If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

LSWR T3 563

Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by nick813, Mar 30, 2017.

  1. Reading General

    Reading General Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    May 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,081
    Likes Received:
    2,217
    yes, they are a bit ahead of the game I agree. That's not to say Swanage don't have a plan to keep it under cover though and I said previously, very few railways keep their engines under cover, even the big players.
     
  2. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,483
    Likes Received:
    23,713
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I would be more accepting of the decision, and the process by which it was taken. As I was reminded in a different context, consultation is not negotiation, and there is no obligation to do more than consider views expressed in consultation.
    I quite agree that enthusiasts for particular items will sell the uniqueness of their favourite, and lose touch with the relative importance of it in the wider scheme of things. My views are not influenced by it being 563 rather than any other part of the collection that is being deaccessioned, although I do consider that the sheer rarity of locomotives of its era mean there needs to be particular care in the decision making process.
     
    MikeParkin65 and 26D_M like this.
  3. 26D_M

    26D_M Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,416
    Likes Received:
    1,681
    Could not agree more, well articulated.
     
  4. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    9,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Asset Engineer (Signalling), MNLPS Treasurer
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    But you are, by my perception, coming from the starting point that due care and consideration for that has not been taken from the outset.
     
  5. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,483
    Likes Received:
    23,713
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    You mistake me. I do not have a perception that due care and consideration have or have not been taken; rather, nothing is in the public domain about the disposal of this public asset that demonstrates that such consideration was taken, or that plans for the future of 563 were in place at the time that the decision was taken to transfer ownership (not just custodianship) 563 to the SRT. In the context of the mixed fate of previous disposals to reputable organisations, the approach of the NRM to its assets does concern me. I stress that this should not be interpreted as disputing the good name of the SRT, or their suitability as owners of 563.

    Anyway, I won't go further - I would only be repeating the points I and others have made previously further up thread.
     
    MellishR and MikeParkin65 like this.
  6. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    9,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Asset Engineer (Signalling), MNLPS Treasurer
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    What I find interesting about all of this is that this is the not the first time this has happened recently: the NSR tank was transferred in ownership and Anthony Coulls at the time gave us here, and in print, some great insight as to the full nature of transferring ownership of articles within the collection.

    I do not believe that anyone believes the NSR tank is not in the right hands, given its location and potential for being with other articles of the same company?

    So from my point of view, I am not unduly concerned because I made myself aware of the facts the last time around and one could legitimately believe the best of the curators in question who took the decision on 563.

    But your consistency fails in one respect: because you are by definition questioning the NRM's suitability as former owners of the locomotive. If you have no truck with the SRT taking 563 on board, then the process that led to them being named owners cannot be so flawed, can it?

    I can understand for the first time in a few years people not understanding the full process, but this is the second time in very recent memory and the default position from many who are against the transfer here is that the NRM have done no due diligence on their own process, which given they are bound by certain rules from science museum group, does beg the question why?

    I rather think it is easier to take up a default position of indignation than attempt to understand that enthusiasts do not always have the absolute right to information.
     
    richards and Johnme101 like this.
  7. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,483
    Likes Received:
    23,713
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Fair comment, and I do not intend to cast aspersions at individuals. In the NSR case, I accepted the reasoning offered, though with reservations - again, we come back to the distinction between ownership and custodianship.
    I think your definition of "no truck" is different from mine, but no matter. I do not and have not questioned the credentials of either the NRM or the SRT as owners of 563, or indeed any other item in the collection. I observe from the bare facts available that 563 has been moved from the status of a nationally owned museum exhibit belonging to an organisation that has and can be expected to be able to keep it in controlled conditions, to...what?
    Possibly, though posts on here referencing to those policies suggest that this process is ambiguous, and the evidence available suggests that it may not actually have been followed in full.
     
    MikeParkin65 likes this.
  8. MikeParkin65

    MikeParkin65 Member Friend

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    627
    Gender:
    Male
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I think we need to remember that Curators should be nothing more than professional enthusiasts. There are many enthusiasts who would make excellent curators - what you need is passion for the subject (and I wager everyone on this forum has that) and then the circumstance to put be in a position where we have influence over the some of the items we are passionate about.

    Its a mistake to believe that the keepers of the NRM are by default 'right' and there is a far amount of good argument on this thread to suggest that they have made several mistakes in the process and handling of the transfer of 563 to the SSR. For my money (and it is partly my money - I'm a UK citizen and a taxpayer!) 563 should be conserved and presented, not steamed and the best place for that, in theory, is the NRM.

    We have a right to a full explanation from the NRM - that may not come via this forum or the railway media - maybe a well worded Freedom Of Information request would do the trick?
     
  9. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    9,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Asset Engineer (Signalling), MNLPS Treasurer
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Quite a statement Mike: by that logic you don't need to have discipline, knowledge, degree...I find that rather insulting on the curator's behalf, frankly.

    Simply having passion is not enough: knowledge and a degree of pragmatism and an ability to take a step back and make objective judgments is absolutely necessary, I would argue.

    Where is this evidence that they are wrong? Please point me to it. A lack of information or evidence does not in any constitute that the NRM have done anything wrong. You are working from a point of view that without information, something has gone awry - a dangerous position to hold.

    I am working from the point of view that we know how the process works from a previous de-acquisition, and in the absence of anything to the contrary, we simply do not have enough information right now to make an informed viewpoint on whether or not "process was followed".

    That's the reality - there is not enough information at this time.

    Then perhaps you should make that FOI request then? With the greatest of respect.
     
    Johnme101 likes this.
  10. 26D_M

    26D_M Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,416
    Likes Received:
    1,681
    The fact that everyone is respectful of SRT does not in itself provide incontrovertible evidence that the deaccession process used is sound - correlation is not necessarily an absolute indicator of effective implementation. Only when the mechanism has-been publicly described will it be possible make any judgement. I say again, the questions are not about the T3 or SRT but the methodology by which this and future disposals occur. Nothing I heard about the NSR disposal process alleviated my concern over the need to dispose rather than loan or that the "matchmaking" principles have been well considered.
     
    35B likes this.
  11. Jimc

    Jimc Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    4,665
    Occupation:
    Once computers, now part time writer I suppose.
    Location:
    SE England
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Surely taking *any* position without evidence is somewhat dubious...
     
    S.A.C. Martin and Matt37401 like this.
  12. MikeParkin65

    MikeParkin65 Member Friend

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    627
    Gender:
    Male
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Personally I thought you were being pretty derogatory about the number of people who have made valid comments on this thread. We all have a right to a view on this and any other issue concerning the National Collection and I strongly object to any suggestion that we shouldn't question the management of it. The NRM should be going out of their way to ensure that the public are aware of what they are doing and why. It isn't a private collection - its a publicly owned state asset! The lack of information from the NRM is a fault it itself.

    I work in Government and I know FOI's are a) a pain and b) guaranteed to get an answer. We go out of our way to put as much info as we can in the public realm and consult with our 'customers' just to avoid the position the NRM has put itself in again - creating controversy by having 'we know best and we'll tell you what we want when we want' attitude that breeds the suspicion that they want to get something done and dusted before it goes public and too late for it to be reversed.

    I've already drafted my FOI and I'm simply pointing out to others who are also seeking clarification that FOI is the way to go but I am hoping that the NRM does what it should have done in the first place and puts in the public realm the circumstances of the transfer of 563.
     
  13. fergusmacg

    fergusmacg Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    6,573
    Likes Received:
    3,950
    Occupation:
    Design Engineer
    Location:
    Cumbria
    And thereby goes the rub of this thread - all the possible permutations for this change in policy (loan or gift) have been discussed in the first 10 or so pages yet carries on going round and round in circles with no real progress as the nub of the problem has not been addressed. Those that made the decision have chosen not to engage in this rather pointless (IMHO) bun fight and the suspected villains in the "policy change" (i.e. most likely due to the slashing of NRM budgets) are rather busy at the mo on a rather pointless election (let's not go there) - although I would not expect a leopard to change his spots. Until anyone can get any real answers like many have been saying (i.e. FOI requests /MP discussions etc) this thread is doing no good at all and if anything will turn the "powers that be" in the Museums against the "enthusiast" as a load of ill informed moaners.

    I wrote the above before Mike Parkin65 wrote his post 592 which is a +1 from me.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2017
  14. 26D_M

    26D_M Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,416
    Likes Received:
    1,681
    I too agree with @MikeParkin65 latest post, well said indeed.
    On the wider subject of conflicting views about the necessity or otherwise for conspicuous integrity of the process, it is quite remarkable how a number of posters seem intent on trying to stifle such a debate, seemingly on the rather dubious basis that legitimate requests for more openness will have negative consequences.
     
    35B and Martin Perry like this.
  15. Reading General

    Reading General Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    May 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,081
    Likes Received:
    2,217
    If you have concerns you should be contacting the NRM. Spouting on here about it will have no effect whatsoever. Nor would any attempt (allegedly) to stifle such concerns.
     
    S.A.C. Martin and Spamcan81 like this.
  16. richards

    richards Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,634
    Likes Received:
    1,921
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    FOI requests are *not* guaranteed to get an answer.

    Rather than go through this formal process, has anyone asked the NRM for a more detailed but informal response first?

    Or perhaps wait to see if further statements are made in the railway press?

    An FOI request is a bit like ringing the police when someone's dog craps on the pavement. A bit OTT.
     
    paulhitch and goldfish like this.
  17. 26D_M

    26D_M Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,416
    Likes Received:
    1,681
    May I respectfully suggest that having a debate on a discussion forum and communicating directly with NRM are not mutually exclusive?
    For all those put off by "spouting", "moaning" and "complaining" within this thread, perhaps it is not for you and others may prove more satisfying?
     
    MikeParkin65 likes this.
  18. fergusmacg

    fergusmacg Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    6,573
    Likes Received:
    3,950
    Occupation:
    Design Engineer
    Location:
    Cumbria
    Going over the same ground again and again is not a debate - when there is something informative or even new, that's more like a debate - can you not see that?
     
  19. 26D_M

    26D_M Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,416
    Likes Received:
    1,681
    Quite clearly there are recurrent themes but if they were of no interest the discussion would, and indeed will, reach a natural conclusion. Anyone bored by it switch off now would be my advice.
    On the other hand, anyone reading this forum may yet wish to make a constructive contribution.
     
    Tim Light and MikeParkin65 like this.
  20. MikeParkin65

    MikeParkin65 Member Friend

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    627
    Gender:
    Male
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    If you are a public body you ignore FOI's at your peril. A complaint to the Information Commissioner can and regularly does lead to 6 figure fines. Thats money out of that body's budget back to the Treasury. As I said, a body avoids FOI's by being open about its actions and processes. Unless there are solid reasons (these are set in law) for refusal a public body has a legal obligation to answer an FOI. The whole purpose of FOI is to make Government and bodies funded out of the public purse open and accountable in a way that is defined by the public rather than the public having to be reliant solely on what that body chooses to tell them.

    Given that we are talking here about a public asset worth - well who knows - being gifted to a private company (albeit a company whose purpose we are all more or less in sympathy with) it is not OTT at all to force a justification out of the NRM if one isn't forthcoming.
     

Share This Page