LSWR T3 563

In reality Basingstoke Yard

 

https://www.facebook.com/124986284840596/posts/193529067986317/

If you click link on this facebook post and sign up some theirs interesting photos of the inside of the firebox.

 

The patches in the firebox were a standard repair at the time. It has nothing to do with either war effort. Remember that boilersmiths would have been on piece work back then too.

It is a shame some insurers find these repairs to be unacceptable these days. I would suggest it represents a lack of understanding on their part, rather than a problem with the method of repair.

I sincerely hope the firebox can be retained in full as an exhibit as it represents a trade/craft at its best and skills that are dwindling due to uninformed insurers.

 

Without trying to speak for those running the project, I think this is what they have in mind should an overhaul go-a-head. It's exactly the sort of 'original material & workmanship' that the project has the intent to conserve. I would go further and say that if removed in its entirety for display, it would be more educational, to a wider audience than it ever could be 'in situ' weather running or not.

In any case it's likely that in the long run it will be cheaper to start afresh with a new box than it is to try to salvage anything from the old.

Regarding how it came to be patched in the way that it is, the story goes that when it was to be steamed for the LSWR anniversary and put through the workshops it came out with a 60psi boiler pressure limit and was only able to take itself to Waterloo in 'light steam' suggesting that the level of patching was a stretch for even then.

 

As the strip down continues, its certainly getting very interesting isn't it so on the face of it mechanically it was overhauled with new bearings and a lot of work was done prior to it being resurrected and steamed for the Waterloo celebrations it though has thrown up a lot of questions such as, why give the loco what on the face of it was a mechanical overhaul, but not the boiler ? or was there a plan to patch it as a tempory measure and do a proper job later? was there a plan for an active retirement along similar grounds to what some other railways had done, but at least so far its encouraging news, now its the boiler , again its strange how the condition of the barrel and outer wrapper look to be so good, lets just hope that when the life expired inner box is removed, that the rest of the boiler does not unearth any hidden nasties

 

As i said before a patch was a standard repair at the time. it wasnt a bodge to get it running for a bit, it was an accepted fix.

patch it.
shop it.
run it.
done.

It is not strange if you think when the late overhaul was done.

It is not that we have better standards today. It is that we have already lost a lot of knowledge from the works of old.

 

If that is the case, why then was it only allowed to in effect run in light steam, ? a boiler ticketed to 60 psi as opposed to 160 which I am assuming was the normal pressure? or is this something that has been mis interpreted over time? it does not fully explain why the engine would be mechanically overhauled but the boiler restricted, or was there a change of plan along the way ?I still think the engine may have entered shops with the intension of being fully overhauled and running specials afterwards , but the plans changed, so you had an engine that was done mechanically, with the intension of an active future, in semi, working retirement ( possibly not officially) but either down to costs or some other decision it was changed it wouldn't be the first time a works manager has overhauled a loco, behind the accountants back with plans to have it as a shed pet / special workings engine.

 

Blimey, there's no pleasing some people .... you've got undergubbins apparently in better nick than anyone could reasonably hope for ... and you're banging on about the state of the boiler on a loco which was getting on when it was laid aside for scrap nearly three quarters of a century ago. You lot want the moon on a stick, you do!

Joking aside ..... I sincerely hope 563's restoration isn't kyboshed by a knackered boiler. The prospect of seeing this lovely old machine back doing what it was built for (albeit at a rather more sedate pace) is absolutely mouthwatering. William Adams's locos truly were works of art .... and we're extremely fortunate that, over 120 years since his retirement, the five survivors still are!

 

the prospect of it and the T9 working together is to be relished. That would be something , I thought seeing the Schools at the MHR and the T9 at Swanage in service the same day was special, but this would top it. I quite like 4-4-0s

 

I don’t think anyone does. How the loco came to be preserved, and what work was done at that time, is another interesting aspect of its history.

 

There is perhaps a significant argument to be made for retaining the boiler/firebox as a stand alone museum exhibit to show how repairs were traditionally carried out and perhaps a discussion about why repairs are not carried out in the same way.

Is the job to conserve it as a historical artifict in its ‘as is condition’ or to restore it and lose some historically significant features.

As a footnote, I am fairly sure a few boiler explosions were caused by poor workmanship when patching fire boxes.

 

Its pretty obvious that Eastleigh plundered the stores for bits of what were effectively scrap to the accountants to put on the locomotive - the parts were probably made 15-20 years ago and had sat around gathering dust.

Interestingly, the engine outlived the rest of it's class bar two by twelve years - 17 of the class were withdrawn between 1930 and 1933, probably due to a lack of work as much as anything else, but 563, 571 and 557 all lasted a few more years, and 571 and 563 both recieved two more general repairs, and were withdrawn in 1943 and 1945 respectively. Now, the main failing of the class was fractured frames between the cylinders and leading driving wheels, which suggests either 571 and 563 were in far better order than the other engines, or at some point they had either whole or partial new frames fitted, which is probably more likely. Maybe they were involved in collisions earlier in their careers, or had their frames replaced in the 1920's when it was considered to be a economically viable repair for a engine with 10 years worth of "value" left.

 

In 1971 I have seen the locomotive in Clapham and fell in love with it.
If money cannot be found for a new boiler it will still be possible to run lovely locomotives like this with a special steam generator car behind or by putting a steam accumulator in boiler place.
For short trips it can work and how many paying onlookers will be offended by not having the real thing?
Try to se the 6 pictures here and estimate how many of the paying guests here would care

http://www.ibk.dk/

 

If issues like public safety and insurance liabilities don't render it a non-starter, it sounds a fantasic idea, where a chassis is OK to run ... obviously. If the boiler does turn out to be cream crackered, that'd be a superb way of maximising the T3's own potential for drumming up funds towards a replacement. The steam generator would need connecting to a pressurised air line, connected so that the punters get to pull the whistle for real, (but only) when the responsible SR staff/voluteer tells 'em that's what the driver needs to do on departure or at a 'W' board (saving all and sundry from developing an urge to throttle an overexuberant 'driver'!)

Just think of all the YouTube uploads by families recording their turn at "driving a steam train" (some of 'em might even prove watchable, without keeping a bucket on standby!) .... it only takes one clip to "go viral" and the Swanage Rly could be inundated by more lucrative family birthday and anniversary treats than you could shake a stick at (well, enough to make the exercise worthwile at any rate). Potential for family meal packages too and come to think of it, sales of SR driver's hats wouldn't exactly be too badly hit either .... I take it they're available in sprog sizes.

Anyone fancy crunching the numbers? (Where's @Bean-counter when you need him? ...... Oh, right .... so he was .... and that's way more important than than being 'Duty Statistician' to us lot!) If there are better ways to keep 563 right in the crosshairs of the public conciousness, I'd be hard pushed to name one.

Here's to hoping the boiler's repairable and your promising idea remains a moot point, or gets picked up by another loco, in need of a new boiler and with a chassis in good enough condition to take advantage of some days out and about. Wonder if @marshall5 might know of a suitable candidate?

 

I think you are applying a preservation era sensibility to what was a decidedly pragmatic and unsentimental decision 70 years ago. I don’t think there was any desire to run the loco beyond it’s appearance at the Waterloo Centenary. The loco was only identified as suitable a few weeks before; it had been sitting unused for about three years from 1945 and by January 1948 was already on the scrap line at Kimbridge Junction, so in the circumstances I doubt there was any desire - or time - to do anything more than the bare minimum needed to get her to Waterloo and back in light steam.

Tom

 

I agree, it was probably easier to fit new items in stock than refurbish old ones

 

As someone who has seen the dismantled locomotive, I can assure you more than 'the bare minimum' was undertaken..

 

So what do you think ? because I can't see why an engine would be dragged out of the scrap siding, just to do the minimum , then actually have that work done on it, and whilst I can understand using up what ever spares there was on the shelves, once the engine was earmarked for preservation some one must have authorised the work done, with a view of the engine having a working role after the celebration, possibly not officially sanctioned , that's what leads me to the thought that the works manager might have unofficially told the fitters to do a full job on it use overhauled parts, . and officialdom heard and said, no, just do the minimum, and as the engine was nearly done, just needing boiler work the firebox wasn't renewed imagine if it had of had a working retirement, I'm sure that you would have seen it being active alongside the T9, city of Truro, the cally single etc.

 

Just out of interest what kind of mechanical condition is/was the Caley single in?

 

the coupling rods were virtually non-existant