LSWR T3 563

It’s a bit tricky. We are not in a position to purchase and store more coaches let alone restore them. But on the other hand don’t want to see stuff scrapped or sold for a song. The hope is that they remain in a stable condition until such time thar we are ready to express a serious interest. There is so little LSWR stock left.

I thought the Pontypool coaches were in a bad way? Underframes shot?

 

Not sure on their condition actually, you may well be right. They have an Ironclad at Pontypool too don’t they?

But like you say it’s worth letting the Ironclad owners know of your potential interest, so hopefully they’ll think twice before scrapping them or selling them for other uses.

Is the IOWSR one on your radar? I’m assuming some of the others are easier options!

 

Quite possibly already raised somewhere on here but if the existing boiler is in poor condition, is the T1 spare boiler at the Avon Valley Railway too small to be substituted?

 

Ah yes now there's potential great new build/rebuild project to look into at some point in the future, certainly for the Swanage folks and their line. Such an engine I reckon would be ideally suited to the Swanage Railway, and if the Bluebell can rebuild an Brighton Atlantic from a spare boiler, then there's no reason why Swanage couldn't if they so wished to take on such a project.

Of course that's dependent on whoever owns the boiler being willing to part with it, and if indeed the boiler is actually in salvageable condition.

Honestly though I'd say the Ironclad carriage have more a chance of being salvaged and restored by Swanage then the T1 does though, particularly as it's looking very likely they'll be retaining the T9 for the foreseeable future. Now if we could only get the NRM to part with the other M7...

 

What is wrong with 53? That will be back in traffic in the not too distant future.

 

the boiler at Bitton has untouched for years with graffiti saying rust in peace

 

Why the clamour to further strip our national collection? Even if it happened, releasing the M7 wouldn’t result in two M7s in traffic, it would just spread the resource to maintain either of them more thinly.

I’ve said it before, but it is worth repeating: there is no shortage of locomotives potentially available to run on heritage lines. There is a shortage of capacity to keep enough of them in traffic.

Tom

 

That’s why I think its such a wasted opportunity on the Mid Hants. Now it has its carriage works, it would seem a golden opportunity to acquire and restore some LSWR coaches. Instead it plans to restore some LBSCR 4 wheelers - totally inappropriate for the line and already well represented at the Bluebell and the IOW.

Hopefully the T3 will be the catalyst for finally getting some Ironclads restored. Although I appreciate it won’t be quick, cheap or easy!

 

Just to be clear, if the SRT do go for Olive and the engine has to carry a Drummond chimney it will still be a spectacular looking locomotive.

The SRT will also make certain that 563 will carry its Stovepipe chimney and LSWR liveries as well during any working stint it may do. Perhaps a livery change at mid term overhaul. It might well appear in LSWR first. It’s all up for debate.

563 did carry olive with Bulleid sunshine lettering.

I wouldn’t worry about it clashing too much, it won’t clash it will stand out.

Remember 120 carried LSWR livery and ran around in the late 60s, you could just pretend 563 was doing the same!

Either way don’t panic, it will look beautiful in whatever livery it carries.

 

To actually answer your question, yes it is too small. The T1 boiler was shared with the A12 Jubilee 0-4-2 class, but not as far as I know with any of the 4-4-0 classes.

Drummond tried a standard boiler across all duties later with the M7/700/C8/K10 classes. The boiler was fine on the M7, good on the 700 especially when superheated and wholly inadequate for a decent express 4-4-0.

 

Are there any colour illustrations of the interim period of locos in olive with Bulleid sunshine lettering ? as the only ones i've seen are the Parsons green with yellow lining which dates from 1939 I believe, and of course the post war Malachite green ,of course plain black with Sunshine lettering is more common as several locos have carried this in preservation .

 

Nothing wrong with 53 at all, I was just thinking more in joking WIBN form, suggesting it would be nice to see the two running together. But of course realistically it wouldn't be very practical nor all that much necessary really, for as you say yourself we already got 53 in traffic and is an all-round great engine.

Again I was really only joking when I added the NRM owned M7 into the mix Tom, and I would agree there's more then enough engines to be getting on with as things stand now.

So I really don't see why your suddenly pouncing on me over this, accusing of wanting to strip the national collection further, getting yet another engine we don't need running when I wasn't really being all that serious...

Did you not see the wink emoji/sign Tom? I was under the impression that usually whatever remark the wink sign accompanies, that means it was only in a halve joking manner at best, if not an outright joke.
I apologise if it did sound as though I was being serious, for that was not the case at all.

 

I would think the problem wit Ironclads is that most or all survivors are Brake vehicles, so some at least would need to be converted adding to the size of the project. I never thought they were a very attractive coach, Maunsell vehicles would be preferable to me and the Swanage are making good progress there.

 

I stand corrected it didn’t carry olive and sunshine lettering!

 

Not all brake vehicles. Swanage already have an Ironclad TK. There is another Ironclad TK at Horsebridge station in Hampshire (which is quite well looked after). There is also an Ironclad TK on the IOWSR - separated from its under frame but it might be possible to renuite them and restore it if the money and will was there. A fourth TK exists at a Battlefield.

So even if Swanage only manage to get one other TK, add a brake vehicle or two and there is potential for a decent rake.

I believe 3 Ironclad brake vehicles survive, at Mid Hants, Mangapps and Pontypool. So actually more non brake examples than brake version.

 

There's a photo in Bradley of 563 at Salisbury in September 1936 in lined Maunsell livery, but carrying LBSCR sans-serif numerals on the tender sides and back (clashing with the serif "Southern" lettering).

Bradley then notes that the loco was subsequently repaired at Eastleigh and returned to traffic on 2 November 1939, "painted unlined Maunsell Green with Bulleid lettering", though there is no photo in Bradley like that. Presumably that was the condition in which it was withdrawn.

Tom

 

The Ironclad TK on the IOWSR has had the body lifted from the underframe, If I remember correctly the underframe has been shortened and is used to carry the bodies off service coaches while their underframes are being repaired. The body had been gutted before it arrived and is currently in use as a loco store and the office for the Estates foreman.

A very big task but not an impossible one given good funding.

 

Yes not impossible, but some of the other survivors would seem more likely options.

 

I've looked at the underframe and talked to the Carriage Dpt Lead there. The proposed shortening didn't take place as there were easier options. Its in good condition and serving as an accommodation for a couple of grounded bodies in the Train Story shed. IOW body similarly has a solid frame as far as they know.

All surviving vehicles have been gutted to some degree or other. Completely new interiors would need to be constructed and a pragmatic approach to this would probably be necessary with such a large undertaking. If all surviving TKs were collected a 5-6 coach rake would be possible without converting Brake coaches. We have one of the TKs in undercover storage. The other 3 are watertight and solid. Two are 'available' and the third not approached. If there is an excess of brake coaches then I would see this as an opportunity for disabled accessible accommodation. The extent of interior reconstruction necessary means that there is probably not much difference in the fit out effort. The braking arrangement on the underframe would need to be looked at to remove the additional handbrake mechanism. It's definitely possible to have to many of these on one train.

I feel we have strayed somewhat in to WIBN territory however if we don't dare to dream it can never become reality. The important thing is to remain realistic when considering investing resources and baring in mind that even one or two coaches would be an enormous benefit to the scene.

 

@Mogul — You might want to redact that list to remove someone’s personal phone number.

Tom