Discussion in 'National Railway Museum' started by Tim Light, Oct 28, 2016.
but this is D200, with all its significance.....
Everything has "significance" to someone, but it's just not practical to preserve everything. The NRM have to create their own rules to make their collection manageable. Decisions are also subject to review when something more suitable becomes available at a later date.
The class 40, 52 and 55 would have a good chance of finding a good home, but the rest most likely just fill up more siding space such as other "Preserved" members of these classes.
Remember the black 5 is numbered the first engine, but 5020 was the first one to enter traffic as it was built by Vulcan Foundry so it should have been the one the NRM claimed.
If it was your choice, and you had to release an English Electric, which one would it be?
... or be unpreserved, by passing to one of the leasing companies. 20s, 37s and 47s still perform useful work on the national network.
They are, but leaving aside the specific argument about the Modernisation Plan, if the NRM is to tell the story of the diesel and electric chapter of Britain's railways, they need some exhibits.
The challenge on that front is less their current collection, and more how they will tell the story of Sprinterisation (and the corresponding EMU developments) given the lack of interest in those units, whether by enthusiasts or the public.
That, IMHO, is a more pressing question than the deaccession of a single exhibit of limited national importance and which has been subject to changes that undermine it's importance as an example of its original type.
So are 28xx.Castles,WC/BofBs ,A4,and 9fs-anyone want to ask for 34051,4073,4468 and 92220 to make space for a sprinter and pacer?
Yes but the scrapping of 10000 leaves D200 as the nearest replacement to illustrate early diesel traction. Sadly the Derby-built D1 fails because it is powered by Sulzer which had little experience with BR except for a small number of shunters.
I'd suggest that the changes are one of the things that give interest to the loco, rather than detract. There are numerous locos in the National Collection that have been subject to various degrees of rebuilding (going right back to Rocket) but NSR No. 2 represents something that is rare (unique?) in the collection but was common in reality, of a loco sold on from mainline to industrial service and subsequently rebuilt by on behalf of its industrial owners. The further lives of mainline locos in industrial ownership feels like a worthwhile part of railway history to explore that can't be easily told by many other locos in the collection.
I'll accept that - we have the interesting conundrum of locomotive that is either of reduced interest as a survivor from the NSR because of its rebuilding, or of increased interest because it illustrates the way that industrial owners modified locomotives purchased out of mainline service. Take my comment as being with reference to the NSR dimension of the locomotive's history!
Another earlier thread that might interest you can be found here https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/next-nrm-restoration-and-other-questions.679219/ This raised the issue of accurate listings of the National Collection and is also touched on by David Wilcock in his article. The appearance of a fit for purpose listing on the NRM website is still as far away as ever but I am assured it will happen one day. The mentioned internal list has yet to be posted on this Forum or elsewhere as far as I am aware. Despite a request a few weeks ago I have not got the latest version.
With regard to the Churnet Valley I overlooked a third item of rolling stock gifted to them from the National Collection, this being LNER TUBE WAGON 181358 1935 (1978 – 7117) http://www.ws.vintagecarriagestrust.org/ws/WagonInfo.asp?Ref=8961 Again I will not comment as to how it has faired with its new owners as I have not seen it recently.
As I think I have mentioned, in the transfer documentation their is a provision that should the recipient wish to dispose of the item they must first notify the NRM who would then have first option on re-acquiring it. I will leave the legal eagles to say how enforceable that is. However, I suspect this was instigated in the case with the GWR Royal Saloons https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/gwr-royal-saloons.39245/ another thread you might want to acquaint yourself with. This does emphasise how long de-accessions can take and for how long the NRM website has not been fit for purpose. Before anyone asks, I am not aware that the future of these two saloons is yet signed and sealed.
You are correct though that the NRM has no control of what happens to items from the collection once they have been transferred to new owners.
Although I thoroughly disagree with the disposal of NSR No 2, I must point out that the 'mainline loco sold to industry and modified' criteria is also met by Taff Vale 0-6-2 No 28.
If you're going to keep taking "pop shots" then at least have the decency to learn the facts please. CVR followed all requests with regards to the LNWR crane, and it was only when 1x individual started a topic on here did anyone show any interest in the vehicle. It had been offered around before, and no-one showed any interest, not even the NRM. If you wish to learn more then pop down to Cheddleton and ask.
As for the Bogie Bolster, this was restored by an individual at the CVR (at his own expense) and has since seen regular use on engineering trains and photo charters. The pictures are online to see if you look, it's last use being a works train I ran in June IIRC.
The tube wagon currently holds a number of spares, and is viewable at Cheddleton.
There is also the sole surviving LNER Parrot wagon, which CVR was chosen ahead of everyone including the NRM to look after. There is an online appeal to see this vehicle restored, but low and behold the interest has been sparse to put it mildly. Despite all the good going ons, people only seem to get "excited" when something negative happens.
All of which is getting totally away from the purpose of this thread, which has stemmed from one irate journalist with a known axe to grind and too much time on his hands.
Completely agree and as I said early in the thread the NRM will have many tough decisions to make
Buy that man a drink.
Not taking "pop shots" at all. Will PM "lil Bear" to arrange a meeting at Cheddleton.
My comments were primarily based on the Heritage Railways article and what was said me by a Senior Curator at the NRM when going through the list of de-accessioned items of rolling stock.
Are the Royal Saloons still outside at Carnforth?
I think there are a couple of aspects to this affair that are getting overlooked a bit....
1. The FR, in it's current state, is undoubtedly a good place for NSR to be, either as a loan or as a gift. However, what will the situation be in 10, 15 or 20 years time? The fortunes of any given preserved railway will wax and wane - they're all fighting the ageing workforce problem - and the folk there today who value NSR No. 2 as a key historical artifact, may in a decade or two be replaced by a different crowd who care little for this and have different priorities - what if in the future the FR took a more openly commercial approach, akin to that of the Paignton/Dartmouth line ? Then NSR no. 2 might get replaced by a Class 33 or a 57xx! Whilst the fortunes of the NRM have also waxed and waned, the fact is that being part of the national collection meant that there was less long-term uncertainty. In 20 years, or after the repair bills get too large, NSR no. 2 might find itself rusting away at the end of a siding. In such a case mightn't it have been preferable to keep it tucked safely away at Shildon?
2. The whole point of the loco not being part of the current NRM 'story' also appears dreadfully short-sighted. The story of railways is one of history and our interpretation and understanding of our history changes constantly - there are very few absolutes. D200 provides an obvious example. 35 years ago, there was no place for it at the NRM, today it's significance is recognised, even if it does seem to spend most of its time in the 'tent' in the yard at York and not accessible to the public. The 'story' the NRM seeks to tell will change in the future and if they've given away a key aspect of it, they'll only have themselves to blame.
Overall, I think that the thing that irks me the most is that there appears to be very little visibilty to the de-acquisitioning process, and little or no way in which the public (for whom the items are held in trust) can have any input. If our local council wants to do anything (close a park, build a road etc) then they have to put up notices and lay the matter open to public consultation. It'd be much more re-assuring if the NRM (or the NMSI or whatever) was compelled to do the same.
Finally, I note from a quick browse of one of the railway mags that the Class 84 electric is off on loan to Scotland with (and here I paraphrase from memory) "investigations ongoing into the permanent transfer to the museum in question". I doubt this will excite quite as much debate as NSR No. 2, but it appears to be the next stage in an ongoing (and accelerating?) process.
Great post. My thoughts almost exactly. Except for the bit where you say "In such a case mightn't it have been preferable to keep it tucked safely away at Shildon?". For me it would have been better to loan it to Foxfield with the ability to recall it if necessary.
Good point about visibility ... We are informed that there is a wide-ranging review going on right now. But we are told that the process (which is not undertaken lightly) is effectively conducted in secret. However, we are welcome to make a FOI request after the event.
I have a rather controversial opinion on the matter of the NRM dispersing their stock. Basically the sooner they half their collection among the various preserved railways the better. I'd much rather see the City of Truro on the WSR or Gladstone on the Bluebell doing what the were built to do rather than sitting gathering dust.
Separate names with a comma.