LSWR T3 563

The NRM still own locos in far worse condition. (Including, dare I say, a large Southern express loco with a massive hole in the side of the boiler...)

 

Good Job there's another 9 of the same class around then...

 

Plenty of unused MN boilers around to remedy that particular defect and earn some money to pay for a new one.
Just a question of identifying a suitable recipient once it is no longer an exhibit after the rejig.

 

Given the amount of boiler parts now availible from South Devon , is it possible to rebuild the boiler ? , new firebox, both inner and outers, are available, barrel sections tube plate, so is it viable ?

 

When Tornado was standing at Penzance yesterday I noticed that paint on the handrail at the front of the tender had been worn away, exposing different layers and, over an inch or two, bare metal.

 

I am bemused by the lack of smileys on these posts. Does anyone genuinely believe that Ellerman Lines would be of more value to the world at large if restored to working order than in the museum with its innards on show? What about similarly sectioned locomotives in museums elsewhere in the world? Sectioning a unique locomotive would be another matter, but there are plenty of other Bulleid pacifics either intact or suitable for restoration.

Edit: corrected "lake" to "lack".

 

Daresay it would be very viable, more so than the unrestored examples because it is mechanically complete. New tender tank perhaps?

 

And we could always section Mellishr In its place , so how about a stuffed and mounted Member of Nat press to take its place , so anyone fancy being stuffed and mounted and no i am not volunteering, no one, but no one is going to stuff me mounted or not !!

 

Anyone who loves Bulleid Pacifics cannot but feel sad that 35029 has been sectioned - especially as it is one of few surviving members of the "ton up" club (I'm sure Big Al, Gricer Don or Kent Yeti can fill in the details), but I have to agree with you. With complete new builds now feasible, it is theoretically possible to restore 35029, but to what purpose? 35005 would be a more suitable beneficiary for anyone with spare cash to spend on an MN and I'm sure the owners of 35010 wouldn't turn up their noses either if someone who loved Merchant Navies turned up in Essex with a big chequebook.

The GSN project, to "unrebuild" an MN has gained a lot of credibility and one reason for this is that it will be something different - there are enough rebuilt MNs in preservation for main line purposes and very few heritage lines wanting to face the coal bill!

So in a long winded way, I'm saying yes, I agree with you. Even without the prospect of 35029 ever steaming again and a long wait likely for 35010 and 35025, Bulleid fans have little to complain about. We've got 3 working MNs as things stand and more to come in a few years' time. It is hard to imagine ever having 3 working Kings or Duchesses and when 60009 retires, even 3 working A4s will be a very long shot.
Anyway, back to 563........

 

Without disagreeing, it has already been decided to take 35029 off display. Applying recent rationale, ought it not be offered to a suitable home who could then decide what future it should have?

 

Firebox could probably be repaired by welding. Look at what is being done with other Bulleid boilers at the moment, new boiler barrel sections could be rolled and the tender side cut open could easily be replated, similar to the recent work done on 34105's tender. A new right hand cylinder could be cast easily as well.

It could be made into a working loco again relatively easily IMHO.

Should it be done? I doubt it as the story it currently tells in its present form is much more beneficial than having yet another working rebuilt example.

 

That is sad, not because York will lose an MN, but because 35029 did an excellent job of bringing the workings of a steam locomotive to life.

As for a suitable home, I would suggest that the Leicester outstation of the NRM once opened would be an excellent candidate.

 

If all the heritage railways had to apply by the NRM "rules" on restoration, you wouldn't have many working trains to choose from. The modifications, improvements or even bodge jobs would simply not be considered, and the extent and specification of the work would be much higher. Look at 4472's recent overhaul, compared to its privately owned days.

563 is no longer an NRM exhibit (35B and others are going to have to get used to that idea, as I doubt the decision will be reversed), but it is in the safe hands of a steam railway which appears to have good record in conserving and preserving steam locos.

 

Where have you heard 35029's going to be taken off display?

 

Latest supersoaraway Steam Beano as I recall.

 

Yep it is in the super reliable Steam Beano!

 

I am used - resigned might be a better word - to the idea that 563 is no longer part of the National Collection. I have no reason to doubt the quality of the Swanage, or its suitability as a home for 563.

But I do question the logic of @Anthony Coulls' blog post for the NRM, in the terms in which it is expressed - and your use of the example of 4472 makes my point. If the standards applied by the NRM are part of the protection that the National Collection enjoys, then it surely suggests that the protection is necessary as part of their preservation. It cannot logically also be true that removing that protection enhances the future of deaccessioned parts of the collection.

 

By deaccessioning an item, the NRM is stating that the item is no longer significant for the National Collection. Therefore the item doesn't need their protection. In the same way that they don't protect all those Standard 4 tanks, or the other A4s apart from Mallard.

It's changed its mind since 563 became part of its National Collection. Now it takes no further responsibility, having found an appropriate new home.

Why can't the NRM review its collection occasionally, based on funding or available space? Every museum does it.

 

What concerns many people who have an interest in preserving our heritage though is why now? is this to do with funding difficulties with in the science museum group as a whole and room has to be made for revenue earning at the cost of what is displayed? i agree that museums should look at their exhibits, and how they display them, but are we going to see a much slimmed down nation collection at the end of it?