Ownership of LSWR T3 no. 563 transfered to Swanage Railway

[brack]

Nope - most likely to stop the original fittings being stolen. Its quite common on Heritage railways to strip valuable items such as gauges from locos awaiting overhaul to stop thieves making off with them.

It's hardly the first nationally owned object to be shadily given to a private company and have assets stripped...

[Chris116]

It isn't on the western region either, but the dukedog is one of their regulars, the t3 would look at home next to their adams radial tank, mid hants wouldn't be a bad option either

I agree, most preserved lines have locos that would never have run on the lines when in service but it is nice if they can be based in the right area if possible. The Adams and the T3 would certainly look good and if they could be made to run that would be even better!

[Steamport Southport]

The boilers scrap anyway, I would have thought.  Using proper blanks seems a bit expensive.

 

That's pure guesswork.

 

I would have thought that when originally restored then Eastleigh did a proper job seeing as it was intended for a proposed Southern Railway museum. It's spent the vast majority of the time since withdrawal stored undercover at places such as Farnham, Tweedmouth, Clapham and York. It's only recently that it has been neglected. It's not like it's been stored outside since the 1960s like some Barry wrecks have. Most of which have steamed since.

 

 

 

Jason

[peterfgf]

If you look closely at the photo it looks like that has been done.

Agreed, on closer inspection I can see that a circular plate has been fitted on top of the chimney (at least I assume it covers the opening....).  The yellow colour reminded me of another railway which liked to decorate their chimney tops.

Peterfgf.

[bike2steam]

To stop dirt, water, insects, small stones and all sorts of other crap going down the resultant openings left by the removal of the fittings.

Including kiddies fingers, and any resulting damage to 'em. I must say there are some pretty amusing ideas from individuals on this thread - I know, you gotta have a sense of humour.

[Jol Wilkinson]

It's hardly the first nationally owned object to be shadily given to a private company and have assets stripped...

Successive governments have been assett stripping the nation for years, so this shouldn't come as a surprise.

 

If it is beyond the NRM's capability/budget to maintain and restore any artifact of historical importance, then perhaps it is proper to put it in the hands of an organisation that can. However, the NRM should exercise due diligence to ensure that the recipient will be willing and able to do the job that they can't.

[phil-b259]

The boilers scrap anyway, I would have thought. Using proper blanks seems a bit expensive.

The boiler itself is not categorically 'scrap' as you put it - go back 30 years or so and the same could be said for several other engines.

 

However since then not only have improvements in technology / metal working techniques meant that what was previously impossible in repair terms is now doable, the Heritage railway movement itself has been building up its capability to undertake more and more complex repairs including the replacement of large sections of the boiler if necessary.

 

Thus when the time comes to restore the T3 (which won't be in the immediate future given the other more pressing needs of the Swanage railway), the current boiler may still be repairable and as such it makes sense to prevent any further damage.

Edited June 20, 2017 by phil-b259

[bike2steam]

Eastleigh didn't do a proper job, it barely did a job by all records.

 

Probably a cosmetic job for 'stuffing, and mounting'.

[Horsetan]

.....I can only imagine a scrap engine in the 1930's, with war time maintenance, and a very basic check for a few static steamings in the 1940's carrying a boiler that's much older in condition and quality, can't be a healthy engine. Whilst locos like City of Truro might be similar age, I understand it's ability to steam is down to a 94xx Pannier boiler used in BR days.....

 

City of Truro carries a Standard no. 4 boiler. The 94xx carried a Standard no. 10. I'm not sure they were interchangeable.

[Steamport Southport]

Eastleigh didn't do a proper job, it barely did a job by all records.

The engine was scrap in the 1930's, the fleet run down to the last two by 1939.

This one survived the war and was withdrawn for scrap at the end of it.

In 1948, it was only saved, to be on display at the Waterloo centenary, the "proper job" entailed getting the boiler to a standard where it could be steamed at 25psi... less than my cars tyres... and expected to be scrapped afterwards.

 

In other words, in the days before the HSE, and boilers were repaired daily, the management felt that the pressure strength of the boiler was less than an inflatable rubber tyre could contain.

 

The rest was down to luck, age and not having a BR fleet number for the accountants to depreciate it with.

It's storage wasn't always indoor, it had at least 2 repaints in retirement before York as the paint deteriorated somewhat.

 

I can only imagine a scrap engine in the 1930's, with war time maintenance, and a very basic check for a few static steamings in the 1940's carrying a boiler that's much older in condition and quality, can't be a healthy engine. Whilst locos like City of Truro might be similar age, I understand it's ability to steam is down to a 94xx Pannier boiler used in BR days.

 

If I was to think of a modern equivalent then I'd be thinking something like 40118, knackered, no celebrity, withdrawn, restored for a specific job, survived because of it, but never worked since, looks nice after a repaint though, spent the next 30 years at the back of a shed, some day may whistle again.

 

Put another way, I recently read that a BR Southern superintendent found a shortage of steam in 1966, found his scrap line had better engines than the BR Midland were offering him.. apply the same standards here, a loco with a boiler at 25psi is obviously no good for man nor beast, nor even the BR (M) in 1966 :-)

 

Don't get me wrong I'd love the inspection to find the boiler is made from a pure formed chromian bubble with diamond rivets but I'm expecting beneath its sheets is 1910's rusted scrap, and as the NRM is very unlikely ever to replace a boiler, in 2017 it's not beyond the resources, skills, determination and enthusiasm of Swanage to replace it.

 

Yet more guesswork?

 

It was restored to museum standard. it wasn't expected to be pulling the next train to Bournemouth. It would have been done to the same standard as other locomotives restored at a similar time such as Lode Star.

 

It was on a list of preserved locomotives compiled pre war for a Southern Railway museum. It was only war that precluded this happening. This included locomotives that were subsequently scrapped such as Ryde and T9 No 119 (which was the royal engine).

 

When was it stored outdoors? It spent most of it's time in Farnham Electric shed and was moved to Tweedmouth in 1959 and stored in the shed there (along with Boxhill and 737), before ending up in Clapham Museum. Then it moved to York in 1975.

 

Ironically it was deemed worthy to be put in pride of place in the then National Transport Museum,  rather than being dumped in the LNER Museum. How times have changed.

 

 

 

 

Jason

[adb968008]

Yet more guesswork?

 

It was restored to museum standard. it wasn't expected to be pulling the next train to Bournemouth. It would have been done to the same standard as other locomotives restored at a similar time such as Lode Star.

 

It was on a list of preserved locomotives compiled pre war for a Southern Railway museum. It was only war that precluded this happening. This included locomotives that were subsequently scrapped such as Ryde and T9 No 119 (which was the royal engine).

 

When was it stored outdoors? It spent most of it's time in Farnham Electric shed and was moved to Tweedmouth in 1959 and stored in the shed there (along with Boxhill and 737), before ending up in Clapham Museum. Then it moved to York in 1975.

 

Ironically it was deemed worthy to be put in pride of place in the then National Transport Museum, rather than being dumped in the LNER Museum. How times have changed.

 

 

 

 

Jason

Lode star was in it's 20's when the T3 class were earmarked for withdrawal, indeed when the first T3 went for scrap, the Castle class would go on to be built new for another 20 years,

Lode Star also got the benefit of access to Swindon spares from other star class, and castles, not just at withdrawal, but for a further 11 years after its withdrawal, until its display in 1962, even then if need be Castle spares were available till the late 60's... though in probability it was probably not loaded up with newly built fittings, but conceivably it could have such was its access to skills, labour and resources.

 

Swindon could give it the best of whatever it needed, just by taking parts off the shelf.

(In the case of Lode Star and 3440 repairs in the 60's were more static display orientated not operationally functional).

 

The T3 was the last survivor in the war, and was the last of 2 even before the war, what benefit could Eastleigh give it... the last skills, parts and resources of knowledge truly understand them operationally would already be 20 years previous, consider the other Famous LSWR duo...the radials were a fleet of two reliant on a further scrap machine also withdrawn from the 1920's being bought back in for spares.. and we're equally so knackered they had to hunt far and wide for another class to replace them.

 

The Radial comparison is a good one.. similar age, history and also I understand needs a new boiler...yet they worked until 1961..13 years later than the T3, and the buyers had benefit of skills, resources and spares from all 3 operationally and current.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/31514768@N05/22728264208

Certainly doesn't look like it's stored lovingly under cover in this picture dumped outside at Eastleigh, in 1958.

 

I'm not saying all boilers that haven't been lifted since the war are poor, I'm sure that the WD 2-10-0 73755 Longmoor, on display in Utrecht could well have a very good condition boiler, after all it was withdrawn in 1952, after 2-3 years without work, making a service life of 4 or so years, and so may well have never had a boiler lift since new, and in a museum for 7.5 decades after...

 

As I said I await to be astounded at the superior condition of a boiler than was probably last lifted from its frames just after the Great Depression, was roughly used during a war and tossed aside straight after... and relied on pretty paint jobs since... I recall reading that at some point someone did a boiler inspection on another 1920's scrap loco in the NRM collection, that was prettied up for display, declared it unfit when the hammer went straight through the plate... but it sure does look nice on display.

Edited June 20, 2017 by adb968008

[eastglosmog]

I well remember 563 at York museum in late 1975 or 76.  Very beautiful she looked.  I would be very sad to see her go so hope Swanage can make her go again.  Even getting her looking pristine again would be an excuse for trekking down to Dorset to see her!  Regarding her condition in 1948, Bradley in his book "LSWR Locomotives the Adams Classes" says she worked the LSWR tri-composite brake coach from Eastleigh to Micheldever for official photographs and 4 days later departed under steam (implicitly her own) for London.  No indication she was towed or pushed or her boiler was unable to raise more than 25psi.   Of course, I have no knowledge of  how accurate this information is or where Mr Bradley got it from.

Edited for typo.

Edited June 20, 2017 by eastglosmog

[New Haven Neil]

The boiler itself is not categorically 'scrap' as you put it - go back 30 years or so and the same could be said for several other engines.

 

However since then not only have improvements in technology / metal working techniques meant that what was previously impossible in repair terms is now doable, the Heritage railway movement itself has been building up its capability to undertake more and more complex repairs including the replacement of large sections of the boiler if necessary.

 

Thus when the time comes to restore the T3 (which won't be in the immediate future given the other more pressing needs of the Swanage railway), the current boiler may still be repairable and as such it makes sense to prevent any further damage.

 

Go back to when it was last steamed a long time ago - it was passed for 50 psi. 50.  So given the time that has passed since them, it will only need a firebox, outer, stays, throatplate, tubeplate, barrel and maybe a foundation ring.  I won't mention tubes as they are expendable.  The dome might survive for grandfather rights.  Boilers corrode when empty too, don't forget.  It would be cheaper to build new I should think.

[Torn-on-the-platform]

Steam Railway's interview with the NRM's Andrew McLean, whilst a bit of a tedious read (more due to the questions posed rather than McLean's answers), was very enlightening about the NRM's thinking regarding this, and other disposals. As I mooted previously, the decision was made between the T3 and T9 was down to the longevity of the latter in service. He points out that the loco hasn't been at York since 2004 and has spent relatively little time at NRM bases and no one has complained. Whilst it is undoubtedly a lovely locomotive, there weren't many enthusiasts making their way to Shildon in pilgrimage to see it.

 

I have also inferred that the NRM saw a better future for the loco with transferred ownership, rather than a loan agreement. Would Swanage be persuaded to build covered accommodation for a static exhibit loaned from elsewhere when it doesn't keep its own fantastic collection undercover? Almost certainly not. The loan agreements of 3-5 years wouldn't even be likely to cover the time needed for restoration.

 

I still see why people may think that the disposal was handled badly but I still think that the overall result is a good one for the locomotive.

 

I saw the loco in the Railway Children a few years ago and the photos on this thread and in Steam Railway reveal that the paint job isn't much worse, if at all, than when I laid eyes on it. Swanage are considering a return to SR olive if it does return to steam.

 

Whilst it would be great to see it paired with the Bluebell's radial, it would just sit in Sheffield Park shed whilst other locos suffer outside, as the T9 did for many years.

 

The Mid-Hands would perhaps be in a better position to look after the loco than Swanage, but even then they have very little undercover storage for locos.

 

I'm excited to see what can be done for the loco by Swanage and have every faith in them to manage it appropriately.

[EddieB]

Steam Railway's interview with the NRM's Andrew McLean, whilst a bit of a tedious read (more due to the questions posed rather than McLean's answers), was very enlightening about the NRM's thinking regarding this, and other disposals. As I mooted previously, the decision was made between the T3 and T9 was down to the longevity of the latter in service. He points out that the loco hasn't been at York since 2004 and has spent relatively little time at NRM bases and no one has complained. Whilst it is undoubtedly a lovely locomotive, there weren't many enthusiasts making their way to Shildon in pilgrimage to see it.

Thus far I'm in full agreement.

 

However, reading between the lines of the answers in that interview, I think the situation is rather worrying.

 

The first term, bandied about with reckless abandon during the interview is "de-accessioning".  McLean is at pains to point out that "our" de-accessioning is nowhere near as bad as the Danes' (see the topic I've started in "Overseas Prototype").  This now seems to have become the current buzz-word among curators of museums and art galleries world-wide (try Googling the term), as they seek to divest themselves and deplete the treasures that have been entrusted them.  As far as both the NRM and its parent, The Science Museum, are concerned, it would appear the process is far from over.  Unfortunately practices are copied, and since curators appear to follow one another like sheep, the potential for further reduction of our national heritage seems a very real possibility.  Hopefully, like the T3, de-accessioned items will find grateful owners within the preservation movement, who will care for them, restore as necessary and make them freely available to public display.  Perhaps.... Well, let's not go there.

 

The second term is "narrative".  Again, taking the lead from the "newer" style of museums, the emphasis is now on "telling a story" (singular).  In line with the dumbing down of history in the National Curriculum, the story of railways will be reduced to a single narrative, with fewer key exhibits and more interactive sideshows (more entertaining than educational).  Too many Victorian 4-4-0s would only confuse and spoil the narrative, so one has to go.  Repeat wherever "duplication" is found.

 

The trouble is, at a superficial level, the approach works.  For instance, my kids loved Train World in Brussels (I think it the worst excuse for a railway museum I've yet to come across).  Is it this the way all public railway museums will develop?  Too many exhibits?  Exhibits that don't fit neatly the over-arching narrative?  Let's de-clutter and de-accession anything that doesn't conform - preferably before the narrative changes.  Bring in some novelty, add some mood lighting and sound effects, pay a consultant a load of money to arrange things "artistically".  Replace prized exhibits with lots of empty spaces, where people aren't encouraged to hang about.

 

Maybe I'm being unduly pessimistic, but I'm starting to see this as the iceberg tip of a trend we're only just waking up to in UK railway preservation.

[Zomboid]

Telling a story through exhibits is no bad thing.

Deciding in 2016 that the story you want to tell for the rest of forever is one thing and binning everything that doesn't fit is a bit irresponsible. What if you want to change that story in 2023?

I'm not certain that argument really pertains to the T3, as they still have an LSWR 4-4-0 in the collection, but as a general policy it should be challenged.

[EddieB]

Of course it might also be argued that the de-accessioning of the T3 is nothing new.  The National Collection remains eternally poorer to the tune of one Claud Hamilton because the powers that be decided that one pre-LNER 4-4-0 (Butler Henderson) was sufficient.

[brack]

The principle of dumping or giving away our heritage is the problem. A 30 year or more lease would be preferable, but retain title and ownership. I understand the nrm get first refusal if swanage want to dispose of it, but that assumes that those in charge of the nrm at such a point in time actually care about preserving the nation's heritage or whether it'd fit in with the novelty coffee shop with locos narrative they're pursuing at the time.

 

I know this seems like overreacting, but perhaps if you look at what happened to the paddle tug reliant in the national maritime museum you see the potential. Someone decides something isn't needed, or that they only want one paddle wheel and before anyone can do anything about it a significant part of our heritage is gone forever. The locos in the national collection are not the property of the curators or museums, they're saved for the nation's heritage and should not have that status rescinded. Lease for 100yrs for 50p so they can be used and restored elsewhere, but don't give away what is ours.

[dibber25]

Without ploughing back through this lot to check, I wonder if anyone has read the story of how 563 came to be 'accessioned' (what a ridiculous word) in the first place? It is told in the book 'Macleod's Other Island'. My friend and mentor 'Uncle Mac' (A.B. MacLeod, the Southern's First Assistant for the Isle of Wight') selected the locomotive from four 6ft 7in 4-4-0s stored at Kimbridge. It was chosen as the historic centrepiece for the Waterloo station centenary in 1948. Mac had Eastleigh fabricate an Adams chimney and retube the boiler before it was painted using a postcard he supplied as a guide. (He collected LPC postcards, so I suspect it was one of those). I understand that it was driven to Waterloo at reduced boiler pressure because of its delicate state. I was recently shown a photograph of the inside of the firebox, which shows patches on patches and leaves little doubt that the T3 would need a new boiler. Restoration to working order would remove so much of its original material that it would cease to be an authentic historic artefact. My opposition to its disposal stems from knowing the man who began its preservation, who had been behind the push for a Southern museum at Eastleigh, who had set aside Ryde and had it restored to photographic grey livery and shipped to the mainland, only for it to be cut up in 1934. Mac died in 1990 and I wouldn't presume to suggest whether or not he'd be pleased about it passing to the Swanage Railway. For me, if the Swanage Railway steams it and paints it olive green, then the link with Mac will be lost and I'll be sad about that. However, when I saw Mac's 'Grand Old Lady' in the Railway Children at King's Cross, it did look especially elegant in motion. (CJL)

[dibber25]

Telling a story through exhibits is no bad thing.

Deciding in 2016 that the story you want to tell for the rest of forever is one thing and binning everything that doesn't fit is a bit irresponsible. What if you want to change that story in 2023?

I'm not certain that argument really pertains to the T3, as they still have an LSWR 4-4-0 in the collection, but as a general policy it should be challenged.

I'd question whether the 'T9' is an LSWR 4-4-0. It's a Urie rebuild of an LSWR 4-4-0 done in SR days. The beauty of the T3 is that it is elegant and shows what an original LSWR 4-4-0 looked like. Together the two locos tell a story of how designs were updated and improved for performance but not necessarily for appearance. (CJL)

[Steamport Southport]

I would like to clarirify that I've no problems with the current owners.

 

 

But there are loads of questions that need to be asked.

 

It seems to be too much about the locomotive, rather than the principal.

 

We can argue on here,  But I've still not seen a proper reason for getting rid of it. 

 

 

And yes, I've read the magazine articles...  

 

It doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. What's next?

 

I can just about  fit Wren in my living room.

 

 

 

 

Jason

Edited June 21, 2017 by Steamport Southport

[Zomboid]

I'd question whether the 'T9' is an LSWR 4-4-0. It's a Urie rebuild of an LSWR 4-4-0 done in SR days. The beauty of the T3 is that it is elegant and shows what an original LSWR 4-4-0 looked like. Together the two locos tell a story of how designs were updated and improved for performance but not necessarily for appearance. (CJL)

A good point which I hadn't considered.

The T3 is undoubtedly the more attractive of the two (Ok, that's a subjective opinion).

 

I don't like to get involved in paint debates because it's just paint, but I would be sad if it lost its LSWR colours. Pre-grouping is still the longest era of our railway history, but seemingly everything has to represent a more recent period (mostly BR 1960, though I understand the nostalgia factor for that era at the moment).

[PhilH]

I'm intrigued by the 'driving to Waterloo at reduced boiler pressure' and '50psi' quotes from a practical point of view. Yes you can move the things with a very low boiler pressure. You can't stop them though....

[coachmann]

I'm intrigued by the 'driving to Waterloo at reduced boiler pressure' and '50psi' quotes from a practical point of view. Yes you can move the things with a very low boiler pressure. You can't stop them though....

Its a very long time since i moved steam loco around and I wouldn't presume to argue with a man that drives them every day on a heritage line, but I would have thought 50psi would be sufficient to activate effective braking of a light engine. Failing that, one could always screw down the tender brake and pray....

Edited June 21, 2017 by coachmann

[PhilH]

Its a very long time since i moved steam loco around and I wouldn't presume to argue with a man that drives them every day on a heritage line, but I would have thought 50psi would be sufficient to activate effective braking of a light engine. Failing that, one could always screw down the tender brake and pray....

I have tried it Larry, it didn't go well...

 

edit..on some of the older Southern and constituent locos I've driven such as S15, Schools and Nelson, they are vac only, so you have to have enough steam to keep the ejector going. Certainly on 925 and Nellie you are looking at around 140 psi min (as in I wouldn't like to rely on it at much less}, I wonder what braking system this loco had? But loco braking is a whole new discussion, apologies for hijack.

Edited June 21, 2017 by PhilH