferry and wondered "what if we ...."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

Thus you might find there is an actual surveyed route buried in Parliamentary documentation.

 

Whart invented a SER line, which turns out to have been a real proposal.

 

In the other discussion, I invented an extension of the EKLR into the area, which turned out to have been a real proposal too.

 

Its actually quite hard to make-up fake news in a world where all the fibs turn out to be true.

  • Like 6
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if the South Eastern Railway had built a branch from Grove Ferry to Reculver, and had created a small harbour as well, then what might be expected to be seen there. We can use Whitstable as our inspiration.

 

This sketch map sets out my ideas.

 

reculver_1855.png.444420f768c0b3abaaa9a7624896e2c6.png

 

 

I have the harbour where the North Stream and various other drainages have a sluice gate to the Thames Estuary. In real life the main arm of the harbour is a tank to hold water when the tide is up and it can't discharge into the sea, but it's a small step to open it out as a small dock. It's about the same size as the original harbour at Whitstable. I'm assuming the bulk of the 1847 Reculver was behind the walls of the Roman fort (some of which can still be seen today) so the original passenger station was at the end of the street that passed by the church and through the middle of the fort.

 

However, that site is unlikely to be a pleasant spot to wait for a train. The wind off the sea can be bitter - there is not much between North Kent and the North Pole to slow down winds - and the area would also fill up with harbour related businesses and sheds. So, as at Whitstable I have the passenger station moving a little inland.

 

This story also has the property developers that in real life sought to expand Herne Bay in the 1840s, doing the same at Reculver. That would be laying out three Georgian-style squares to the West of the fort. Exactly where, in real life, Reculver's post war caravan sites were laid out. The new station would be in a better location to serve that new build.

 

Services would probably be four or five trains daily each way for passengers with one or two goods runs as well. At the front of the train might be one of several types of locomotives. The SER had some 0-4-0 Bury types which were presumably like the famous Furness Railway one

 

Im1923EnV135-p112b.jpg

 

 

Unlike the Canterbury and Whitstable, this line would have barely any gradients so these locos wouldn't have the adhesion issues the Burys had on the C&W.

 

At this time the SER have a monopoly in Kent, but that is about to change.

 

Edited by whart57
Restore images
  • Like 5
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The SER was a bit complacent about its monopoly so when in 1858 an independent branch line opened to run from Strood to Faversham, taking the traditional Watling Street route to the Channel, the SER Board sat back and waited for the approach from this new company asking to be taken over. It never came. Instead it marked the start of forty years of ruinous competition, personal vendetta and some crazy schemes that should never have been considered. For that new company was the East Kent Railway, soon to rename itself the London Chatham and Dover (LCDR).

 

In the 20th century we would actually benefit from this insane competition. During the two world wars the extra capacity to the Kent ports and the resilience granted by having multiple routes to most was of huge strategic value. After 1945, when London's suburbs expanded mightily, the already dense mesh of railway lines built up six decades before ensured they were well connected from the start. But the long suffering passengers and shareholders of the nineteenth century weren't to know that.

 

The LCDR reached the Reculver area in 1861 when it opened the Herne Bay and Faversham Railway, and in 1863 that was extended to Margate and Ramsgate. What this alternative history has to consider is what would the LCDR have done if Reculver had been a significant destination, albeit already served by the SER.

 

I think we can assume the SER would not be cooperative. They had already tried to block the Herne Bay and Faversham on the grounds that the area was already well served by the Canterbury and Whitstable, and they made a huge fuss over the bridge needed for the C&W to cross the new railway. So we can forget about a spur and running powers, the SER was not in the mood to consider that.

 

The LCDR might put in a passing station at a point where there was a convenient road to Reculver, but that would be at Hillborough, quite some distance off. A branch line might be another possibility, and given that there were few obstacles it would be relatively cheap to build. It would also provide a much faster route to London, even if a change of train at Herne Bay or Faversham was needed.

 

So that is what I propose in this map.

 

reculver_1880.png.4a977d99718f7d7c4ed7e094eca315fc.png

 

 

I've drawn the route of the Kent Coast line a little further south than in reality - the SER kicking up more objections about the crossing of their line is my excuse - and I have also put in the expansion of Reculver mentioned in earlier posts.

 

To create an interesting model railway out of this it's really necessary to have the LCDR station close to the SER one. At this point in history it would be fair to assume there would be two separate stations. Fortunately the geography more or less demands that. The LCDR would not approach Reculver from the west, that is much more hilly so their station would have to be to the east of the SER one. The North Stream, and the very wet ground criss-crossed by drainage channels, would limit how far east they could go.

 

I've named the junction "Roman Galley Junction". That was the name given to a road station on the new Thanet Way road when that opened in the 1930s. I always understood the name came from the discovery of an old ship - though probably not Roman - in the fields here. When I was a lad in Herne Bay there was also rumours of a ghostly Roman centurion who would appear trying to cross the motor route on stormy nights. The road station later became a pub-restaurant and as such featured in an Only Fools and Horses episode. But I thought it was a great name for a railway junction.

Edited by whart57
Restore images
  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

When things had settled down a bit, say the 1880s, we might expect the railway layout at Reculver to be something like this.

 

reculver_1880s.png.c5e9189782aba18a79f99fd1d96929bf.png

 

 

I'm assuming that the Board of Trade and the harbour authorities cajoled the SER into permitting a connection between the harbour tracks and the LCDR, but otherwise that is the only connection.

 

I have based the LCDR station layout on Sheerness Dockyard. That means there is a sector plate under the overall roof for releasing engines rather than a crossover. There is a standard LCDR goods shed and a small engine shed with a turntable. The SER station is still a small single track terminus. Most SER goods traffic is from the harbour to Canterbury and Ashford and it's probable too that most of Reculver's own coal comes in by sea. That was typical for the Kent and Essex coastal towns up until WW1.

 

The harbour tracks would be much more extensive than this sketch shows.

 

In the 1880s the level of services was a lot lower than later, maybe even half the level of that of the early 20th century. On the SER side passenger services might not even go beyond Grove Ferry, with passengers expected to change there. A short branch like this may well be given to the charge of an old suburban tank engine, displaced from London by the new Stirling 0-4-4T locos, though the SER was not at all worried about running its tender engines tender-first.

 

ser-205.png.49bd5a82f4a2ec32d0775a2c69123a27.png

 

 

The staple service on the LCDR side is probably a Faversham service, passengers to London changing there onto a train coming up from Dover. The LCDR loco department had yet to get around to standardising loco designs so there were plenty of small classes. Possibly something like this "Tiger" class would head up those trains

 

 

Or possibly something like these passenger tanks

 

 

 

If I have got the class correct then this little gem was originally an express locomotive in Holland. The Netherlands Rhine railway ordered a clutch of 2-4-0s from Sharp Stewart when they converted the line from 2 metre broad gauge to standard gauge in the 1850s. They then found they didn't need so many, and as James Staats Forbes was a director of both the NRS and the LCDR six of them ended up on the Chatham. A couple of rebuilds later and they looked like this.

 

Or maybe it would be one of the 0-4-2 tender engines acquired in questionable circumstances that CME Martley then acknowledged by naming them Brigand and Corsair.

 

On the goods side the difference between the standardised SER and non-standardised LCDR would have been equally apparent. SER goods services in the 1880s would almost certainly be in the hands of a Cudworth "standard goods", a rugged outside framed 0-6-0 tender engine.

 

image.png.2eff3848a249a3aa3f15b45fa289ebb0.png

 

 

The LCDR on the other hand had many different 0-6-0s to choose from. Possibly the regular engine would have been one of the Sharp Stewarts - similar to those on the Cambrian and Furness Railways - picked up by bargain-hunter Martley and named Huz and Buz.

 

 

Edited by whart57
Restored some images
  • Like 4
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have followed this thread with interest as I live close by to Reculver 

Apart from a pub and several caravan parks there is little there . 
The Towers which are a prominent local landmark were actually rebuilt in the early 19th century by Trinity House as an aid to shipping. At the time the Southeastern came through Grove Ferry the Towers were all that was there . 
can I be permitted to suggest two alternative scenarios. 

Firstly the Southern Railway was very keen to attract business to potential holiday areas ,think Allhallows or the diversion of the New Romney branch closer to the coast in 1930s. 
Given the caravan parks at Reculver it might be that the SR decided to build a branch to serve them in the hope of developing a resort at Reculver a la Allhallows . The line could branch off the LCDR between HerneBay and Birchington at the point where it drops down to the Wantsum channel.Earthworks would be minimal and the station could be a version of Allhallows 

My alternative suggestion is set a few miles west on the western side of Herne Bay at Hampton. The LCDR  came to Herne Bay in 1863 . The was a small fishing village at Hampton and there was a thriving trade in oysters. A tramway was built from the railway to the pier at Hampton which was much longer then than now . 
The oyster fishery died out in the 1880s and the tramway closed and was lifted at the same time. Hampton Pier Avenue is built on the trackbed. 
Suppose the tramway was improved and updated to passenger status . A station could have been built at Hampton. Trains could run from Faversham , the Medway towns and London . It could have been electrified in 1959  again with local trains running from Faversham. 
Google Hampton pier for more information. 
I hope this may provide some further inspiration 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I grew up in Herne Bay, though I've not been back to the area for nearly twenty years now. So I have quite a bit of interest in the area, I even helped a little bit with the Roman Fort excavations in the early sixties. (I was only ten and it was only because my dad was one of the volunteer diggers).

 

The Allhallows suggestion is an interesting one. It would make a very different layout to the one proposed. The problem for the original reason for this thread  - a terminus station on the North Kent coast set in the 1980s - is that, like Allhallows, the line wouldn't have survived Beeching. It might have got built though, as you point out, it's an easy route from what I call "Roman Galley", and in manual signalling time there was even a block post called "Reculvers" at around the right spot.

 

Holiday traffic to Reculver was substantial in 1950s summers though. I have some booklets published by the MD&EK bus club which list car allocations for East Kent's bus routes. In 1959 for example the summer timetable has three double deckers allocated to service 39 (Hampton-Reculver), but in winter, service 39 is truncated to run from the Pier to Reculver and it had a single 29 seat Dennis Falcon allocated to it.

 

I also looked at the line to Hampton as an idea for a layout, though more as a 7mm scale minimum space job. I even have a Slaters Manning Wardle kit part built to be the line's engine. Hampton pier is a place I remember well from my young days. The ruins of the pier extension (demolished because the tidal scour it caused between Hampton and Swalecliffe) were a great place to mess around at low tide. For a few years there was also a ship's life boat on the beach outside the sea cadets' hut. No idea why it was there. It appeared one year and disappeared a couple of years later, and far too high above the tide line to be something washed ashore.

 

The excellent map resource of the National Library of Scotland wasn't online when I was thinking about this line for a layout, so I never knew the exact route. I had a look this morning and I would say that it's more true to say that Hampton Pier Avenue was laid beside the trackbed rather than along it, though whether that is just a quirk of mapmaking or not I can't say. The various editions are stated by the NLS to be revisions rather than new surveys so the marked remnants of the line might well have shown up on the map for years after they had actually disappeared. There was some forty years between the tramway closing and the Hampton Pier Avenue first being laid out.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi 

I agree that a railway to Reculver might not have survived the Beaching cut but a line to Hampton Pier might 

However its your railway and in your alternative reality Reculver might well have become a viable branch especially if electrified . 
A branch to Hampton Pier might well have survived given the growth of housing in the area . 
Another possibility it the upgrading of Faversham Creek branch to passenger standards.
I continue towatch with interest. 
good luck 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 18/02/2021 at 14:58, whart57 said:

What would happen next?

Thanks to yourself Whart57, C126, Nearholmer and many others for the suggestion of this location -  back on the other topic, when I was only trying to plan a timetable for "somewhere" in North Kent.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/162153-input-ideas-on-planning-a-timetable-and-creating-a-location/

 

As you know, I went down the fictitious location route - but occupying approximately the same spot.

 

I agree that it's a really good basis for a layout, with loads of potential.  Mine was made "in reverse" - era and formation first, then a suitable location was sought, it's amazing how it all developed!  So it's a the fictional location of "Dent-de-Lion" (anyone who knows the area might well recognise that name...) in the late 1970's.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blogs/blog/2558-third-rail-n-gauge-shelf-terminus/

 

Having great fun creating a timetable (using a WTT from location and the time!) and adding new rolling stock to it now, and I have you chaps to thank for that!  Thank you so much.

Edited by Ray Von
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What would the merger between the SER and LCDR in 1899 mean for this visualisation of Reculver? If evidence from the rest of the network is anything to go by, the impact would be minimal. Major reconstructions, such as the rationalisation of the lines on Thanet, would have to wait until Southern Railway days. Probably the new SECR would put in a link between the two sides, if only to remove the duplication in loco servicing facilities. I've tried drawing out a potential trackplan for an SECR era station using PECO geometry

 

 

Reculver1905peco.png.21ae2fe4331cd8b66f589d598332c2c0.png

 

PECO doesn't do a sector plate so in AnyRail I used a diamond crossing to indicate this feature. The turntable is also smaller than the PECO one, but there won't be any Pacifics operating here.

 

The brown colour is the SER side, the (very) dark green is the LCDR, with the light green indicating the shared siding which can also be used to get a loco from the SER side to the LCDR coaling stage. Unlikely to be used much given that Ashford shed would still be looking after the ex-SER locos. The SECR was not a true merger, it was a management committee managing two separate companies to achieve a common goal. The SER and LCDR did not truly merge until the Grouping of 1923.

 

For the LCDR side I have pretty slavishly copied Sheerness Dockyard, which incidentally would make an interesting layout in it's own right, particularly with the operational feature of trains for Sheerness on Sea having to reverse in the Dockyard station. Thus, as well as the sector plate at the end of the platform roads, there is an overall roof, an across the tracks signal box, a two road engine shed and a standard LCDR goods shed.

 

The SER side is essentially the non-harbour part of Whitstable Harbour station.

 

Both sides have a track going off to the right which we assume is the link to the harbour.

 

Operationally the LCDR side would be mainly passenger trains, I'm suggesting mainly locals to Faversham where London bound passengers would change onto a train coming up from Dover Priory. There might be a couple of direct trains a day to London and there might be summer excursion traffic. Possibly there might be a coach dropped off from a Ramsgate train at Herne Bay which would then be worked forward by a tank engine kept at Reculver.

 

On the SER side c1905 we might see Grove Ferry services be handed over to steam railcars

 

image.png.a5dc2a1831560bf8182f9d58027940f8.png

 

Given the absence of gradients between Reculver and Grove Ferry these might actually have been successful here.

 

Around 1910 however the SECR had an interesting way of operating in East Kent, roundy-roundy operation. A couple of trains circulated a route of Dover-Folkestone-Canterbury(via the Elham Valley)-Minster-Deal-Dover, or in the opposite direction. It would not be a stretch to suggest operations on the SER side of our Reculver in the years before WW1 would be as the terminus of these roundabout trains. Headed by a Q or Q1 0-4-4T and made up of mostly six wheel carriages they might run Reculver-Grove Ferry-Canterbury West-Elham-Folkestone-Dover-Deal-Minster-Grove Ferry-Reculver. Or the other way.

 

In this "might have been scenario" we could even justify a P class 0-6-0T as harbour shunter, given its a loco class far more popular with railway modellers than it ever was with the SECR's Operating Division.

Edited by whart57
Restored track plan
  • Like 1
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks great! Do you think you'll make it, or is it just a theoretical design right now?  I think the steam era has a lot more potential for activity than my late 70's "crumbling" scenario.  It certainly gets the imagination fired up - I might have to take a jaunt out to Reculver at some point this month (I am in Margate) maybe take some pictures for inspiration...!

 

Edited by Ray Von
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's very inspiring, maybe somebody will take it on as a project.  I've just been running my latest timetable (circa 1980) the WTT has proven to be a boon in adding realism to that.  In the meantime I'm really enjoying the theorising and "what-iffery"!  Cheers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That reminds me of the never built "Cliftonville Halt" between Margate and Broadstairs. 

 

I recall reading somewhere that such was the confidence that a new railway station would be coming to the area, a rather grand pub / hotel was built in readiness - but the station did not get built.   

And "The Dane Valley Arms" or so it became, found itself sitting rather incongruously in the middle of a council estate - a development that came many years later.

Recently the pub burnt down (as they tend to these days...) and the site is now bulldozed.

1607435833_DaneValleyArms.jpg.a8423ab3c6d67750799e4be693398055.jpg

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is fascinating. I always find ‘might have beens’ very interesting and there where many in Kent. Perhaps the one I most regret was the line proposed but never built between Faversham and Lenham. 
 At the risk of being a pedant the LCDR and the SER never merged 

, the companies remained separate legal entities. Theirs was a working union rather than a merger. In fact until the First World War intervened there were a number of works to link the two networks notably the loops at Chislehurst, and the work at Rochester bridge also the linking of the systems at Ashford .
The plans for rationalisation in Thanet were drawn up by the SECR and dusted off and proceeded with by the Southern. 
Another casualty of WW1 was the proposal to build a chord from the Canterbury & Whitstable to the rebuilt (and resited )LCDR station at Whitstable which if it had been built might have seen train from Canterbury reversing at Whitstable reversing at Whitstable and proceeding to Herne Bay( and on to Reculver?) 
I look forward to seeing a layout based on Reculver in due course.

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, david51 said:

I look forward to seeing a layout based on Reculver in due course.

If you look over here, where the idea took off: 

 

 

Around page 2, I think, the conversation turns to Reculver and a variety of possibilities for rail connection and traffic - really great  and interesting ideas. (The shape of the coastline was even altered at one point, great fun!)

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, david51 said:

Another casualty of WW1 was the proposal to build a chord from the Canterbury & Whitstable to the rebuilt (and resited )LCDR station at Whitstable which if it had been built might have seen train from Canterbury reversing at Whitstable reversing at Whitstable and proceeding to Herne Bay( and on to Reculver?)

 

There would still be the problem of Tyler Hill tunnel. Apart from the competition with the East Kent Road Car Company Limited. However a wild thought occurs to me. How about British Rail solving the Tyler Hill problem by acquiring some tube train sets from London Underground? Ray Von could have these turning up at Reculver :o

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
44 minutes ago, whart57 said:

However a wild thought occurs to me. How about British Rail solving the Tyler Hill problem by acquiring some tube train sets from London Underground? 

Would never have happened. Oh, hang on....

  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...