Ownership of LSWR T3 no. 563 transfered to Swanage Railway

[dibber25]

This may not be the right thread, but a question raised by this subject is to ask what is historically significant? I mean genuinely significant as opposed to being of interest to enthusiasts with an interest in the subject. You can look at this in terms of two extremes, one extreme is that everything effects the planet in some way so is significant, the other extreme is that in the greater scheme of things real changes are normally the result of macro-factors and that very few things at lower levels is especially significant. The truth is somewhere in between. Time and time again in railway clubs and when talking to friends I've heard sorrowful conversations about such and such diesel or electric (most of my rail enthusiast friends are post-steam enthusiasts) being lost to preservation and what a significant artefact it was while I think to myself it was just another serial produced diesel electric that had no novel technologies, wasn't an especially great example of engineering, looked just like other diesels to most people and anyway there's already several of the things preserved. The same can be said of steam locomotives, how many of them are of genuine historical significance? Not many really. The steam locomotive is of immense historical significance but that of individual locomotives with a few exceptions is not particularly great. I've long felt that the current levels of preservation are not sustainable and that there'll be a shake out, but that's just me. The real historical significance of engineered artefacts lies in the intellectual property so to speak, not the physical artefact. HMS Dreadnought was a historically significant ship and went to the breakers but we don't need to go and look at a manicured relic to understand and study the technical, tactical and societal significance of the Dreadnought battleship. I'm not speaking against museums, and I love going to museums, but I do think the concept of "historical significance" is overused and abused. And that museums are more entertainment than educational, the real high brow stuff is in archives. However, these are just my opinions and I'm probably in a minority of one here.

You could say the same about Butterflies. Does that mean that the Natural History museum should keep only a Red Admiral because that's the one that the public know the name of? These collections are not preserved to entertain the public. They are preserved for study by those with a deep interest in the subject and to be made accessible to all. The T3 had been preserved for over 70 years. It had been earmarked for preservation even before the Second World War. There should be some assurances as to its future and that could only be by a loan arrangement with an organisation that has some idea how it is going to look after it. This smacks of a deal done in a pub one night, without any real thought by either party. (CJL)

[jjb1970]

You could say the same about Butterflies. Does that mean that the Natural History museum should keep only a Red Admiral because that's the one that the public know the name of? These collections are not preserved to entertain the public. They are preserved for study by those with a deep interest in the subject and to be made accessible to all. The T3 had been preserved for over 70 years. It had been earmarked for preservation even before the Second World War. There should be some assurances as to its future and that could only be by a loan arrangement with an organisation that has some idea how it is going to look after it. This smacks of a deal done in a pub one night, without any real thought by either party. (CJL)

 

There are good scientific reasons for preserving examples of living organisms. In the case of trains whatever we might think, the locomotives, carriages etc are there primarily as entertainment. What serious engineering or operational knowledge is anybody going to get from looking at an old steam locomotive? It's an obsolete technology and for those that do need to study it as part of their education then they will refer to text books and archives. I'm not bashing preservation or wanting to dismantle collections and I'm a museum lover myself but I see them primarily as enjoyable days out rather than as educational experiences. I'm privileged to have seen Rudolf Diesel's original engine running in the MAN corporate museum, it is something I'll remember and a special experience but I can't honestly say I learned anything from the experience.

I do wonder at the assumption that only a government museum can be trusted to look after anything, this thread is full of comments having a go at the NRM simultaneously with advocating that important artefacts should be left with them. Maybe its just me but there is something of a contradiction there. Many of the best museums in the world are non-governmental and I suspect that if the world had relied on government agencies to preserve examples of our heritage there wouldn't be much left of it. If you are interested in diesel engines (as I am, I'm very sad in that way) then the aforementioned MAN museum in Augsburg is more important than any other museum I've ever seen or heard of in that field yet it is a corporate museum maintained by a private company. There is also an issue that based on my own observations of people and what I hear about various museums in that the government museums offering free entry are damaging government owned museums that do charge entry and private museums by creating an expectation that museums should be free and it is our right to wander around them without having to pay anything.

[Ian J.]

I think the problem with private museums or collections is that the owners can fail (individuals die, companies collapse or get taken over, etc) and then the collections owned by them often get either broken up and distributed, or, even worse, destroyed.

 

The hope is that a government is more accountable and therefore responsible, such that it would rarely fail to such a degree that it would lose its collections. However, even that is not 100% secure, given what's happened in the Middle East in Iraq and Syria with IS destroying many valuable sites of antiquity.

 

Maybe revolution isn't something we really do here, but I've learned to never say never. Sometimes revolutions aren't obvious, and maybe the breaking up of an historic collection as with our railway heritage is just a tiny beginning for a country that seems to be stuck with a deficit it can't figure out how to deal with.

[Ohmisterporter]

You could say the same about Butterflies. Does that mean that the Natural History museum should keep only a Red Admiral because that's the one that the public know the name of? These collections are not preserved to entertain the public. They are preserved for study by those with a deep interest in the subject and to be made accessible to all. The T3 had been preserved for over 70 years. It had been earmarked for preservation even before the Second World War. There should be some assurances as to its future and that could only be by a loan arrangement with an organisation that has some idea how it is going to look after it. This smacks of a deal done in a pub one night, without any real thought by either party. (CJL)

 

What? There is more than one sort of butterfly?

[mvrnut]

Until we hear from the Swanage Railway what its intentions are for the T3 we can only speculate what may happen to it in the future. If its future is to be a pile of rust, then quick ! somebody must go out and lazer scan it so that accurate models can be made of a long lost loco , or even a brand new build along the lines of what the Bluebell is doing with the Brighton Atlantic !

   I hope the T3 can be preserved for posterity or even returned to steam. It is an iconic loco.

   Cheers,

    Chris

[Dunsignalling]

Maybe another connection there. Although this may be offset by the marketing and merchandise potential of the Flying Scotsman for NRM as it is probably the only train most visitors to the museum have ever heard of. Play their cards right and the millions spent restoring it may be seen as a good investment in the future.

It'll need the earnings from the period of a lot more than one boiler ticket to recoup what's been spent on it so far and every time that needs renewing it'll take another three quarters of a million (and rising) to get it fit for another ten years. There is also on-going expenditure necessary to keep it in action,

 

The sad fact is that the cost of restoring and maintaining large operational steam locomotives is such that none can be considered a commercial proposition.

 

I'll be very surprised if the NRM ever achieves a break even position with FS.

 

John

Edited April 2, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[Dunsignalling]

You could say the same about Butterflies. Does that mean that the Natural History museum should keep only a Red Admiral because that's the one that the public know the name of? These collections are not preserved to entertain the public. They are preserved for study by those with a deep interest in the subject and to be made accessible to all. The T3 had been preserved for over 70 years. It had been earmarked for preservation even before the Second World War. There should be some assurances as to its future and that could only be by a loan arrangement with an organisation that has some idea how it is going to look after it. This smacks of a deal done in a pub one night, without any real thought by either party. (CJL)

It also begs the question as to what the NRM might have in mind for the various locomotives that are currently in the care of various societies and heritage railways on a loan basis.

 

John

[OOgaugeJaf]

It also begs the question as to what the NRM might have in mind for the various locomotives that are currently in the care of various societies and heritage railways on a loan basis.

 

John

I would personally like to see more out on loan and in use but only in a sensible well managed manner. Completely disagree with them being handed over.

[stewartingram]

So when I set off to the CRMA agm in Stevenage, there was a loco, tender and coach plinthed to the west of Kings Cross. The tender looked "Adams". An exploration this afternoon persuades me that it is a boilerless T3, under a tarpaulin. Thoughts, anyone?

 

Bill

 

Loco and coach have moved away from Kings Cross sometime this week, I couldn't see them whilst commuting on the last shift.

 

Stewart 

[Davey]

This may not be the right thread, but a question raised by this subject is to ask what is historically significant? I mean genuinely significant as opposed to being of interest to enthusiasts with an interest in the subject. You can look at this in terms of two extremes, one extreme is that everything effects the planet in some way so is significant, the other extreme is that in the greater scheme of things real changes are normally the result of macro-factors and that very few things at lower levels is especially significant. The truth is somewhere in between. Time and time again in railway clubs and when talking to friends I've heard sorrowful conversations about such and such diesel or electric (most of my rail enthusiast friends are post-steam enthusiasts) being lost to preservation and what a significant artefact it was while I think to myself it was just another serial produced diesel electric that had no novel technologies, wasn't an especially great example of engineering, looked just like other diesels to most people and anyway there's already several of the things preserved. The same can be said of steam locomotives, how many of them are of genuine historical significance? Not many really. The steam locomotive is of immense historical significance but that of individual locomotives with a few exceptions is not particularly great. I've long felt that the current levels of preservation are not sustainable and that there'll be a shake out, but that's just me. The real historical significance of engineered artefacts lies in the intellectual property so to speak, not the physical artefact. HMS Dreadnought was a historically significant ship and went to the breakers but we don't need to go and look at a manicured relic to understand and study the technical, tactical and societal significance of the Dreadnought battleship. I'm not speaking against museums, and I love going to museums, but I do think the concept of "historical significance" is overused and abused. And that museums are more entertainment than educational, the real high brow stuff is in archives. However, these are just my opinions and I'm probably in a minority of one here.

 

I take issue with your view that the T3 is of no historical significance. Firstly let me state that I have no affinity with the LSWR, other than it was one of many distinctive pre-grouping railway companies. It is a unique locomotive, designed by an engineer who had an eye for beauty and elegance. It's historical significance lies in the fact that it was a locomotive of some beauty, far superior aesthetically than many of it's contemporaries on other lines. For that reason alone it deserves the sobriquet 'historically significant'.

 

Davey

Edited April 7, 2017 by Davey

[WishIHadAName]

The aesphetics of the locomotive are not going to be at risk with the locomotive being owned by Swanage Railway though. If anything they will be improved if its in steam. Aesphetics alone do not mean something needs to be conserved in a museum.

[jjb1970]

I take issue with your view that the T3 is of no historical significance. Firstly let me state that I have no affinity with the LSWR, other than it was one of many distinctive pre-grouping railway companies. It is a unique locomotive, designed by an engineer who had an eye for beauty and elegance. It's historical significance lies in the fact that it was a locomotive of some beauty, far superior aesthetically than many of it's contemporaries on other lines. For that reason alone it deserves the sobriquet 'historically significant'.

 

Davey

 

I think you are conflating the fact that this locomotive is of interest to some rail enthusiasts with historical significance. I'd agree it is an elegant design but in terms of historical significance it did what most machines do, it fulfilled a purpose until replaced and then faded away from memory. Very few items of rolling stock are genuinely significant. There are some items of rolling stock which are historically significant, a good example is CIWL 2419 but unfortunately it was destroyed by the German's. Most are just interesting to enthusiasts and no more historically significant than 10000's of other items few have ever heard of but which are probably loved by their own enthusiasts.

[EddieB]

I take issue with your view that the T3 is of no historical significance. Firstly let me state that I have no affinity with the LSWR, other than it was one of many distinctive pre-grouping railway companies. It is a unique locomotive, designed by an engineer who had an eye for beauty and elegance. It's historical significance lies in the fact that it was a locomotive of some beauty, far superior aesthetically than many of it's contemporaries on other lines. For that reason alone it deserves the sobriquet 'historically significant'.

 

Davey

On the other hand its very ordinariness is a good reason why this locomotive is historically important. It may not represent a milestone in locomotive development, carry a significant name or have entered popular culture in other ways, but it is a fine example of the types of locomotives that hauled regular, ordinary passenger trains through the second half of Queen Victoria's reign and well into the twentieth century. Carrying beautiful liveries that reflected the variety of the pre-grouping era, these were the backbone and everyday image of that age.

 

There's an awful lot of speculation here, which we would do well to wait until the plans for the T3 at Swanage are disclosed. It is sad that the NRM appear to be wasting precious space at York, when their collection is far larger than can be housed there. If this move means that they are making some locomotives more accessible, then perhaps there is some saving grace. I sincerely hope that the decision has been taken for the right reasons and that this precious national asset will find a good home there, secure from vandalism and be maintained in a matter befitting its importance.

 

Further speculation on my part, but it does seem that there is a defined pecking order over the relative importance of items in the National Collection. The T3 appears to suffer from a perceived low profile when compared to other, more 'famous' locomotives and has therefore been relegated into private hands.

[Torn-on-the-platform]

This may not be the right thread, but a question raised by this subject is to ask what is historically significant? I mean genuinely significant as opposed to being of interest to enthusiasts with an interest in the subject. 

 

A few years ago I started a thread where I invited RMWebbers to suggest the locomotives/stock required to tell the story of Britain's railway in the rather dystopian scenario that we could only choose 10 for the future. I wasn't actually able to whittle it down to 10! Most suggestions came from the national collection. Rather unsurprisingly the T3 was never mentioned, and the Flying Scotsman was only mentioned once - in the context of preservation activity rather than active service.

 

Obviously 10 is an arbitrary number, but I'm not sure that a T3 would be near the top of anyone's list other than for enthusiast interest and aesthetics. Whilst I appreciate they are the products of different designers, the T9 came less than a decade after the T3, from the same railway company and is not too dis-similar. I don't know too much about the active lives of the T3s, but would have thought that the T9s were more significant simply as they operated for a longer period of time and were produced in greater number (20 T3s to 66 T9s). I appreciate that I may be biased in this regard as I have seen the T9 several more times than the T3, as well as many more photos of the class in active service thanks to their later survival, thus increasing its apparent significance to my own mind.

 

If the NRM were forced to rationalise, its this kind of duplication that would presumably be looked at first. Whilst I'm sure that most of us enthusiasts would prefer that the collection contained even more LSWR 4-4-0s, it would seem that the NRM aren't in a position to look after the vast amount of stock under its care, and luckily we have countless other groups looking after our railway history and keeping it safe for the future.

 

If anyone wants to look back at this thread, it can be found here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/73973-10-locomotives-to-tell-the-story-of-the-railways-of-britain/page-1

 

It was a genuinely lovely discussion with people taking others' opinions into account, the kind that are hard to come by these days.  Quite refreshing and enjoyable to read back!

 

*Additional edit - I've just looked at the wishlist poll and it isn't in the top 50 OO locomotives, a list which obviously doesn't include many of the most popular/significant classes as they are already available in model form. It's clear from this thread that the locomotive has its fans, but can we hand on heart say that it is particularly significant? I'm not saying that wanting to see a model of a locomotive is directly proportional to its historical importance - that would be quite ridiculous to suggest, but it is a good barometer for the popularity of a class of locomotive. There are many factors that contriubute to a class' popularity, but if enthusiasts as a whole aren't particularly interested in a locomotive, would it not be fair to assume that it has made relatively little impact on our railway history?

 

Each to their own, but whilst I am disappointed by their decision and what it means for the future of other items in their care, I do completely understand why the NRM would be happy to let the loco go to a good home.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Torn-on-the-platform

[Horsetan]

... The T3 appears to suffer from a perceived low profile when compared to other, more 'famous' locomotives and has therefore been relegated into private hands.

There goes the Wainwright "D", then. That one has an even lower profile.

[Torn-on-the-platform]

There goes the Wainwright "D", then. That one has an even lower profile.

 

There was an article in Steam Railway a few years back when there was some talk about cutting back the collection about locomotives that should stay and some that go. I vividly remember the panel on the D class was rounded off with a rather flippant 'give it to the Bluebell'. The concept pleased my when I was younger, though I'm less sure now! I suppose the story of the 4-4-0 passenger locomotive is told several times over.

 

I can't remember too much else about the other locomotives discussed in the article I'm afraid, perhaps someone else may do?

[phil-b259]

There goes the Wainwright "D", then. That one has an even lower profile.

 

I'm not so sure that is the case. Its noteworthy that when the 'railway children production came calling for a loco, the T3 was selected over several other 4-4-0s in the collection. Besides the complicated Waingwright SECR livery has a 'wow' factor the LSWR pea green simply doesn't have.

 

There is also the fact that the D class coupled with the Maroon Pulman car can be used as a centrepiece of a display devoted to one of the railways key traffic generators - namely that of the 'boat trains' run to connect to ferries to the continent.

 

Similarly the M7 and the LSWR tri-composite coach can be used as a centrepiece about commuting - but its hard to see what the NRM can 'do' with the T3 other than display it. In an era where simply displaying stuff is not what is regarded as best practice when it comes to educating or providing fun days out, it perhaps not surprising they were looking to dispose of it.

[bike2steam]

Well whatever Swanage Railway do with the T3 it will be better for it to be in it's 'heartland' than to be stuck ignominiously in the north-east of England. One of Adams better classes, a class that was a free-steamer, and popular with crews, it will be better appreciated, and more fitting in Swanage.

[coachmann]

We have to be realistic, but since when did train spotters live in the realms of realism. Locos were scrapped after being set aside by the GWR. The same happened on the LMS when Stanier took over as CME. The T3 or whatever is only of value to whoever wants to buy it. Do any of you moaners?  

 

The T3 exists and it would be nice to know it would be looked after or even put back into steam so that we could sample what such graceful locos looked like in revenue service. Beyond that, it is up to the custodians, not us. Funny thing is, if the T3 had been discovered at the bottom of the sea, there would be cries to get it lifted and restored as an important part of our railway history. Okay, it exists and will soon be at the Swanage Railway Centre, so here's your chance to donate towards it's keep instead of doing what all forum users do.....Have a good waffle then move onto the next topic of proll conversion.

[APOLLO]

Coach the T3 is part of the NATIONAL collection, it belongs to us, the people. Loan it, yes, give it, NO. Thin end of the wedge where everything these days has a cost and not a value.

 

Similar has happened at Wigan, a swanky new "Museum of Wigan life" cost £millions, full of crap dumbed down arty farty displays. Quite a few important well known artefacts held "in store" over the last few years either remain stored not on view have gone AWOL. If these have been gifted / sold or worse it's a secret only the council know about. 

 

If money is tight at the NRM, charge a £5 entrance fee, adults only. I'll gladly pay, in fact I always do at "free" national museums.

 

Brit15

[Dava]

After the 'squit' (Norfolk for trouble) over the release 70013 Oliver Cromwell my heckles have again risen on this subject.  I am looking for 5 supporters for a petition to review the disposal of this locomotive by parliament.  I echo the concerns raised by earlier posters and raise the fact that where will this end, there are many historic artifacts in State ownership so if a precedent is set what else is at risk.

What is the issue re 70013? It is on loan from the NRM to the GCR where it has been restored to running order by the same long-term stewards who look after 777. It could be recalled, but in a few years the GCR will host a branch of the NRM at Leicester with the 8K, Director and other items. If you want to unpick the deal which leaves other NRM assets in a garden centre at Bressingham as 'compensation', that's quite another issue.

 

Dava

[phil-b259]

 

 

If money is tight at the NRM, charge a £5 entrance fee, adults only. I'll gladly pay, in fact I always do at "free" national museums.

 

Brit15

 

NO THEY CANNOT!

 

As has already been explained on this thread, the Government Department of Culture, Media & Sport,(who the science museum group, the natural history museum, etc are all accountable to) have stated many, many times that any national museum directly funded by them is PROHIBITED from charging an entrance fee.

 

The ONLY way this will change is if HM Government make a political decision to change this stance and Whitehall issues alternative guidance - as they did in the late 1980s and early 1990s when our national museums did indeed start charging for admission (which was abolished when lottery money became available to reduce the burden on Whitehall and politicians saw an opportunity to be seen to be doing something good for 'ordinary people')

 

As such if you object to the current funding setup (and all the consequences it brings) get writing to your MPs rather than on here.

[Loconuts]

Well whatever Swanage Railway do with the T3 it will be better for it to be in it's 'heartland' than to be stuck ignominiously in the north-east of England. One of Adams better classes, a class that was a free-steamer, and popular with crews, it will be better appreciated, and more fitting in Swanage.

 

Hear hear that that man, far better to return it to its stomping ground where it will allow much interest rather being stuck away in the North East. As a local resident of Dorset  I look forward to its arrival and I would be happy to help get it steaming again, it will look a treat running in the Purbeck Hills rather than the grime of the North East.

 

Loconuts 

[The Stationmaster]

A few years ago I started a thread where I invited RMWebbers to suggest the locomotives/stock required to tell the story of Britain's railway in the rather dystopian scenario that we could only choose 10 for the future. I wasn't actually able to whittle it down to 10! Most suggestions came from the national collection. Rather unsurprisingly the T3 was never mentioned, and the Flying Scotsman was only mentioned once - in the context of preservation activity rather than active service.

 

Obviously 10 is an arbitrary number, but I'm not sure that a T3 would be near the top of anyone's list other than for enthusiast interest and aesthetics. Whilst I appreciate they are the products of different designers, the T9 came less than a decade after the T3, from the same railway company and is not too dis-similar. I don't know too much about the active lives of the T3s, but would have thought that the T9s were more significant simply as they operated for a longer period of time and were produced in greater number (20 T3s to 66 T9s). I appreciate that I may be biased in this regard as I have seen the T9 several more times than the T3, as well as many more photos of the class in active service thanks to their later survival, thus increasing its apparent significance to my own mind.

 

If the NRM were forced to rationalise, its this kind of duplication that would presumably be looked at first. Whilst I'm sure that most of us enthusiasts would prefer that the collection contained even more LSWR 4-4-0s, it would seem that the NRM aren't in a position to look after the vast amount of stock under its care, and luckily we have countless other groups looking after our railway history and keeping it safe for the future.

 

If anyone wants to look back at this thread, it can be found here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/73973-10-locomotives-to-tell-the-story-of-the-railways-of-britain/page-1

 

It was a genuinely lovely discussion with people taking others' opinions into account, the kind that are hard to come by these days.  Quite refreshing and enjoyable to read back!

 

*Additional edit - I've just looked at the wishlist poll and it isn't in the top 50 OO locomotives, a list which obviously doesn't include many of the most popular/significant classes as they are already available in model form. It's clear from this thread that the locomotive has its fans, but can we hand on heart say that it is particularly significant? I'm not saying that wanting to see a model of a locomotive is directly proportional to its historical importance - that would be quite ridiculous to suggest, but it is a good barometer for the popularity of a class of locomotive. There are many factors that contriubute to a class' popularity, but if enthusiasts as a whole aren't particularly interested in a locomotive, would it not be fair to assume that it has made relatively little impact on our railway history?

 

Each to their own, but whilst I am disappointed by their decision and what it means for the future of other items in their care, I do completely understand why the NRM would be happy to let the loco go to a good home.

 

There is one crucial difference between the T3 and the T9 in that the T3 basically has its original appearance whereas the T9 is very obviously the Urie superheated version and therefore in many respects displays a later and very different appearance.  Together the two illustrate LSWR development, and separately the T3 illustrates, almost uniquely in the National Collection the original appearance of its time - and even more particularly the appearance of Adams' tender engine designs (it being the sole surviving Adams designed tender engine).

 

Thus it clearly has historical importance (assuming you regard uniqueness in surviving  and illustration of design development as of historical importance) as well as being representative of a particular period and style of British locomotive design.  If we didn't have it then things would be simple but the important thing is that we do have it and it therefore - in my view - it remains worthy of continuing preservation and in turn that implies to me (in nobody else) that it should be properly looked after and cared for in a suitable covered site as part of a National Collection representative of the history of the locomotives which worked our railways.   Nothing wrong with loaning it, subject to appropriate safeguards, but 'giving it away' (as seems to be the case) seems to rank alongside throwing out babies with the bath water.

 

incidentally the NRM makes great play about not restoring various locomotives to working order 'because of their historical significance or the significance of various of their components'  and I don't doubt the same caveat should be applied to the T3 for the same reasons.  So I return to one of the original questions in this thread 'what are Swanage going to do with it?' and add - and how will they preserve and conserve its historical features and its overall condition?

Edited April 9, 2017 by The Stationmaster

[PaulRhB]

While keeping the original parts is a fine idea I'm not averse to them being copied and repaired or replaced to let a loco run. If it means modifying though it's better to leave it alone unless the modification can be undone by replacing the original part, obviously this means space to store the parts possibly long term. Ultimately it comes down to, is viewing the static loco or actually experiencing it that provides the better historical record?

Experimental archaeology has been very revealing in how things actually were. In the railway field Lyd has exposed a lot of the stories about the L&B locos to be myths and the Rainhill replicas also revealed far more than the original can stuffed and mounted. Even Tornado has revealed the differences between a brand new engine versus a well restored one as it feels to drive according to a couple of the DBS drivers I've talked to.

Rocket is a good example of where a replica made far more sense than restoration due to the percentage of usable parts.

I hope the plans will be revealed soon by Swanage