LSWR T3 563

There is one restored LSWR coach on the Bluebell, and three unrestored; however, collectively they don't form a very coherent set.

Naturally enough, our priorities are more towards LBSCR and SECR vehicles. If anyone is going to take up the baton of LSWR carriage restoration, logic suggests that an ex-LSWR railway would be a good place to start. Such as the Swanage Railway.

Why not? Do you think those resources just fell out of the sky, or are enjoyed as a result of a huge amount of hard work and planning?

Personally, I'd prefer to see the T3 kept undercover, where it has been for the last 70-odd years. I don't think there is any justification for restoring it to operational condition, given the historical integrity of the locomotive.

There has to be a balance between what is worth restoring, and what is worth keeping for its historical value. As an example, I think it is right that the BBMF keep their Lancaster operational, and I would support that to continue into the indefinite future, regardless of how much replacement material was needed over the years. Equally, I don't think anyone rational would wish to see S-Sugar at Hendon restored to flight - it has too much historical connection back to the war, being preserved more or less as a time capsule from when it came out of service. I think you should apply the same logic to steam locomotives - I'd be quite happy to see the T9 kept running more or less indefinitely, but think that some locos deserve to be preserved just as they are, and the T3 is one of those.

Tom

 

Well that's fair enough logic I would say, as your railway's history is more better served with rollingstock from LBSCR and SECR vehicles, so of course they should have priority. Though with this being the case then, would it not make sense to pass these LSWR carriages on to a railway where they'd be more appropriate, such as the Swanage Railway as you have contended yourself?

Oh certainly not, and I meant no offence in sounding as though I meant otherwise. I was merely trying to sublety suggest that, when somebody from a more longer running and established comes start to comment on the actions and plans of a 'younger' heritage railway, it can easily if not careful, come across as sounding... uppity, superior because of one railway's seniority over the other, acting as though they know better then the newer folks. Not that I'm suggresting you are acting this way, it's just that it can come off that way at times from various people on this forum.

This is something I will never understand it seems, for I personally do not see the value of keeping something EXACTLY the same as it was when withdrawn. If the parts are the same in design and shape, be they old or new, it should not matter for it is fundamently the same. This logic is especially a nuisance on steam locomotives, for by their nature their meant to move and pull trains, and in that state they are far more loved and admired then they'd ever be just stuffed and mounted. Historical integrity maybe appropriate for some items of historical value, but I'd argue with most locomotives (besides ones as old as Rocket and other that aren't that practical to have running) it is unnecessary to do this, and serves to satisfy only a minority. Most on the otherhand would much prefer to see such elegant machines as the T3 running.

Also if we were to follow your logic Tom, would that not mean that a good number of the engines on the Bluebell should be kept on display, to prevent anymore loss of this 'historical integrity' a few wish to be saved? Go by that logic and the Bluebell's available engines to run would be rather smaller and less interesting I think. In fact while on the subject, is that the reasoning that the Bluebell Railway might be reluctant to restore 488 in the future, not just the expense involved?

 

I think we will have to agree to disagree then.

Tom

 

There is surely room for both approaches. Keeping locomotives running can mean replacement of significant quantities of materials, and then the locomotive becomes progressively a replica of itself. Nothing especially wrong with that of course, but why do we have to do that with everything? Another example often debated here is City of Birmingham. It is now as much a relic of the work that the men of Crewe did as it is a locomotive. In other words there is something valuable in the preservation of the both the vehicle AND the state it is in. If restored the direct tangible (and intangible) link between the machine and the people who overhauled it last would be irrevocably lost. It is the same here. Yes we gain an elegant vintage 440, but we do already have one of those. We loose a locomotive last touched by Eastleigh workers. Many may not value that link, but equally it cannot simply be dismissed as being valuable. Would you like Stonehenge to be restored.

 

I'd agree with you 21B, for I certainly don't wish to suggest that ALL locomotives should be restored, for it is neither necessary or practical to do so. There's a good number of engines that should be kept untouched due to their historic value, but equally as many that shouldn't have to be tied down and hindered by this if there is such a desire to see them running again. I'm inclined to agree that City of Birmingham should be left alone, simply for the fact we've already got an working example. The T3 however is a sole survivor, and is a outside cylinder 4-4-0 which besides the Schools and lone Shire doesn't have that much representation, certainly not one where the gear was hidden within the frames instead of outside of it like the others are of the outside cylinder variety.

And as I always come back to, these are machines built with a purpose, to be in motion not standing idle gathering dust. Surely by having such an old and elegant machine built and worked on by the workers of Eastleigh, can be equally hounoured and remembered if in working order. An engine built by them over a hundred years ago, and it's STILL chuffing strong, doing what they designed and built it for. I'd call that a great tribute to those who worked on it. For simply put, people will appreciate something and it's encompassing history far more so when they see it doing what it is meant for. That's why so many go to heritage railways, and why such railways as the Bluebell get such attention, because of their old and elegant machines of the steam age.

 

I agree with JMJR, I have never "got" this desire to keep something in exactly the same state as it was when withdrawn. To me, a non runner is far less of interest than a living, breathing locomotive, if you have to replace a lot of it, then so be it. What is the point in keeping worn out parts?

 

Indeed it would seem so, which is perfectly fine, for we all naturally have our own personal opinions and I respects your's along with many others on here.

That said I'm surprised you had nothing to say on the others matters brought up. Perhaps you were not sure how or if indeed you wanted to answer them, which is fair enough too. I realise asking a railway to essentially give some of it's collection away, since they don't fit in their said collection, can perhaps be a very touchy subject for many. I was just merely bringing up the fact that as you said they are LSWR carriages to seek and restore for use at Swanage, I assumed that must also include those at the Bluebell, as you did contend yourself their out of place and not that much priority.

 

But equally if you are going to turn it into a replica then why not build a replica in the first place. Be a far better bet long term than trying to restore a locomotive that was already life expired before you started.

 

I realise asking a railway to essentially give some of it's collection away, since they don't fit in their said collection, can perhaps be a very touchy subject for many. I was just merely bringing up the fact that as you said they are LSWR carriages to seek and restore for use at Swanage, I assumed that must also include those at the Bluebell, as you did contend yourself their out of place and not that much priority.

If you had put years of work into restoring the LSWR brake 3rd for use on the Bluebell, would you want to see it given away to another line that does not even have anything appropriate to offer in exchange? Moreover, see it going from a line where it lives under cover to a line that does have covered accommodation for its locos, much less its carriages? Perhaps they should throw in 488 to sweeten the deal! One of the main attractions of the Bluebell is that it has its fantastic collections of SR locos and coaches and although some may not be appropriate to the line they are located on they were still part of the wider SR. Why would anyone want to dilute that?

 

Quite right, it's nice to see I'm not the only one who questions this almost seemingly 'unquestionable' logic of thinking, as a good few seem to treat this subject as such. I wouldn't be surprised really if it a generational thing, as it would appear to me that many of the older generation has this logic where if something original gets changed or replaced just a little, that's ruined it. Whereas with the newer generation however, I suspect most of them believe so long as the parts replaced are of the same design, the same appearance, then the sprirt of what is being preserved is still left intact. There's more to preserving something then just simply retaining it's original physical intergrity.

 

Was a Barry loco not life expired after 20+ years in Woodhams Yard? At least 563 is complete

 

With the LSWR brake coach that is already restored, I can understand the sensitivity in making such a suggestion perfectly, but what of the other three? What chance have they got in being restored? It's clear that while the Bluebell does try to represent the southern region's history as a whole, there is clear favour towards the LBSCR and SECR vehicles, for that is appropriate to them and their line. There is a large abundance of SECR locomtives in steam for sure, along with those from the Southern Railway itself, but right now they have few other engines operable that represent the others.

Plus as for this ongoing issue of undecover storage, this is clearly an issue Swanage recognise and are working to resolve, and have such treasures as 563 will help to gain that bit more support for such an endevour. Technically by having other LSWR carriages coming along, even if unrestored, that would help to get support and grant funding all the more. I for one wold never want to dilute what the Bluebell has, but at the same time, I view the preservation movement as a whole. If there are items that are clearly not as appropriate or needed on one railway, why not have them go to another where they would? Why insist on retaining something that really has little place or need in your collection?

 

Some interesting arguments for and against restoring 563 to working order. Can I add:

A restored and working LSWR 563 would, in theory, be available for hire to other railways around the country. And I imagine it would be very much in demand. This would increase its reach to a far wider audience.

Similarly, it would be first choice for the Film industry for Victorian passenger train scenes.

Static displays are generally a sterile and non-compelling experience, unless they are really well done.

 

Ah but if you did that, then it wouldn't be THE 563 then, would it? When it comes to preservation, I believe in conserving the 'spirit' of such machines, not necessarily their original nuts and bolts. Certainly with a steam engine, they transcend what a machine is usually perceived as, for they act like living, breathing machines, and as such they have a personalty or 'spirit' to them. Even if you have a original machine, and over the years replace all it's old parts with new ones, machanically and 'spiritually' it is the very same machine.

 

That surely depends on what is there to keep, and what it represents, how it is then restored, and how that fits with the vehicle's history. The argument can be overdone, but mustn't be neglected.

It is very easy to get it slightly wrong. For example, at one of the Steam on the Met events, I was looking at the pipework on one of the locos (I think from memory 9466, but can't be sure), and was struck by the look and feel of the finish - what looked to me at the time like a modern coating, and not a steam era paint finish. A minor detail - but one that made the locomotive somehow less original, less old.

 

The preservation movement is not a whole, though - though it has proven itself consistently greater than the sum of its parts, it is nonetheless made up from all of those parts - each one of which has it's own needs, wishes, and history. Part of that history is the difficulty of aligning collections to how those railways were pre-closure, and the compromises that had to be made as a result.

Transfers can and do happen, for a variety of reasons. But as an armchair member of a number of railways, I would personally be reluctant to support any move that didn't demonstrate that the new location/owner could do something that the current railway could not realistically expect to do in the same timeframe. And if that was dependent on grants, my support for the move would be conditional on grant funding being in place before any move.

 

no , many Barry engines were withdrawn surplus to requirements, whereas 563 may well have been totally worn out after WW2

 

actually yes I would like to see Stonehenge restored to the extent that fallen stones could be put back up. Where's the harm in that?

 

as regards coaches, you'd have to be restoring the likes of the diners stored on South Wales, ex Mid Hants in some cases.

 

The Bluebell has taken a more enlightened approach than other railways I could mention in agreeing to long term lease carriages that it has no room to restore, but which others have. I mean of course the Bulleid coach that is leased to the MHR. The Bluebell is not the only railway that has such vehicles awaiting restoration, but the others wouldnt entertain such a deal.

The ex-MHR diners in South Wales were transferred away at a point in history when there was no prospect of them being restored there. That situation would possibly be different now.

Finally, the presence of a vehicle on a railway does not necessarily mean that the said line is in full control of its future if it is privately owned. I can think of an example or two where a railway would love to restore a vehicle, but cannot for that reason.