LSWR T3 563

Yes, they are valid points.

But there is a balance made between making good points; how they are made, why they are made, and whether or not you are beating a dead horse when doing so.

***

Just on those points - my personal rebuttal:

Should it have left the national collection? There is no straight forward answer Yes or No. Not irrelevant, but it has left the national collection. That horse is out of the stable.

Should it be taken apart for restoration? Yes. Absolutely yes. If it can't be steamed, don't - then restore and the plan changes. There is nothing wrong with this from a curatorial point of view and inspecting an artefact is something all museums do.

The level of taking a car apart, for example, before it gets into one of the car collections in this country is pretty intensive - are we saying the Swanage Railway should leave it as is? What if there is something potentially dangerous (heaven forfend) that they're not aware of (asbestos etc)?

Regarding bashing Steam Railway Magazine...

I am an aspiring children's author. I write about railways. I write in Steam Railway Magazine regularly. I respond to their articles. I have taken part in and actively encouraged supporting their fundraising for various projects (including Tornado, Taliesin, the Glos/Warks rebuilding of Chicken Curve...and many more besides).

They do so much good work and have done throughout the magazine's existence.

That said, I cancelled my subscription on the basis of their (at the time) very one sided and unbalanced Scotsman analysis (re the NRM's commissioned report which ultimately led to Ian Riley overhauling the locomotive). To me, at that time, they crossed a line into what has been (in my view) fairly described as "tabloid".

For myself, I do not have an agenda to "knock [ing] SR at all opportunities". I actually would like to see them be more factual and more balanced, and less indignant, less angry, less presenting an agenda of their own.

I met one of their former editors in the summer at a car show. He is an absolute gem. He left because of internal politics regarding the approach taken to news items in the magazine. His views echoed mine quite substantially.

The problem I have with Steam Railway is that at times it can be an excellent magazine. I would quite like it to be more of that excellent magazine and not feel like a railway outpost of the Sun - which, to me, it has done at times.

 

Steam railway, i would say are fighting a fight they have already lost, the engine is now owned by The Swanage Railway Trust.
If someone has already put forward the funds to meet the costs of stripping the engine for assessment where is the problem, at least then there will be no doubt about the general condition of the engine, then a decision can be made on if the engine has a working future or if it's reassembled for Static display. if the present paint is showing signs of old age, then at least it could be repainted so its given a cosmetic overhaul, even if its not steamable, ok everyone hopes that she does get restored to working order,
If she had stayed as part of the NRM, which i guess is what the editor of Steam railway would have preferred, it would not have been possible, as the engine would have just gone on display somewhere. There is one other side question, that the dismantling should shine some light on, just how much of 563, is actually 563? what else may be found, not many engines have survived that were last overhauled by a pre BR workshop?

 

I regard the assessment like an archaelogical dig. Either we see the outside of the structure and make informed guesses or someone digs into it to discover more detail.
Dismantling the loco will undoubtedly disturb/damage some of the work done at Eastleigh in the late 1940's. But without undertaking that investigation the preservation world will have less of an understanding of what work was undertaken in that repair or on earlier occasions. I found the dismantling of 850's boiler at Pridhams workshop very interesting and it revealed a few "sharp practices" of the running shed and / or works to keep an ageing loco working for its final few years.

As for the attitiude of Steam Railway, just remember that many "news" papers are written to support the views of their readers, thereby ensuring sales......

Cheers, Neil

 

It was repainted at Clapham in the early 60's so I am led to believe, so the only damage would be to paintwork from the BR era.

 

If you want to join the T3 mail list, please drop an email to matt.mcmanus@swanagerailway.co.uk and he will add you to the list. You will get lots of updates on progress and further information about how you can get involved.

 

Whoever owns the loco, the Swanage Railway or the NRM, if it is possible to return it to service then it will offer a magnificent new experience for both the enthusiast and non enthusiast alike

 

This seems to be the assumption behind the editorial's argument, but what makes them think this is a likely outcome? Isn't the plan to dismantle ('rip apart' seems a bit loaded), inspect, and if the inspection shows that restoration to working order is unrealistic, reassemble for static display. If this happened, why would original material be destroyed or parts be lost? Are the Flour Mill really that careless?

I could understand the argument if 563 was currently in ex-works condition, a time capsule like 4073 so that a genuine Nine Elms 'finish' was lost in the dismantling process. But the photos show her to be pretty shabby following years of outside storage and use as a theatre prop.

So, how is the assumed negative outcome any more than a journalist's fantasy?

 

I've never really got the argument of the loco being 'ex-works' - the purpose of a loco being ex-works in steam days was not for it to remain looking pretty, but for it to be as good as new so it so that it would be able to give good service for years to come. Personally, if say 5043 was restored to make it look like it had just been overhauled at Swindon in the same way that 4073 was, I don't think many people (if any) would be able to tell the difference without being told there was one. But that is just me, and I acknowledge that others think differently to me

There's another significant difference here between 563 and 4073, which is that there are other Castles aside from 4073 which are available for operation or being restored for that purpose. You can keep 4073 stuffed and mounted and still be able to experience a Castle doing what it was built for. 563 is the unique, last survivor of her class, the last surviving Adams express engine. Also, I think were she to be restored, she may be the oldest 4-4-0 to have run in preservation (although I may be showing some ignorance on this matter) - so seeing her in action would be creating an experience which wouldn't really be directly replicable elsewhere in the same way that substituting one Castle for another would.

The other thing which makes restoring 563, if possible, a good idea is that I think a 4-4-0 of her size is close to the ideal loco for most preserved railways. It's not so large as to have a significant appetite for fuel, so hopefully won't break the bank with coal and water costs, and yet you have a loco with a fairly spacious cab and ample coal capacity for a day's running. The only minus points would be the large wheels will make her a bit more sluggish at accelerating than something like, say, an Ivatt 2MT (which is similarly powered), and then you could add things like inside motion and an open cab which can be awkward and unpleasant for the crew. Couple that with the class's association with the Swanage Branch and to me it's a no brainer to get the loco in action. It's just a shame that there are some who disagree, and feel the need to turn that disagreement into an attack...

 

Agree with you ,it`s a lovely engine!

When restored I think it will look as well- cleaned and polished like this stunning model!
http://modelengineeringwebsite.com/t3.html

Kind regards

Knut

 

Nice, but i would rather see her in the last Southern olive green livery she would have carried .

 

I read the editorial and don't actually think it was that controversial at all and most of what is written here is basically an excuse for a bit of beano bashing.

What it alludes to is that surely it would be better to wait until there is sufficient funding to progress an actual repair or reassembly rather than dismantle it and leave it in a pile of bits if the money isn't forthcoming or its condition is such that it isn't viable? What is so wrong with that? lets face it there are plenty of half baked disaster zones sitting in sidings up and down the country which have been the results of somebody ripping something apart and then losing interest or not having sufficient funds. Like the Taff Vale tank for instance...

 

My choice too! To me, that bright, lime green is a bit "in your face" I don't get this time capsule/ex works thing either. A loco is a serious piece of heavy duty industrial machinery, not an ornament. On the real railway, they were taken apart and reassembled, with new parts added, so what?

 

good points but bad example perhaps, pictured in October

 

there's several locos running in that livery but none in LSWR. I find Olive Green drab anyway

 

Any way heres hoping that the strip down doesn't show any thing un expected, its already been accepted she will most likely need a new inner firebox or at least extensive replacement copper sections welded or riveted in but whats most of note is we as a movement now know it can be done engines now do get fireboxes rebuilt. compare this to how it was in the early days?

 

I'd hope for a miracle but I reckon a loco restricted to 25mph and 60 psi on the boiler must have been pretty knackered by 1945 and won't have improved since. I suspect they would be nearly building a new loco

 

Maybe it was limited to 25mph just because the motion and boxes were tired. And the lower pressure probably because of the patched up firebox which is already known about. They wouldnt have given it a full overhaul just for the Waterloo centenary. Yet all of these problems would be a standard overhaul now days. Hence the assesment to see what it needs to run again?

 

As it is now but it's recent history will tell you a story that should be heeded with much caution about taking unique ex-NRM locos apart

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

 

Or maybe...the low speed was just down to the limited brake force at 60psi?

The loco is steam braked and there also appears to be a complete lack of regular cylinder lubricaton. The displacement lubricators on the smoke are fake, so I doubt the speed it was allowed to go was anything to do with its condition.

More limited lubricaton and steam brake force.

 

nah, they'd have used the handbrake if it was shed pilot surely.