LSWR T3 563

"The coupling and connecting rods have been refitted
onto 563, meaning all the valve gear is now in place."
Non sequitur!

 

I thought that, in relation to the 1960 shopping, this may be of interest.
I purchased from the HMRS a print of a Nine Elms drawing titled "New Disc and Lamp Holder on Engines", dated 189-. Half the drawing is in fact the standard disc with Black Centre, which was my primary interest. However the other half, which shows the smokebox door socket and its mounting (as seen on 563 at Clapham Museum) has a stamp "Chief Mech. & Elec. Engineers Dept., British Ra(ilways), Eastleigh", Drawing Office, Locomotive Works, 24 FEB 1960". It was also obviously the working face of a folded plan, it is creased and filthy, whereas the disc side is quite decent.
While I'm here, can anyone point me to the Youtube of Clapham Museum made just before it opened? I've had no joy, but I'm convinced I saw it referenced here. (Or am I having a blonde moment?)
Pat

 

Is this it?

 

'Fraid not, but thanks for trying.
The one I remember was in colour, part of a longer film. very near the start there was 563, showing a lamp on the smokebox.
Pat

 

Not what you're after I suspect ..
Colour film but no sign of 563 that I've been able to spot:
Another B&W film at Clapham:

 

Joe Brown and the Bruvvers. Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs! I'd forgotten about him.
Frustrating video as there are 2 scenes where the lamp can be seen in the background, albeit blurry.
Thanks Peter.
Pat

 

Seemingly filmed in 1990 when he was 'only' around 49 on (?) 75069:
A somewhat fuzzy transfer of Joe Brown reminiscing, about his time as a Fireman at Plaistow (East London), during firing to Alun Rees [SVR's Chief Engineer at the time I think].
Think Mr Brown needed to get some left-hand shovelling practice after viewing early shovelfuls - in my view of course.
Hard to realise he's now over 81!!
He probably saw more footplate time than Pete Waterman - he is 6 years younger than Joe after all.
Apologies for thread drift.

 

Does the drawing include the dimensions of the lamp by any chance?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Sadly not. I have been chasing that matter up. As a member of the South Western Circle I have been able to access back numbers of the Circular and in 1994 there was an article, with drawings, copied from a modelling magazine of 1942. Not unlike a MR/LMS lamp but noticeably smaller. That's as much as I can remember at present; just resting my weary feet after walking around Winchester Market!
Pat

 

Hi Pat,

Thanks for the reply, I’d love to see the drawings of them if you manage to find the article. Would be good to see if we could get one re-made for 563.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

PM sent.
Pat

 

http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/63a1a3fd18698/T3 Times December 2022.pdf
Please find attached our latest ‘T3 Times’ newsletter sent out to supporters and those signed up to our mailing list yesterday.

 

OK, so a bit of a bizarre question.
Couple of years back I was speaking to someone about 563 and how much it could pull.
Person said it couldn't pull much unlike the T9.
So what's the sort of plan for 563? Vintage coaches only? Max loading 3? What is it?

 

The T3 & T9 have similar tractive efforts so it will come down boiler capacity and how easily winded it gets rather than pulling ability.

 

They are on paper the same tractive effort and as Steve said, it will be down to steaming in the end. There are no plans to restrict the locomotive on coaches but i do expect that you will rarely see it hauling more than 5.
No one has driven or fired a T3 in nearly 80 years, so we will have to see how it and its crews get on!

 

From what I have read, I have every expectation that the T3, once the crews have got used to it, will do all that is asked of it.

In particular, I am thinking of a fascinating account from 1930 or slightly earlier in a book called "SR150" (David & Charles) of No. 595, another Adams 4-4-0 but of class X2, having to deputise for a failed "Lord Nelson" on the Atlantic Coast Express. The X2 managed to re-start its 13-coach train from Woking (where the "Nelson" came to grief) without slipping and worked right through to Salisbury with a maximum of 74mph at Andover! I'm not sure how an X2 compares with a T3 in terms of boiler capacity but apart from having 7ft 1in driving wheels as apposed to a T3's 6ft 7in, I think that the two classes were fairly similar. If so, based on No.595's remarkable feat all those years ago, five Mark 1s should not tax No. 563 unduly. Anyway, hopefully it won't be too long before we will find out.

 

If I remember that story right, it was a one off from a locomotive that had no future, and was a last hurrah.

I hope that 563 doesn’t receive similar treatment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No. 595 was the first X2 to be withdrawn and the author of the account thinks that it never worked again as its remarkable run had caused most of the while metal to run out of the bearings. I absolutely agree that No.563 shouldn't be expected to undertake a similar feat, but given that No. 595 was, at the time of its rescue act (I quote) "Decrepit, leaking from several firebox stays, far from clean and with pressure nominally 175 lurking nearer 140", it certainly shows what excellent engines the Adams 4-4-0s were, especially the later series.

 

Everyone I have ever spoken to about the Adams Radial tank at the Bluebell has remarked on just how free steaming it was; likewise I believe Calbourne on the IoWSR has a similarly good reputation. So at first glance, I think it is at least plausible that 563 may be similarly blessed with a happy combination of boiler and cylinder proportions and draft to give likewise free steaming.

Looking at a few numbers, the T3 as built had 19.75sq ft of grate area, and 1,320sq ft of heating surface, with a working pressure of 175psi (moderately high for the era, I think). To put those numbers in context, an M7 has 20.4sq ft of grate area but only 1,192sq ft of heating surface; the Wainwright H class has only 16.7sq ft of grate area and similar heating surface to an M7 (but smaller grate). A T9 is 24sq ft of grate area (quite big - the coupled wheelbase was pushed out to 10 feet to get another foot of length on the grate) and 1,335 sq ft of heating surface in non-superheated form; obviously the surviving example is superheated.

Taken together, my hunch is that I wouldn't be surprised if in steaming rate it was better than an M7, ahead of the H but behind the T9. We routinely allow 150 tons (4 Mark 1s) behind the H on gradients a bit steeper and more sustained than Swanage, so I could imagine a limit of about 180 tons, or 5 Mark 1s, might be well within its compass. You might not want to routinely roster it on such loads, but it ought to be capable if required. (Visitors to the Bluebell last weekend had the joy of the O1, with the same boiler as the H class, on a train of about 230 tons up sustained 1 in 75 gradients; I'm not aware of any time loss attributable to the loco).

One factor that hasn't been much commented on is the factor of adhesion. The axle load of the T3 is very light; coupled with a tractive effort of ~ 17,673lbf gives a factor of adhesion (adhesive weight / tractive effort) of 3.87 (or 0.26 if you prefer the reciprocal). That's very low, getting towards "Schools" territory (3.74) and much better (or worse, depending on your point of view) than e.g. a Bulleid light pacific, which is well over 4. So I think adhesion may be a factor, though in compensation as a saturated loco, you've got a more rapid relationship between regulator adjustment and steam chest pressure than on typical superheated locos. But I think a heavy load on a misty day might be interesting.

I'm sure crews will get to learn how best to operate it quite quickly.

Tom

 

I was going to suggest it was in a similar category to an LMS 2P, but these posts indicate it's a bit better than that!