LSWR T3 563

I wouldn't think any riveted patch repair would be acceptable today, the inspector would most likely insist on a welded repair with new copper plate let in and the old material cut back to sound metal .

 

Although welding is the preferred option it may not be possible and patch repairs are still allowed, subject to approval of the boiler inspector. See: https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...021-Is01-Inner+Firebox+Repair+and+Renewal.pdf

 

Steve beat me to it.
I have put loads of patch screws in boilers. Mostly copper ones on lap seams to replace burnt rivets or re-work on half side lap joints.
Like most boiler work it is laborious and boring but you need to take a great deal of care.
It's less unpleasant than replacing stays though.
Glad to be out of that game.


Edit, missing word.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3MP1LWb1jY

Join the 563 online conference tonight, 7pm.

 

Really enjoyed the conference last tonight, excellent way of updating a project. Donation in the pot. Can there be another in a few months time please?

 

All very positive and moving forward...…..unlike the negativity at start of thread.
2023 might be a good year to look forward to fingers crossed .

 

I was a bit surprised by the 563 Group / Flour Mill's surprise at the condition of the running chassis. I've always assumed that the date of its works visit offers a clue.
In 1948 the most senior men at Eastleigh were, many of them, approaching retirement. Given a 50-year career (common back then) they would have been apprentices in the first years of Mr. Drummond's reign, and spent their days overhauling Mr. Adams' engines (the new Drummond engines wouldn't have been due for shopping until about 1900). They had a chance of a last hurrah and, I imagine, took it.
Well, it's a theory
Pat

 

I

I should imagine that they relished it, rather like the hands at Brighton did with Gladstone in 1927!

 

It does seem strange though that it was given an full overhaul, but the boiler was just patched up, and it seems to me as if, The idea was originally to fully overhaul the loco, including the boiler, but the closeness of the date of the exhibition did not allow a boiler overhaul, so it was patched, so it could at least work under reduced pressure, with the intension of possibly doing the boiler later, and 563 having an active retirement, but of course, it never happened as after the waterloo exhibition, it was just moved into store from place to place.

 

It was probably just expediency. Like you say, the date as looming large, and no way a full inner firebox replacement could be fitted in, either chronologically nor financially.
In 1948, no one would have expected 563 to have an active retirement- "stuffed and mounted" was the best possible outcome, and very lucky at that, so a quick patch-up would have been the only option, with the satisfaction of knowing that at least she'd had a full bottom-end overhaul, for auld lang syne.

 

Just a note to anyone who missed the event on Friday, it is still available to watch on the following link: https://m.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=...PX6kqBT5iuKhd0&v=H3MP1LWb1jY&feature=youtu.be

563LG Have also posted a March engineering update: http://563locomotivegroup.co.uk/restoration/engineering-update-6/

They have also made it possible to sign up for our regular ‘T3 Times’ newsletter, if you haven’t signed up don’t miss out on the chance to hear more about the project!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

To be honest Pat, I wouldn’t be that surprised, there’s been quite a few cases of a ‘cosmetic’ job involving shall we say a little more it’s not a surprise with 563, 4073 springs to mind at Swindon, regarding Modern Traction when 50033 was claimed for the NRM, I believe Laira did a little more than they should .
Always nice to know there’s people who take pride in their job though

 

Do we know that the patched firebox dates from the 1948 "overhaul" and not from its previous "shopping" in December 1939? It is possible that the boiler was deemed fit for very limited use (at reduced pressure?) as it was in 1948 and therefore not touched at that time. No doubt the current custodians will know.

Peter

 

That is about how Hamilton Ellis described it. As is often the case, shortage of kit brought out the best in the men doing the repairs.
Pat

 

That could very well be the case, but then why completely overhaul the chassis if the engine was not intended to work again after the exhibition? it does not make sence to fully overhaul everything except the boiler, what spares would have Eastleigh have held for the class,, there was i believe only two left, in 1948 i wonder if the the other one, was in poor condition also, as they would have not been viewed as being a class to spend much time and money on, Were all the overhauled parts, stock off the shelf and written off as scrap so someone thought, might as well use those, they are going to be thrown on the scrap heap anyway?

 

I do wonder on the final overhaul - mechanically there is not actually a lot of difference in cost between doing the job well or just doing it at all. The loco had been standing outside for several years; once you make the decision that you want to have it for display, you have got to tear the whole thing down and refurbish and thoroughly clean everything, then reassemble. If you do all that, you are going to put it back together properly anyway, there aren't too many corners you can cut in the name of expedience. Whereas for the boiler, if you reckon you only need a few steamings and no real haulage capability, a boiler smith may well be prepared to sign off the existing with minimal remedial work for very restricted use.

Tom

 

Although there were only two T3s left in 1948 there were plenty of other suitable locos that could have fitted the bill. Bradley states that "in January '48 No. 563 was towed away to join some thirty other locos at Kimbridge Junction to await scrapping. After inspecting all those available 563 was chosen mainly on account of its mechanical condition, although the fact that so few alterations had taken place over the years was also taken into account. The only real weakness was the firebox which would require careful handling whenever the engine was steamed." I suspect that there was little or no thought given to the idea of steaming the loco in years to come, but it was possible considered wise to ensure that the bottom end was sound so the the loco could be easily towed around the system for display. Bradley says it had a "general overhaul" in May '48 but this is a very loose term and give no detail about how thorough it was. Quite possibly it was largely confined to back-dating the loco its early appearence with the likes of a stove pipe chimney and buffer beam safety chains. Hopefully one day the owners will publish details of the locos history during that facinating period of 1938 to 1948.

Peter

 

Maybe it was a kind of training exercise for apprentice fitters? It wasn't going back into traffic so it wouldn't really have mattered that much if they did mess it up.

 

I don't think that that was how it worked in those days. If you messed up you were made to go back and do it again prpoerly. While it may not have been going back into traffic this would still have been a prestigious "overhaul" and reputations would have been at stake if it had turned out badly.

Peter

 

At the Trust’s conference, video linked a few posts up, a proposed book about the loco’s history was mentioned - to be produced by the Trust. It didn’t sound like there’s an author working on it yet but they did mention records in existence, both at the NRM and at Haven St., including notes by A. B. MacLeod who was responsible for selecting the loco in 1948.