LSWR T3 563

Regarding the 1948 overhaul: we know the boiler was re-tubed in May 1948, there’s photographic evidence for this in Silsbury and Hastings ‘MacLeod's Other Island: The Story of the Southern Railway's First Assistant for the Isle of Wight’. However, other than a re-paint and backdating to Drummond livery it’s not quite clear what exactly was done to the rest of the locomotive.

With regard to firebox repairs it’s not clear what may have been the result of repairs from 12 October-29 November 1939 when the locomotive was shopped for category ‘A’ repairs [a replacement boiler, although this was not changed].

However, on the basis that the locomotives record card has another category ‘A’ repairs crossed out on 29th September 1945, I would assume that some of the repairs to the firebox must have also been done in 1948 too.

It’s possible that some of the work on the chassis was done in 1948, but we do know that there was a reasonable amount of work carried out to the bottom end in 1960-1. The piston tail rods were fitted to the pistons heads and the springing arrangement was changed to the original compensated set up. This was not minor job, involving the forging of new equalising beams as fitted to the loco when first built and riveting new mounts to the frames.

The Tyres were also turned and a number of photos in our archive collection show the locomotive without wheels during the summer of 1960 when in the works, presumably whilst this was being done. With it ‘all apart’, it would seem plausible that this was when some of the work was done on the bottom end. Of course, we don’t know what may have already been done in 1948 and was still in good condition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Thank you for your reply.

I think it is possible to piece together the time line if the loco steamed to Waterloo in 1948. That would account for the internal work to the copper firebox to patch it up - I would suggest that such work would never have been done for regular service.

Are we sure the tail rods weren't in position for the Waterloo 'do', or the equalising beams in 1948?

 

Patching of copper fire boxes was actually fairly common back in the day, as I recall M7 245, for example, has a patch on its inner firebox. The question then becomes which patch was done when, which is rather harder to establish.

Yes, tail rods weren’t in position and neither were equalising beams, as 1) they’re not right for the livery it carried and 2) they’re not in any photos between 1948-59 and 3) they’re down in the documents from the 1960-1 overhaul as being fitted then.

Hope that helps


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Why? The criticism was of the NRM, not Swanage.

 

Absolutely - and the excellent work that Swanage are doing does not dilute that criticism.

 

Buyt why criticsie the NRM? Had they not given 563 to the Swanage there wouldn't be the prospect of the "excellent work" of which you speak? I still don't get why the NRM is getting it in the neck for what is after all a good news story? Or am I being incredibly thick?

 

If you're being incredibly thick, then I must be, too. No, don't get it. I just wish they'd release Gladstone too, heretic that I am!

 

The NRM got it in the neck (I don’t think it is any more- most people are capable of moving on) for all the reasons written in this thread and elsewhere at that time. Unless you are incredibly thick you ought to be capable of finding and reading a few old posts and trying to understand the writers’ point of view. Otherwise you might never understand anything about history.

 

I have read the posts. Still can't unerstand why such a good news story got the NRM so much stick. That said, Bash the NRM seems to be a popular pasttime in enthusiast circles

 

Loans have achieved a lot in the past without requiring deaccession. I would still fundamentally prefer 563 to be part of the National Collection, and cannot see any obvious reason why this excellent restoration couldn’t have been achieved on a loan basis.

However, it’s done now and the primary focus needs to be on the restoration.

PS - the critique being of the NRM doesn’t make hypocrites of those welcoming this return to steam. But one might wonder why the question had been disinterred at this point.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I believe such concerns were addressed in the recent video. If I've understood the agreement, in the event of anything untoward befalling the SRT, titular ownership reverts to the NRM. Happy to be corrected, if I've got that wrong.

 

Had the engine remained part of the national collection, Would the NRM have sanctioned having the inner firebox renewed? Most likely not, as its part of the history of the locomotive, so a return to steam would have been out of the question
On an other engine, the T9, there was a problem with the cylinder block, ideally a new casting would have been the answer, but because of insistence on originality it had to be repaired by other means because the NRM has very strict rules that it applies to its engines when loaned out.

 

To be really controversial:
First, I admire the work that the 563 gang are doing (and even threw a few quid into the pot);
Second, if the NRM really thought that it had too many 4-4-0's, then why get rid of the only outside cylindered example? There are multiple inside cylindered ones (some half forgotten, such as the Scottish ones). Also it is the only engine that actually earned the NRM money (Railway Children);
Thirdly, if they had offered 30120 it would have made more sense, given the sort of work it has already had done to it in preservation and likely in the future.
All that is aside from my (and many others) increasing disenchantment with the NRM and it's going in a 'right-on' direction.
Rant over - wokes can uncover their eyes now.
Pat

 

Surely you have an example of an NRM owned outside cylindered 4-4-0 on your very doorstep in the form of 925. Then there is the Midland Compound, No.1000 in the collection as well - or don't these count for some reason?

Peter

 

Three cylindered. I should, of course, have been more specific.
At the back of my mind, buzzing around for years, is the notion that the 2 outside cylindered engine could be a bit of a rough rider, but Mr. Adams beat that problem. (Hamilton Ellis put this down to the 3-point suspension, removed by Mr. Drummond.) Mr. Churchward was not so lucky with his County class, or so we are led to believe. (Not a criticism of GJC, a truly great engineer. A shame his successor was not of the same calibre.)
Pat

 

Anyway…enough of this GWR nonsense. This is the LSWR T3 thread.

 

I apologise for diverting the thread. We should have been discussing William Adams rather than Charles Collett.

 

There's already a good book on the Webb three cylinder compounds recently released. It doesn't go into the life of the man himself much but does present a lot of new information on his machines.

Tim

 

Any idea of author and / or title please Tim?

 

I suspect this is the book mentioned.
https://www.camdenmin.co.uk/products/f-w-webbs-three-cylinder-compounds