Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by nick813, Mar 30, 2017.
Not the sort figure I was expecting ..... Deep Joy!
Great news indeed. I wouldn't quibble with the claim that "This promises to be one of the most exciting locomotive restoration of the last 25 years." and it looks like there's no need for a typical Nat Pres livery debate as "at this stage the 563 group have recommended that the locomotive returns to steam in its later LSWR Holly lively as introduced by Drummond from 1903. This striking livery will bring out the beauty of this classic Adams designed locomotive and ensure that it stands out as the jewel of the Swanage Railway collection."
True, it will initially look rather incongruous hauling mark 1 stock but the website also says that " the T3 .... will also be used as a catalyst to other exciting projects. From creating an LSWR coaching set...."
I must admit, I do like the cohesive 1950s/early 1960s feel of the Swanage Railway, where locos, stock, stations, signalling etc all combine to recreate this particular era so well, but as the website points out, the Swanage branch does have a longer history than this and the T3, especially if one day it has a set of L&SWR coaches to haul, will offer something a bit different which I am sure will be appreciated by enthusiast and general public alike.
After enthusing so much about this lovely engine, I guess that before too long, I'd better put my money (or some of it at least) where my mouth is....!
I think that's about the same figure as we first reckoned for 4253!
Will be nice to see another 4-4-0 running. Seems like those in charge know what they are doing. Full marks guys.
for me , this is the most exciting project around .
I hope i'm around to see her running again
Great project and it is entirely up to Swanage as to which condition or livery it is turned out in. However the loss of the stovepipe chimney and the accompanying chance to experiment with the "Vortex" blast pipe seems unfortunate to me.
Not a loco I'd consider a suitable candidate for 'modernisation', but (possibly ignorantly) I'd have thought the stovepipe was a closer fit to Porta's indicated vortex patterns anyway.
In this case it would be "restoration" rather than "modernisation". The Vortex arrangement was removed by Drummond, who does seem tohave been less accomplished at altering other peoples designs than Adams was.
Cheers for clarifying Paul. As you've probably guessed, this old beauty isn't a loco I'm unduly familiar with.
You can see a section in the photo I posted earlier:
View attachment 43628
Adams claimed some notable improvement in coal consumption (based on comparative trials with locos with plain blast pipes; using a pair of "395" class goods engines and a pair of "460" class passenger engines for the trials) which was evidently sufficient to convince the South Western Board that the additional expense was justified. There's a 1908 paper from the GWR Mechanics Institute that is rather more sniffy about the benefits, though whether that is "not invented here" syndrome or on the basis of almost quarter of a century more experiment and analysis I wouldn't like to say. Suffice to say the issue being addressed seems to have been a problem whereby the draught through different parts of the tube bank was very variable, with the result that locos either had insufficient draught and therefore lower steaming rates; or else the draught tore the fire to pieces. It's worth pointing out as well that Adams was working at a time when the science of fluid dynamics was in its infancy, and even fairly basic experimental enquiries (such as determine the temperature and flow rate of gases through different tubes, which would be fairly simple now with modern instrumentation), had considerable complexity; for example, to measure temperatures of the tube gases, you had to resort to putting ingots of metals with different melting points (lead, tin, copper etc) into the tubes and then seeing which ones melted: hardly precise, nor easy.
Steam Index gives the following description:
The 'Vortex' blastpipe associated with the name of Adams was invented largely by his nephew Henry Adams. But while the original idea was no doubt Henry's, it must have been William who made it practicable. The history of locomotive draughting is complex and unclear, but the two Adams can be considered pioneers in the scientific quest for a blast which would provide a good steady draught, by means of the exhaust steam, without tearing up the fire and without entailing excessive back-pressure in the cylinders. The 'Vortex' blastpipe, which Adams first fitted to LSWR locomotives in 1885, had an outer ring-shaped steam exit inside which was a central aperture leading from a bell-mouthed scoop placed to receive firebox gases from the lower tubes. This considerably increased the draught through these tubes, because a hollow ring-shaped steam jet has a larger periphery with which to entrain the gases. It is claimed, probably with some justice, that when this arrangement was working well it did much to compensate for the rather small boilers which Adams favoured. Carpenter states that the device was fitted to 500(*) locomotives, and in Carpenter's discussion on Wilson's paper he noted that Chapelon had described the Vortex draughting system to be a notable one leading to a smooth and even druught.
from which it appears that Chapelon at least was duly impressed by Adams the engineer.
(*) That number is almost twice as many as Bradley notes were fitted with Vortex blast pipes; and indeed Adams only built 524 locos for the LSWR, many of which weren't fitted. So either the 500 is wrong, or else Adams was successful selling his invention to other railways.
Indeed; there aren't a lot of engines from this era left, and it will be wonderful to see the initiative of those who saved this engine from being scrapped (and seem to have already done much of the work needed to have it run again) rewarded by this project.
I found this: "It will also be used as a catalyst to other exciting projects. From creating an LSWR coaching set" especially interesting, as to the best of my knowledge it's something new in the heritage rail world; although there have been numerous new-build engines, coaching stock has been AFAIK restricted to restorations. This will be a very interesting expansion into new territory.
I didn't read that sentence with the meaning you ascribe: "creating an LSWR coaching set" could equally mean restoring currently grounded, non-operational carriage bodies. There is a reasonable number of LSWR carriages in existence, but only two (AFAIK) operational. So no need to new build, beyond the obvious point that any restoration will necessarily have considerable new components.
L.B.S.C.R. "Gladstones" were so fitted
I suspect the I.W.R. and N.S.R. carriage rebuild projects are as near new construction as matters, although they do utilise recovered components. I.W.R. 1o and 21 will run on new timber underframes.
Chapelon was impressed by the Vortex blastpipe and writes favourably about it in La Locomotive à Vapeur, but as I recall he also notes its biggest problem in service, which was carbon built up around the periphery of the annular nozzle; this was much proportionally much more of a problem than for a plain circular nozzle and therefore had to be cleaned out that much more often. Given that none of them were superheated, this was presumably in part a problem with contemporary steam oils. Anyway, this was considered a justifiable maintenance burden while the Adams engines were front line in all LSWR duties, but once the T9s and subsequent Drummond 4-4-0s were well established, this wasn't really the case anymore on expresses, so removing it from the second rank motive power was a perfectly rational decision. I believe the proportions of the basic Drummond chimney are actually quite good.
This is of course quite a rare example of Drummond eschewing a maintenance-hungry variation on the classical locomotive design, so perhaps there was an element of Not Invented Here, or maybe the LSWR loco department felt they were on firmer ground complaining about a feature from the previous regime than one beloved by the present boss.
Beautiful loco, look forward to seeing it run, the later LSWR green is similar to the SR green is it not?
As for coaches to run with it, how about the T3 on the 4TC!
Take that mans name Wilson!
cheap loco really. Fantastic news
Indeed. I suspect he must have had some success selling it to other railways, royalties presumably included. I make the number of LSWR locos thus fitted somewhere just over 250. [Disclaimer: a quick count, so might be wrong by a dozen or so, but not by 250].
You could add LBSCR brake 3rd 949 to that list, I suspect:
As recovered: https://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/pic2/stroudley/676_may98h.jpg
Current state, nearing completion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LBSCR_949_Brake_Third.jpg
Almost certainly "not invented here" or "not invented by me"! Firebox water tubes and feed water heaters must have taken far more effort to look after. Later on there was another example of this in the preference for "home made" steam dryers over proper superheaters.
Separate names with a comma.