Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by nick813, Mar 30, 2017.
As I said there are many different inferences that can be drawn from a lack of comment.
It appears to have gone that way in any event.
Yes, and as far as I can see it's those looking to point the finger at the NRM:
These are just from the first pages of the thread. There's a lot more and it gets more heated and more irate the more thread goes on.
I agree with the fundamental principle that more information is desirable. Where I draw the line is drawing conclusions without evidence.
Something you in fact also said in not so many words on page 3 of this thread, and then proceeded to make erroneous conclusions about the procedures the NRM have followed in any event.
An interesting post. I have often wondered about the Duchess. Re-streamlining it was a stroke of marketing genius and it has become an incredibly popular exhibit at York. Perhaps not the exact equal of Mallard but the two engines together make a beautiful comparison of contemporary British express passenger locomotive designs.
That in itself, I would challenge, makes it a prime candidate for never steaming again. Because it has a new, unique draw and can inspire simply by standing still. That's not my preference - I would love to see it steam again, mainly because such a sight has not been seen in steam since the late 1940s - but I could understand a potential reluctance by the NRM to loan out a popular exhibit in that way or to dispose of one.
One of the things I have to ask about the LSWR T3 - aside from being unique as an outside cylinder 4-4-0 in the collection (but not unique in wider preservation, thanks to the D49 and the Schools class locomotives, which though more modern are also outside cylinder 4-4-0s) - where do we believe it fitted into either the York or Shildon setups?
My own preference would have been for it to be on long term loan as per the Lord Nelson and Schools at the MHR, but on reflection, unlike the latter two, I am struggling to justify in my mind retaining a locomotive for which there are ample other locomotives which fulfill the story it tells in the collection, there are other LSWR engines in the collection (M7 for instance) already doing a similar role, and for which there is no space.
The T3 has been to Canada and back and in London long term. Did anyone miss it in York? Has anyone said the like? I just wonder if we'd have batted an eyelid without this thread.
There is an element of "we are taxpayers, and technically we own the national collection" points that I agree with in principle, but there must also be a balance and a question if things are done in the best interests of the artifact, the museum, and the public.
Many of us will be a lot happier if and when we learn (a) what the Swanage's short-term and long-term plans for this loco are and (b) why the NRM decided to give it away rather than loan it. It seems reasonably certain that a will be clarified before too long and I for one don't mind waiting. It remains in doubt what will happen about b.
Your post begs a further question in that how is an objective decision to be made without the alternatives being clearly articulated? On the one side of this discussion is the view that the T3 in this case will be betterserved with a new owner, which may prove to be so over the years ahead. If, however, no other choices have been articulated, how can it be definitively so? Disposing of it seems, on the face of it, an easy, subjective option rather than considering its longer term strategic value. What story might future generations want to tell that would merit retention? There is a duty to consider both what earlier curators decided and wonder what our decsendants will do to.
Loan yes, expel no.
how do you know that is not the case? It's not feasible to consult everyone. It's my believe that they will have done exactly what you are assuming they haven't.
Quite, the prior considerations to the decision have not been made public as far as I know and it is unclear whether any, let alone all reasonable, consultation took place. Regardless, I struggle to see how any long term thinking could have resulted in a conclusion that the safest option was to give it away. What was conceivably the worst case scenario of keeping ownership?
It has been quoted a number of times here, but Anthony Coulls post on the NSR tank shows quite considerable consultation has to happen with a number of bodies.
The way you are assuming none has taken place based on...what exactly? Remains a trifle ridiculous.
Since you've quoted me I'll reply. I cannot speak for anybody else, but I drew no such conclusions. I said that giving away this specific item from the National Collection - as opposed to the Mk.2 or the NER bogie van or the NSR tank, the disposal of all of which was entirely justifiable in terms of their condition, lack of uniqueness, or lack of originality - was an act of unforgivable cultural vandalism. Because it is. I neither personalised my comment, nor implied procedural irregularities or malfeasance. It is entirely possible to vehemently disagree with a decision without imputing dubious motives to those who made it. That is, it's possible for some people.
In future you may wish to be more circumspect with your accusations.
The point being made is that you and others have taken what are undoubtedly criticisms made by many of the process/decision and projected them as personal attacks of individuals who may or may not be involved. This is within the public domain but I do not think it is helpful to drill down further than the person who carries ultimate responsibility.
Whilst waiting for the further information is of course the sensible thing, the apparent unpreparedness of the NRM in sharing a fuller set of facts from the outset has given rise to what I think is understandable concern. Time will tell and hopefully the doubters will be persuaded by the compelling evidence put forward. An insight to the bigger strategic thinking and how our heritage lines might be invited to take a more prominent role with collection items will also be welcome.
Hyperbole! If they'd scrapped it you would have a point but as that is not the case, I can't see why you're throwing such a tantrum over this.
What I said and meant was that the lack of formal information means it is unclear what process, in the case of the T3, has been gone through. You are clearly content it has been done a certain way, I and others are waiting for the evidence of that. Which was your advice I think?
Indeed, there are very clear rules set out for the removal of items from the national collection, York and Shilton only have so much space availible, and can never put on display every single item they have in their collection, In the case of the T3, i would say that it became an unwanted engine, it has spent a lot of time away from York and Shilton, and on the ending of the Kings cross show they had a problem, no space for it, and what do you do with another engine that has to be moved out to make room for it, I dare say the powers that be have everything as they want it, they have 2 early 4-4-0 on display as it is, so do we need 3, with 2 others an early and a later one on long term loans. One of the engines is claimed to have been the first loco to hit 100 mph, city of Turo, we cant move that out, or loan it, then theres the D class, its the only SECR engine in the collection, so that leaves tthe LSWR engine, we already have the M7, i would imagine that was the question they asked themselves, so they asked the Swanage railway, can you offer a home for it? why the Swange, ? well its a LSWR branch, what other options? Bluebell? had it been a brighton engine, highly likily, or did they say, sorry no realistic space for it? Mid Hants, already has two NRM engines , and recently did a cosmetic overhaul on another, that would raise questions such as another NRM engine? So prehaps Swanage dispite the lack of covered accomodation was thought the best option. And due to the ammont of early Pre grouping 4-40's in the collection, gifting it made sence as the eengine then becomes the railway's and it can then decide on the best options for its own perposes, which must be as a working engine if possible, and it dont cost the cash strapped Science museum group any further costs if it kept it, it would have to fund its continuing upkeep if at York, or Shilton .
The thing that is more than a trifle ridiculous is the posts keener on making destructive or inflammatory remarks about other folks comments than discussing the substantive issue.
What tantrum? I hadn't even posted in this thread for a couple of weeks. As I have already said in this thread, I'm happy for the Swanage, I wish the Swanage well with it, and I think that giving away 563 was wrong because it's an artefact of great value and beauty and originality and because it belonged to the nation. That's it. It's the first NRM disposal to which I have objected since the Nord Compound, and even in that case there were sound arguments against retention. There are none here.
Also, if you're going to fling around accusations of hyperbole, it's best not to also accuse people of having tantrums and it's a really good idea to ease off on the exclamation marks. SAC Martin is the one making unsupported and frankly hysterical allegations against other members of this forum, not me.
Well reasoned hypothesis which I can see the powers that be reluctant to articulate because of the longer term implications for further downsizing.
Why the T3 and not M7 or T9 if an LSWR loco too many though? I suspect SRT would have preferred either of the latter two.
Because the T9 is already under a loan agreement, and has no cost to the museum group, the M7 is part ,or was part of the current display, and to move items around and re imagine displays takes museum staff away from public facing duties such as telling the public where the souvenir shop is I wonder about where the NRM fits the science museum's plans, because the two are chalk and cheese,much of the Science museums are based on fixed exibits and in explanations, where the NRM tells the story of rail travel, and because of such should have an active element to it, i think it should be a stand alone museum with its own funding and allowed to do what is best for its collection .
Can I suggest that those who wish to continue this discussion beyond here tread carefully? The moment that it starts to get personal over individuals at the NRM and what they may or may not have done, the public nature of this Forum puts the thread at risk - Rule 1b.
People at the NRM read this forum and will be reading this thread even though they may choose not to comment. A better option for anyone who is particularly exercised by this T3 business is to contact the NRM directly.
Absolutely right and proper, and on that basis I shall once again bow out of this thread.
Separate names with a comma.