LSWR T3 563

You may well be right - we will just have to wait and see...

I recall reading that there were no obvious horrors mechanically when initially looked over at Swanage. As ever, the critical factor will be the condition of the boiler - and those involved can only know the state of that (and particularly the firebox if Bradley is correct) once they can get it out of the frames for a proper evaluation.

 

Don't know. If it was given a life extension overhaul in 1939 and just used on stuff like ECS and pick up goods, might not be too bad. Not as if it had to lug 14 up Shap and Beattock is it!!

 

I seem to recall reading - can’t remember where, might be in Hamilton-Ellis - that for the post war overhaul, the working pressure was reduced to I think 100psi or thereabouts, on account of the condition of the boiler, which would seem to bear out Bradley’s comment.

Tom

 

On initial inspection, the inner firebox will require complete replacement. However the rest of the boiler hasn't been inspected yet so lets not jump to conclusions.

When I oiled it up the other day to move it to Norden, I crawled all over it, under it and in it. All the motion is tight, there is little to no visible corrosion on the frames and when we moved it to Norden it rode as smooth as silk.
It was even panting away (pistons pumping air) and it sounded great.

This is going to be a challenge returning 563 to steam, but I think people saying they 'expect nothing more than totally knackered and worn out' perhaps might want to think about the damage they might do to fundraising efforts making groundless comments like that.

When we get the report from the Flour Mill, we will not sugar coat it, it will be a truthful account of its condition. Until then comments about its condition are speculation.

 

There you go with them technical terms again Tom!

5 weeks including a repaint, eh? Mind you, Stratford built a new loco in considerably less time, plus there's a difference between "booked work time" and "time from traffic back to traffic", though I suspect it's the latter. I hope there's time for measurements (as the Corris folks have done with "Sir Haydn"), just in case anyone's rich enough (and insane enough) to commission a new T3, should 563 prove past the point of no return and if it isn't, anyone for a new X2?

Chin up, folks! .... if Blodge can put "Welsh Pony" back into traffic ....

 

The challenge is retaining as much as possible of the original fabric. I doubt the comments are "groundless" . A loco patched up from dumped condition and put into service on light duties for the duration and withdrawn again immediately after the duration expired will require a full overhaul, without a doubt.

 

Shall we just wait and see before frothing about what state 563 may or may not be in?

 

That would be the sensible option, but also the boring option nothing to stir the pot with
So lets assume it needs a new firebox, how many locos over recent years have recieved new inner fireboxes and have had new steelwork in outer boxes ?

 

Given it's been 7 decades since it was last steamed, I'd imagine "full overhaul" will probably prove a somewhat nebulous definition!

Much, as you say, will come down to how much new material is considered acceptable. When considering 60103's bill came in at a number so high as to have paid for a cosmetic restoration, leaving enough to have been most of the way to a newbuild A3, questions are inevitable.

At the same time, a little uninformed optimism does serve to balance equally uninformed pesimism, neither of which will have much bearing on what eventually happens in any event!

 

C'mon Matt .... where's the fun in that!

 

I wouldn't be too concerned about the boiler, it's a consumable and even if total replacement was needed, the old one could always be kept in store. No doubt there's a line in the sand that would determine how much is desirable to replace otherwise, not that they found the line in Scotsman's case.

 

Not seeking to start a barney (honest!), reframing wasn't exactly unknown (take the Maunsell moguls where, AFAIK reframing wasn't classed as a 'rebuild'), so the question surely becomes "which components can't ultimately be considered a consumable?". At this point, I confess I have no answer, though I'd certainly argue "the paint" doesn't constitute a reasonable response!

In the case of 563, does it's maintenance record survive? Without that, unless components are idented and dated, how is it possible to state how much of the loco is what actually left Nine Elms new in February 1893?

Whatever discussions (i.e. the meaningful ones between Flour Mills, Swanage and the NRM) throw up, it'll be a fascinating story to follow.

 

I'm fascinated by it and I'm an LMS fan!

 

Especially if it turns out that Some where in its past its not 563, but one of its sisters thought to have been long since scrapped

 

Mischievous Martin ...... I like it!

 

beyond the pale I feel to build new frames. If that's the case, preserve it as it is and build a new loco.

 

That'd be my own first reaction too. When Blodge decided new frames were needed for "Welsh Pony" I found myself thinking "Eh?", though I understand it's original mainframe (if an 'England' can be said to have a mainframe) went in the 1891 rebuild.

Assuming it goes ahead, this repair / renovation ('spose we'll find out what to call it in due course) will break a lot of new ground. Methinks anyone at the Bluebell who claims they're not watching, with half an eye on D Class 737, may just be telling porkies!!

 

We believe boiler pressure was reduced to 60psi and a speed restriction of 25mph was put on the loco

 

Well that's alright that's all you need, stick a fire in it now!