Ownership of LSWR T3 no. 563 transfered to Swanage Railway

[mvrnut]

Anyone know of any updates or latest news as to how the assessment of 563 is going at the Flour Mill ?  I hope we hear some positive news that restoration to a working loco in steam is possible .

Cheers,

  Chris

[cal.n]

A little related, NRM 'disposing of  APT-P power car. I believe its being gifted to Crewe Heritage Railway Centre. Crewe is a very worthy recipient, but again, why is the public NRM disposing of assets that belong to us without any publc enquiry or notice beforehand? 

[Marshall5]

It is only a few weeks since MOSI transferred ownership of the unique LMS Medical Officer's saloon to the LMS Carriage Association at Peak Rail.  I have nothing against the new owners or Swanage or Crewe or Foxfield but these artifacts were public property and should not have been given away.  Until recently the NRM (as part of the Science Museum) has had a policy of loaning out surplus exhibits and that is fine IMO but permanent disposals - no.

Ray.

[Dava]

The LYR Medical Saloon was preserved at Dinting by the Bahamas Loco society and gifted when the society was forced to move and ended up at Ingrow [KWVR]. Was it offered back to the BLS as possibly the KWVR could have accommodated it?

 

Dava

[cal.n]

Lots more NRM disposals.

 

Page 21 if this.

 

https://group.sciencemuseum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/SMG-Disposals-Advert-Jan-Mar-2018.pdf

[Dava]

The Science Museum have several aircraft hangers full of old stuff at Wroughton with safety issues so probably a lot more to come. Most of this is pretty unremarkable such as the white table with blue top etc. 3 interesting rail wagons, LBSCR and LSWR, to good homes we hope!

 

Finding a home for some of the wagon collection was one reason the NRM supported the GCR museum project at Leicester North.

 

Dava

[2mm Andy]

The Science Museum have several aircraft hangers full of old stuff at Wroughton with safety issues so probably a lot more to come. Most of this is pretty unremarkable such as the white table with blue top etc. 3 interesting rail wagons, LBSCR and LSWR, to good homes we hope!

 

Finding a home for some of the wagon collection was one reason the NRM supported the GCR museum project at Leicester North.

 

Dava

 

All three wagons were loaned to the Yeovil Railway Centre (see bottom of the page);

 

http://www.yeovilrailway.freeservers.com/locomotivesandrollingstock.html

 

Andy

[jjb1970]

I think it is inevitable that we will see more disposals for the simple reason we can't preserve everything, very few trains are historically significant and we are still preserving things. At some point you get to a point where if you want to add something you need to consider what you'll take out unless things get silly. 

[mvrnut]

This thread has drifted from being about the LSWR T3 to a thread about the NRM disposals. Can we get back on track please ?

   Cheers,

     Chris

[sem34090]

My Argument/take on this:

 

Having seen 563 soon after she arrived at Corfe, she was in an appalling external condition, with much damaged and flaked paintwork. The NRM Hadn't offered the TLC she deserved, and as such I am glad that Swanage are looking at restoring such a beautiful loco to not only pristine cosmetic condition but to running order.

 

However, I do object to the 'gifting' of public assets to private societies, despite the fact that these are worthy homes. Why can't a loan be arranged, as has been done with many locos and some stock in the past: LNWR 2-2-2 Cornwall, 850 Lord Nelson, 925 Cheltenham, 30120, The NRM's Beattie, and a few others are all on loan at the moment, so why couldn't the T3 be loaned? If the T3 'no longer fits in the collection' then what place does a Japanese Bullet Train have?! I wrote to the NRM about this, and the NSR 0-6-2T, and was told that the Bullet Train is a popular exhibit with families and helps to tell the story of the World's railways. I suppose that may be fair, but the NRM isn't the INRM (Inter-National Railway Museum), it is a museum of our railways and their history, and this is why I have no objection to the Chinese Loco in the collection as it was (If I remember correctly) built in this Country, and helps tell the story of the locos we designed and built for the empire and beyond. The NRM representative told me, via email, that the T3 was considered insignificant on account of the fact that the museum already owns another LSWR 4-4-0, T9 No.120, along with other pre-grouping 4-4-0's. Fair point again, but surely the T3/T9 comparison is actually interesting in itself, especially when you add 925 'Cheltenham' to the mix, as it shows a progression of 4-4-0 locos built, in essence, to do the same job, before the 4-4-0 was superseded by larger and more powerful types. Rather than waste a lot of money on a single LNER Pacific, one of several LNER Pacifics in preservation (They used the 'we have other 4-4-0's' argument with the T3: Why not the A3? They have other 4-6-2's...) and in the collection, they could have focused on conserving and preserving the collection, rather than resorting to reducing the number of exhibits in order to make space for money-earning cafes, when they shouldn't have wasted the 4-million-odd quid they spent on a loco that no longer contains any of its 1923 self!

 

I am pleased the T3 has an active future ahead of it: I can't wait to hear it making a go of the Alps on the MHR (!), or being allowed to race along at the speeds for which it was designed on the GCR, but the way in which the whole 'gifiting' thing was handled was not right, and I think they should've at least passed the revenue the loco made in its theatre outings over to the SR to help fund the overhaul. I bet that money went on the A3... All very well to 'gift' something, but if Swanage were willing to look after it, pay for the overhaul and pay for its upkeep, then why not just loan it? Mind you, Swanage (unlike the NRM) won't leave one of the prettiest of pre-grouping locos dumped under a tarpaulin on a building site at King's Cross... Outside, maybe for short times whilst being overhauled or in everyday use, but not in the state the NRM let it get into.

 

E. Missenden (RAN, TER)

[Dunsignalling]

My Argument/take on this:

 

Having seen 563 soon after she arrived at Corfe, she was in an appalling external condition, with much damaged and flaked paintwork. The NRM Hadn't offered the TLC she deserved, and as such I am glad that Swanage are looking at restoring such a beautiful loco to not only pristine cosmetic condition but to running order.

 

However, I do object to the 'gifting' of public assets to private societies, despite the fact that these are worthy homes. Why can't a loan be arranged, as has been done with many locos and some stock in the past: LNWR 2-2-2 Cornwall, 850 Lord Nelson, 925 Cheltenham, 30120, The NRM's Beattie, and a few others are all on loan at the moment, so why couldn't the T3 be loaned? If the T3 'no longer fits in the collection' then what place does a Japanese Bullet Train have?! I wrote to the NRM about this, and the NSR 0-6-2T, and was told that the Bullet Train is a popular exhibit with families and helps to tell the story of the World's railways. I suppose that may be fair, but the NRM isn't the INRM (Inter-National Railway Museum), it is a museum of our railways and their history, and this is why I have no objection to the Chinese Loco in the collection as it was (If I remember correctly) built in this Country, and helps tell the story of the locos we designed and built for the empire and beyond. The NRM representative told me, via email, that the T3 was considered insignificant on account of the fact that the museum already owns another LSWR 4-4-0, T9 No.120, along with other pre-grouping 4-4-0's. Fair point again, but surely the T3/T9 comparison is actually interesting in itself, especially when you add 925 'Cheltenham' to the mix, as it shows a progression of 4-4-0 locos built, in essence, to do the same job, before the 4-4-0 was superseded by larger and more powerful types. Rather than waste a lot of money on a single LNER Pacific, one of several LNER Pacifics in preservation (They used the 'we have other 4-4-0's' argument with the T3: Why not the A3? They have other 4-6-2's...) and in the collection, they could have focused on conserving and preserving the collection, rather than resorting to reducing the number of exhibits in order to make space for money-earning cafes, when they shouldn't have wasted the 4-million-odd quid they spent on a loco that no longer contains any of its 1923 self!

 

I am pleased the T3 has an active future ahead of it: I can't wait to hear it making a go of the Alps on the MHR (!), or being allowed to race along at the speeds for which it was designed on the GCR, but the way in which the whole 'gifiting' thing was handled was not right, and I think they should've at least passed the revenue the loco made in its theatre outings over to the SR to help fund the overhaul. I bet that money went on the A3... All very well to 'gift' something, but if Swanage were willing to look after it, pay for the overhaul and pay for its upkeep, then why not just loan it? Mind you, Swanage (unlike the NRM) won't leave one of the prettiest of pre-grouping locos dumped under a tarpaulin on a building site at King's Cross... Outside, maybe for short times whilst being overhauled or in everyday use, but not in the state the NRM let it get into.

 

E. Missenden (RAN, TER)

Just one point. The Schools were built after 4-4-0s had largely been displaced by larger locos, to fulfil a particular need (a loco that performed like a 4-6-0 but fitted 50' turntables).

 

TBH, I'm coming round to the position that the NRM can't or won't look after their entire collection as assiduously as they do a certain 4-6-2 (the fact that they cut ruddy great holes in their best one doesn't inspire great confidence).

 

That being the case, maybe those items will be better off with owners who actually want them and have some affinity for them.

 

John

[sem34090]

To be honest John, I must say that I agree with you. And that includes the fact that they cut holes in their Merchant Navy... but the way I console myself on that one is the fact that they chose the pinnacle of steam loco design to represent how a loco works, rather than some measly black 5 or Castle (Runs away from pursuing GWR and LMS mob, the former of whom are chucking copper kettles...). Still, despite the number of survivors in preservation, the NRM should've maybe taken a scrap loco from Barry and used it as a base, rather than such a beautiful loco as Bulleid's (Modified!) finest.

 

E. Missenden

[Legend]

I do tend to the opinion that the NRM shouldn’t be gifting items from the National Collection that have been in their custody for decades. That said it does appear that Swanage now have plans for a restoration , so all may actually turn out well. It’s probably easier for Swanage to raise funds if the loco is theirs rather than on loan. After all, why would their members donate money to something that could be taken away eg to run on the Mid Hants line. Ownership gives final say to the Swanage Railway.

[Marshall5]

Whilst it is highly likely that the outcome for 563 at Swanage will be a positive one it has not always been the case with items donated by the NRM.  The unique? GWR buffet car was scrapped at Pontypool & Blaenavon after being partially stripped by a previous contractor. I also seem to remember an LNWR? steam breakdown crane from the National Collection was going to be scrapped at Cheddleton.  One of the pair of GWR saloons belonging to NRM is/was rotting away at Carnforth.   I'm sure others could add to the list.

I've always maintained that items from the National Collection should only be loaned out but accept that sometimes it is easier to raise funds for an item like the T3 if it has been donated.  Either way there should be some sort of 'clawback clause' whereby the NRM can reclaim the item if it is being neglected or in danger of being scrapped. Just my 2p worth.

Ray.

[Nick Gough]

To be honest John, I must say that I agree with you. And that includes the fact that they cut holes in their Merchant Navy... but the way I console myself on that one is the fact that they chose the pinnacle of steam loco design to represent how a loco works, rather than some measly black 5 or Castle (Runs away from pursuing GWR and LMS mob, the former of whom are chucking copper kettles...). Still, despite the number of survivors in preservation, the NRM should've maybe taken a scrap loco from Barry and used it as a base, rather than such a beautiful loco as Bulleid's (Modified!) finest.

 

E. Missenden

35029 Ellerman Lines did come out of Barry and was bought specifically for sectioning and display at the NRM.

However, it was one of the earlier departures so was probably in better condition, and more complete, than the last 'wrecks' to leave the yard.

[DaveF]

To be honest John, I must say that I agree with you. And that includes the fact that they cut holes in their Merchant Navy... but the way I console myself on that one is the fact that they chose the pinnacle of steam loco design to represent how a loco works, rather than some measly black 5 or Castle (Runs away from pursuing GWR and LMS mob, the former of whom are chucking copper kettles...). Still, despite the number of survivors in preservation, the NRM should've maybe taken a scrap loco from Barry and used it as a base, rather than such a beautiful loco as Bulleid's (Modified!) finest.

 

E. Missenden

 

 

35029 Ellerman Lines did come out of Barry and was bought specifically for sectioning and display at the NRM.

However, it was one of the earlier departures so was probably in better condition, and more complete, than the last 'wrecks' to leave the yard.

 

 

I know it's not exactly on topic but here as Ellerman Lines and its condition has been mentioned I thought a couple of photos of it on arrival at Sewstern for sectioning from Barry might be useful.

 

I think it's condition is shown clearly in the photos.

 

 

Sewstern Merchant Navy 35029 Ellerman Lines Feb 74 C1466

 

 

Sewstern Merchant Navy 35029 Ellerman Lines Feb 74 C1468

 

 

David

[sem34090]

Ah! I was under the misapprehension that 35029 was preserved straight out of service... My apologies!

[durham light infantry]

To be honest John, I must say that I agree with you. And that includes the fact that they cut holes in their Merchant Navy... but the way I console myself on that one is the fact that they chose the pinnacle of steam loco design to represent how a loco works, rather than some measly black 5 or Castle (Runs away from pursuing GWR and LMS mob, the former of whom are chucking copper kettles...). Still, despite the number of survivors in preservation, the NRM should've maybe taken a scrap loco from Barry and used it as a base, rather than such a beautiful loco as Bulleid's (Modified!) finest.

 

E. Missenden

Err, it did come from Barry scrapyard.

 

Mike

[Sir Hadyn]

I can feel my kettle brewing on overtime. Come and talk to me at the NRM or revisit:

 

https://blog.nrm.org.uk/managing-national-collection-gifting-t3/

 

As for Ray's point about the scrapped items, that's exactly why there is now a clause that stipulates if an item is no longer required, it is offered back to the NRM

[jjb1970]

Was it not a reference to artefacts sold? If another entity has bought an item then it seems fair that they be reimbursed if they want rid of it and the NRM wants it, if it was simply a loan then it wouldn't be an issue as it is science museum property.

[Dava]

There is a news item in 'Steam Railway' today about the GBP50m plan to transform the NRM, really this merits a thread of its own. We may not like change of things we like....but a museum which does not change has no future. The NRM has won major investment to be a major visitor attraction in the future. Public engagement, education and entertainment, especially of young people, seem to be priorities over simple conservation and display of 'the collection' through the 'Wonderlab' which will replace the works area for example.

 

We need to know more and see the plans, but rail is an evolving story not a static one and they have to tell it. We just have to call them to account if they try to get rid of inconvenient but historically important items. This may be about parts of the York estate as well as movable items. One hopes lessons from 563 have been learned and it won't happen again.

 

The end [it looks that way] of the Leicester GCR museum project removes an option for the NRM to display more items offsite during the reconstruction period, for example. But that's another story. I still wonder whose side the HLF was on in that case.

 

Dava

[mvrnut]

I thought it was about time that we should have some news about the feasibility study performed on the  LSWR T3 No. 563 as it has been eight months since it left Swanage to go to the Flour Mill. Has anybody heard anything, good, bad, or otherwise ?

   Cheers,

      Chris

[Dava]

There is a comment in 'Steam Railway' for Aug, in advance of the full report, that the mechanical condition is not too bad and did not appear to be the reason for the loco being speed restricted when it last ran in 1948. But we have to await the full report and to find out the condition of the boiler, which was known to be the reason for the speed restriction. Wait & see...

 

Dava

[adb968008]

I thought it was about time that we should have some news about the feasibility study performed on the LSWR T3 No. 563 as it has been eight months since it left Swanage to go to the Flour Mill. Has anybody heard anything, good, bad, or otherwise ?

Cheers,

Chris

I saw an abstract from the report a couple of weeks ago.

Overall it’s extremely encouraging, with references to several parts being “new” and “virtually unused”.

It’s clear Eastleigh did more than paint it up.

 

The inner firebox was always a known replacement, the boiler remains the unknown.

I understand all eyes are now onto what the boiler looks like by removing the inner firebox (as it’s got to go anyway) and doing a thorough inspection. I understand the plan is to remove the inner firebox in a single piece, something not done very often in preservation.

 

Wouldn’t it be exciting if this turned out to be an easy restoration ?, Barry Wreck it certainly is not, indeed “ex-works” was the term I heard applied more than once...

 

Looking at some of the boiler pictures, to my untrained eye it looks pretty good condition, without the Barryesque pitting you see often, but that’s for the inspectors to decide, but the reports comments were equally surprised at its exterior condition, but they understandably are seeking to be more thorough on the inside, than the outside.

 

It’s a long way from these predictions.

 

 

'Steam the T3 and I'm sure it'll really draw attention'

I've said it before, pure fantasy, it's not going to happen. Not without a new firebox at least. Look at the struggle to get the J21 restored,which will happen eventually.

Dava

It would probably be cheaper to start from scratch and build a replica rather than destroy a beautiful, genuine historic item which would likely require a lot more than just a new boiler. Trigger's broom, anyone?

 

A working T3 is probably one of the most exciting prospects since the days of the Spinner, 1000, Hardwicke and the Adams Radials restorations nearly 40 years ago.

At least I am excited.. i’m Following its progress eagerly.

Edited August 7, 2018 by adb968008

[Dava]

Happy to be proved wrong if this turns out to be the case and I did say the Flour Mill report would be the decider on this.

 

I do remember the Spinner, Compound and Hardwicke running in the late 70''s early 80's, I don't think the LYR Radial tank was restored to running order. Also the C2 Atlantic and Stirling Single, briefly. Yes a working T3 on a preserved line with LSWR stock would be a wonderful sight.