LSWR T3 563

Just on the question of 4-4-0s, by my reckoning there are (or were) the following the 4-4-0s in the National Collection:

Butler Henderson
LSWR T3
Midland Compound
NER 1621
SECR D
Cheltenham
City of Truro
T9

Given that there are five of those with two inside cylinders, but only one with two outside cylinders, it is interesting that the T3 was considered surplus to requirements. If there was really a pressing need for one of those to be disposed of as being duplicate, would not the T9 have made considerably more sense, both in terms of being an obvious duplicate (Edwardian inside cylinder 4-4-0) and, having run recently in preservation, being less sensitive in terms of conservation of original fabric? The Swanage would still have made a suitable potential home for the loco; and in terms of displaying it in context, would also have made a better match with the railways current and likely future rolling stock, not to mention the predominantly 1950s "vibe" of the stations.

That's not meant as a criticism of the Swanage, by the way; it's just that if the NRM is working towards a smaller collection that nonetheless represents the broad sweep of railway history I find it very hard to see the justification for thinning out a collection by releasing the only outside cylinder Victorian 4-4-0 rather than, say, one of several inside cylinder types.

Tom

 

The T9 also has a lot of mechanical commonality with the M7 so for example we were able to temporally able to swap injector parts between the locos to diagnose a problem on the T9 and get in traffic to fulfill a commitment when it was visiting last year. I dont think Swanage were offered a choice but obviously are delighted with either.

I don't for a minute think that this is a motive for the NRM but I would say that the T3 extends the Swanage collection in a way that the T9 (which probably would have stayed in BR Black) wouldent. Swanage is very much routed in portraying the Southern in the 50s. This now gives us the opportunity and means to expand that story by adding a prequel.

 

This is a very concerning move. Whatever the intentions of the Swanage Railway (and I am sure they are more than admirable) the locomotive is less protected today than it was on Thursday last week. If it lives outside it will deteriorate. If it is restored to working order we gain a locomotive, but at a cost (other than monetary). Not sure how "original" it is now, but it will be less so after returning to working order.

The lack of communication by the NRM - and I mean public debate - is unacceptable in my view. This is probably just the first step. Just how brutal is the trimming of the collection going to be?

Heritage railways are not museums. With a few exceptions we collectively have a poor conservation record, and generally lack the resources, funding or ambition to be a museum. It is not our driving ambition. It is essential that there is a true museum function maintained as well, but I am unconvinced that any of the heritage railways is a good custodian of this function.

Friday was not a good day for railway preservation.

 

and therein lies the rub (3 posts up now), does it not, inside cylinder vs outside, wheel arrangement, square windows versus round (facetious) - how do you decide what factors are not significant and therefore mean you have a duplicate. It is interesting and it is a minefield. I think many of us are perturbed by this...but that doesn't mean it is wrong. We are so lucky that in the UK a unique piece of railway history can leave the national collection and go to one of a wide number of professional preservation outfits that will undoubtedly care for it. I suspect some of our perturbation is due to our own prejudices. I'd hate to see a steam loco removed to be replaced by a shed (class 66 I believe) as I find them about as attractive and interesting as the name suggests...but each to their own. Now they have two GER 0-6-0s - yes I know one is a goods tender loco and the other a suburban, hot hatch tank but surely that's duplication...can I have the Buckjumper please? EDIT I suspect I've asked for the wrong one. The J17 probably could be called a duplicate, they must have other 0-6-0 goods tender engines. It'd look lovely on the NNR

 

Not sure if this is as relevant as you think, yes us enthusiasts appreciate the difference between inside and outside cylinders but is that the only thing that's important to a museum. Now I'm not sure why they made that choice but say to yourself which of that list is say the most 'attractive', to me it would be the compound, Truro & the D, others would have a different list but the decision of which was to stay and which was to go wouldn't even consider if it had inside or outside cylinders. Now I'm sure those decisions are not entirely taken on aesthetics alone and may be based upon were it worked, what its famous for (100mph downhill with a following wind), what story they wanted to tell and possibly a host of other reasons, you may then see that the cylinder position is less important from a museum perspective.

 

Sorry but cold dead engines portrayed in an unauthentic setting don't do anything for me, i think that where an engine can be put into working condition it should, ok some engines its not possible , or even desirable, but for some why not, i think the best times for the NRM was when it had some engines it could steam and give yard trips with , but my fear is that now its part of the science museum , its now more about conversation than being a live museum , i'm not saying steam everything, but have 2 engines in the collection that are operational, for their own use, and could be hired to preserved railways, but after the Flying scotsman fiasco i expect the powers that be have said, no more NRM engines will be returned to active condition, add onto this how the science museum view their purpose, it does not bode well for the NRM, its true that not everything can be kept under cover, i fear that under pressure from their masters, this is only the start, i'm expecting that several engines will be transfered now to the people who look after them, such as the 5305 group, and possibly 850/ 925 to MHRPS .

 

Great points from both martin1656 and Mogul I'd say, for though this may not be the most ideal decision many would have liked for 563's future, it does appear to me to be the best all round outcome for it. As pointed out most other southern railway orientated lines already have their fair share of appropriate engines now, whereas the Swanage Railway for sometime now till recently been the poorest out of the lot in terms of a sutiable fleet for their line (apart from bulleids that is.) With 563 in their care now, I've no doubt do a good job of it, especially as they have no limitations unlike if they just had it on loan.

In fact I'd argue the Swanage Railway is probably the best place for it along with several others like the T9 all round, especially praticaility wise. I make this arguement for as far as I know, the gradients are not as intensive on the SR as you find them on other southern lines. Another advantage is the fact the SR generally restricts it's train lengths to 4 or 5 coaches, which while seemingly not that big a deal, does make utilising older and less powerful engines like 563 more managable and practical. Whenever I've seen the T9 in operation of late, it's usually been given a shorter train then others or doubleheads, on the Swanage Railway however it was hauling a normal sized train service with ease. The Swanage Railway could and should be considered an ideal home for older engines of the southern railway.

I agree with you there, the T9 would have been the more logical step in terms of ridding egines that are considered 'too common' in the national collection. My one guess as to why it wasn't was the fact it's still under a loan agreement with the B&WR still, though at this point I wouldn't past the NRM to give the T9 away once that agreement is done, whether it be to where it is now or another railway. Though saying that, be honest with us now Tom... putting logistics and unease of what the NRM are doing aside, I'm betting you folks at the Bluebell would LOVE to have SECR D under your wing, wouldn't you?

 

I think they would rather have Gladstone, but if you want a good home for the D how about Rolvenden , or displayed at Robertsbridge once its opened, Mike, get your slide rule out a nice little museum building attached to the platform yards from the SECR route to Tonbridge and London

 

Also, by my reckoning, it's the joint-oldest of the 4-4-0s.

 

Sorry to be the pooper at this particular party but IMHO this wouldn't be at all "nice"! The K.E.S.R. is one of the extreme minority of tourist lines actually built as a light railway but it is danger of any light railway character disappearing over the horizon. An express locomotive on this type of line is inappropriate.

PH

 

While I usually may be one who tends to peak up against some of your opinions, Paul, on this occasion I can confidently say we are in agreement. The KESR is a railway known for it's small engine usuage, for that fits it's character as you've said. I'm not entirely sure what to make of the occupation of copper caps (great western) that's been growing on that railway of late, for that could go against their image for the line too. I'd give those a pass however, for the ever approaching time when the KESR expands to Robertbridge will realistically need bigger motive power.

 

i think you're barking up the wrong tree with the D.....4-4-0 surplus sorted....and Gladstone? hardly going to be likely given it's unique configuration.

you need look for the duplication. What the NRM has a surfeit of is large passenger locos and Royal saloon.s What it lacks distinctly is freight types and tanks. Not it's fault, but it does need to become more evenly spread

 

Very rare do we agree on anything Paul (!) but I agree fundamentally with this.

I have been fortunate enough to sample the beauty of this railway from the footplate of one of the USA tanks and I can say categorically that the railway is at its best with its smaller tank locomotives and rolling stock, as per its original use as one of the Col. Stephens' light railways.

The Norwegian 2-6-0 (which is a beauty, by the way) is the obvious exception. I am wary of the impending Great Western slant to the locomotive stock; it is beyond the original scope of the line by some way. Each to their own of course and it is in the railway's prerogative to utilise the Robertsbridge extension and potentially longer trains. With that comes a loss of its character I feel.

Terriers with heritage stock barking up the slope towards Tenterden Town - that's the KESR for me.

That is not to say I can't also appreciate the professionalism and excellent work of the volunteers working on the GW tanks. Far from it; they're doing an incredible job.

 

The items in the National Collection weren't chosen based on their wheel arrangement or the location of their cylinders.

The locos made available for preservation (some by historical chance) were not necessarily the best examples to illustrate the development of railway locomotives. It may want to review these decisions.

The NRM has a duty to continue preserving "new" diesel/electric items which reflect continuing development in railway design. However, it has an limited funds and space for its collection, so may need to review what it already has.

 

The following might be of interest..

T3 563 was withdrawn in 1945. It was left in the 'dump' of locos awaiting scrapping for 3 years until 4th May 1948 when that celebrated railway enthusiast and manager on the SR, A B MacLeod, inspected LSWR locos for display at the forthcoming 100th anniversary of Waterloo Station that took place on 14th June 1948. He, with a small team selected 563 out of 6 Adams locos.

MacLeod sent out a specification of works required to the loco including new pipework and whistles (presumably these had been removed), and a new Adams stovepipe chimney to replace the Drummond cast iron type. There is a well known pic by MacLeod of 563 being worked on at Eastleigh on 28th May 1948 with new tubes being fitted, and the loco in undercoat.

MacLeod's specification for restoration survives... "Engine need only be complete externally".

It is in many eyes perhaps the most attractive of all LSWR locos. The Science Museum had a sectioned 1" scale miniature built by the Simmons Brothers in the late 189os which I remember from visits in the 1970s and 80s.

It is a highly regarded design and the pinnacle of Adam's work for the LSWR. MacLeod knew what he was doing. He had tried to preserve other historic and important locos previously.

We owe a great debt to A B MacLeod for the survival of this very important loco.

I entirely agree with Jamessquared that for a loco that has been well looked after under cover for most of the past 65 plus years, to then be displayed on a railway that has no proper dedicated undercover premises is a seriously retrograde step, and calls into question the NRM's decision. This important beautiful loco will only deteriorate.

We have the Adams Radial tank on the Bluebell that is very similar in design that has not steamed for a generation, but is well cared for under cover though not in museum conditions.

I really cannot understand the NRM's reasoning behind the disposal of 563. It cannot possibly be better cared for than for most of the last 65 plus years if left in the open at Swanage Station in the salty air and where vandalism and theft of non ferrous parts may take place.

There is no evidence of the Swanage Railway having carried out an in depth assessment of the loco with a view to a return to steam, and the costs. We know what state the Adams Radial tank boiler is on the Bluebell, and the likely costs of returning it to steam.

I do not have any evidence that 563 steamed after it's very quick 'restoration' at Eastleigh in a matter of some 5 weeks before display at the Waterloo Centenary in 1948. It's condition would be 'knackered' as withdrawn after a long working life in 1945, and 3 years on the 'dump' scrap line at Kimbridge Junction.

Cheers,
Julian

 

In fairness why would the Swanage Railway need to provide evidence (as if it were some national preservation police enquiry) as to its mechanical state.

Do you seriously believe that SR staff did not look into this? It is day three of SR ownership, let it get to the railway and let news filter out. The SR would be foolish to let everyone know every little detail in one go.

Of course they have assessed it.

 

Contributors to this thread are hoping that the up-side of de-accessioning this loco is that it will eventually return to steam. Nobody from the SR is discouraging this idea. But is it realistic? It would be nice to know.

This transaction has been conducted in total secrecy. We know nothing except what has been revealed in the press release. Seems like a fair question to me.

That's good to hear. Are you able to share the findings from this assessment?

 

I am very sorry '007' but your posts have been of little assurance to those of us with concerns, and your posts have been very scant of specific details.

All we know is that currently on departure to the Swanage the loco will be left in the open air (and salty air at that).

You must appreciate that as a result many of us have considerable concerns for this important historical loco.

I think most of us would be of the view that the loco would be much better back under cover at Shildon or York in Museum conditions and without risk of damage due to the elements or theft or vandalism.

If there is a mechanical assessment with costings and funding done by the Swanage with a return to steam then why not publish same on here?

You have had 11 pages mainly of criticsm of the NRM's stance, and the inadequacy of the Swanage Railway to provide proper under cover secure storage for the loco to ensure it continues to be preserved without harm or deterioration.

You have not addressed any detailed criticism other than bland superficial comments.

Cheers,
Julian

 

" Of course they have assessed it. " A penetrating and honest report was commissioned, produced,
and made public on Flying Scotsman which established that just this was not done at its last handover.

It is bemusing that in the light of such a clear high profile demonstration that the lessons from it
might not have been learnt. They may have been but we do not know that they have.
There is no evidence of what effective safeguards there may be if good intentions are inadequate.

 

While I'm concerned for the well-being of 563's future as well, I do think '007' has a point in the sense that it's only been 3 days since this was announced, the engine has yet to even arrive and folks are already pannicking over it's rapid deterioration. The presumption all round seems to be that the engine will just be left outside, but how can anyone be so certain of this? Alot of people on here don't appear to be giving the SR much credit, and in fact presume their too incompetent to know and apreciate the locomtice's significance and therefore be capable of caring for it's wellbeing. Besides, despite the constant claim being thrown round a lot, there is actually some undercover accomdation at Swanage, their two road carrage shed comes to mind. They could easily store it in the back of it till such time when they can look into restoring it.

As for the presumption that most would be happier it being in one of the already packed museums with little space, I'm not so sure 'most' of us are strictly in absolute agreement of that. If anything, as the NRM are the ones that have just effectively dumped the engine so abruptly, I would think at this point most would prefer as many engines to get away from their wreckless if not plain incompetent management as soon as possible. At this rate most of the national collection would safer NOT being in the collection at all, what with consistent bad management of them and repeated lacking of respect or aprreciation for anyone of them, ecept that is for the select few that draw in crowds (i.e. Flying Scotsman, Mallard and Duchess of Hamilton).

I've grown rather tired and disillusioned by the NRM actions of late, their less about preserving of nation's railway heritage, and more about saving money where they can, including getting rid of what they apprently deem as 'dupications' in the collection of locomtives. That is no place for most if any priceless engines such as 563 to be in order to have a prosperous future.

Simply put, others like the Swanage Railway, the MHR and anyone else with engines of the national collection, will just have to do the job of conserving these precious items of our history, because the NRM itself certainly dosen't seem interested in doing that role anymore... not for items of our great steam era.