LSWR T3 563

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jamessquared/14065772587/in/album-72157645690946939/

Tom

 

I more fear that the Great Hall might be crammed with food outlets and shopping opportunities.

 

Have you seen how busy the Great Hall cafe is during school holidays? I took the family last week and it was amazing. I rather think it's good to see it being used. If the punters can't get fed, they won't come again. I as an enthusiast will go time after time, but I need to be able to convince Mrs F and the children if we're going to have a good day out. Besides, cash in the till supports the museum and I don't begrudge them that.

 

I think Tom's (jamessquared's) posts on the T3 are quite excellent.

The T9 debate is overshadowed by it remaining much longer in service than than the T3, plus running in preservation.

Anyone younger than 90 will probably have no recollection of a T3 working, and they were pretty thin on the ground by the outbreak of WW2.

However, that is not a reason to give the loco less credit. No one can remember when Rembrant's paintings were first displayed or bought. You dont think less of them because of their age.

I agree that the T3 is historically far more significant then the T9, but I would also not want to see the T9 disposed of .

I would like to see Boxhill far better displayed than currently. I would like to see the GWR Dean Goods removed from its stupid situation at 'Steam'.

I do not see why the NRM devotes so much space to Royal Train vehicles - in the overall scheme of the history of UK railways they have very little significance.

I have a very fond affection for the T3.

You could make a good case for disposing of 'Gladstone' as a dead end design, and hasnt been seen in steam since as a class since the early 1930s and so no one can remember one ever steaming.

I find this approach very negative, and frankly nonsense.

Cheers,
Julian

 

Why should that be a reason for disposal? Many younger visitors won't remember seeing a fair few of the NRM's exhiits in action.

 

Maybe they hold a fascination for the general public. I would hope the NRM has a reasonable idea of how long people spend looking at each exhibit which would inform their policy of what's on display.

If you take the view that only those who were over 5 in 1965 can have even the vaguest memory of steam in everyday use, then 75% of the UK population has only ever seen preserved steam. (source ONS statistics)

 

And there you have the nub of the argument. Should a museum be more a centre of information, study, preservation and research; or entertainment for all. Obviously the reality will be at some point within this polarity. It is difficult from outside the SMG to know how their policy statements are interpreted and implemented until the results are seen.

 

IMHO it needs to be both...................... Jo & Joanne Average need to be able to go in to see whats on display, to enjoy what they see and hopefully learn something from it

 

But that's not the approach that was taken Julian, unless you know something we don't or gleaned from the NRM letters that we haven't...

 

Let me get this straight. The fact that few can remember a locomotive working is a poor argument for disposing of the T3, but a good argument for disposing of 'Gladstone'. And you say the NRM's approach is nonsensical...

 

Come on, 39 pages. The T3 regardless of the rights or wrongs of it, is now SR property. Its been interesting to hear peoples views on it, both for and against it, but whats done is done now.

 

I don't think Julian meant there really was a case for disposing of Gladstone, quite the opposite in fact.

 

It is, and arguably that discussion about the NRM and policy belongs in a different thread. I now look forward to hearing what Swanage plan to do with 563 in the years to come.

 

Ah. I missed the irony. Apologies Julian.

Bill

 

With 6695 now being assigned to WSR for 25 Years, I'd say this increases the likelihood of the T3 returning to steam.

 

Not sure I follow your reasoning. Yes the SR has lost 6695, but before that it gained three moguls. I don't think it is short of locos which are arguably better suited for day to day use.

 

the problem is though whilst the SR will find the funds to overhaul the N, the next U being so similar may struggle to get the public support, but if the T3 were the next loco to enter the works, i think any appeal for funds, on an engine, now owned by the Railway, not subject to a loan agreement , and being so rare, i think will get the support, another problem with 31625, or 31806, when its ticket expires, is that both are not owned outright by the railway, and their long term security can not be guaranteed.

 

I agree, when you consider who owns the Moguls versus who owns the T3, it would be easier to raise finds for the T3.

 

54398

 

Well, according to the SRT's annual report, the locos are on a minimum of hire terms of 15 years and the railway does not have a choice regarding restoring 31874 and 31625 (and assuming 31806 is currently operational, making it operational again at the end of the term).

"(18(d)) On 1 June 2014 The Swanage Railway Trust's trading subsidiary, Swanage Railway Company Limited, entered into a hire agreement with John S Bunch (the owner) of three ex Southern Railway locomotives. This provides for the hire of the locomotives namely 31806, 31874 and 31625 for a period of twenty five years from the date of signing the agreement. The agreement contains a clause allowing the contract to be terminated after fifteen years i.e. on 1 June 2029 subject to twelve months' notice being given by either party.

(21) Under the terms of the 25 year hire agreement, the Swanage Railway Company is responsible for ensuring that the current non-operational locomotives on hire from John S Bunch are restored to the same condition as at the commencement of the lease. It has entered into this contract upon the proviso that the Swanage Railway Company shall accept responsibility for funding the restoration to working order of the two locomotives which are currently non-operational, i.e. 31874 and 31625. It is provisionally estimated that such restoration will cost in the order of £400,000 each i.e. a total commitment over future years of circa £600,000."

The maths looks a bit dodgy though, as in Dorset 2 x £400,000 apparently equals £600,000, but perhaps they are using an aggressive rate of interest to p.v. future payments?