Lost LNWR Crane

The plot thickens.......

 

The NRM were consulted prior to disposal of the crane and themselves could not think of anyone that would take the crane, interesting that the NRM did not suggest the BDCA???

Regards

Chris

 

Sorry, but I think your example isn't exactly accurate. BA cut back on the maintenance of the aircraft at Cosford when they decided to dispose of the collection (due to lack of money and few engineering staff available to attend to these aircraft). There was a lengthy process firstly with Cosford and then of offering the exhibits to museums who wanted them. In the end ALL five aircraft in the collection went to the following museums: the VC10 (complete fuselage) and several vehicles went to Brooklands Museum while the Boeing 707-436 (forward fuselage), Vickers Viscount 701, BAC 1-11 and Hawker Siddeley Trident (cockpit and forward fuselage) all went to the Museum of Flight at East Fortune. The only items that were actually scrapped were the unwanted wings and rear fuselage sections and certainly not "without hesitation"!

With regards to the Concorde collection, all the museums had to sign loan contracts that included the agreement that they (the museums) would be responsible for the maintenance of the airframes otherwise BA reserved the right to move the aircraft to another museum (keep an eye out for the possibility of G-BOAB and G-BOAD moving soon and watch out for the french lighting up the engines of F-BTSD and returning it to taxiable condition under it's own power ....)

 

Serious thread drift here but G-BOAB is not with a museum, she's still with BA at LHR, so if anyone isn't looking after her properly it's BA themselves. BA will admit to considering moving her but won't say where.

 

Not according to the NRM.

A senior member of staff (not Anthony Coulls, who has contributed so openly to this debate) has confirmed in writing to me that the NRM was not consulted prior to the sale, and that such consultation was required by the 2004 transfer agreement.

Regards,

Roger

 

You mean not according to the information you have. Just because one person says they were not consulted, does not mean that somebody else wasn't!

Anyway instead of bleating on about who's fault this is, does someone have any news of any interested parties? No real point going on and on here if there no-one willing to actually save it.

 

Not all the facts are in the public domain - and at this stage, that's where they will stay, sorry!

 

The point about "bleating on" is that the CVR has sold an asset for scrap and at the same time is seeking to raise money via a share offer. So if it wants its share offer to be a success it needs to come up with some explanations fast. Perhaps the first 20k raised can go on acquiring a crane. Even if it is then given away to a more suitable home.

 

Hi Roger
Fair enough. If you've found no evidence I can't argue with that. I was forwarded a letter from the CVR stating that attempts were made for disposal. It also mentioned two people were initially involved with restoring the crane. Sadly one passed away, the other moved away from the area, and no one else at the line was available to take over responsibility. Now its possible this is complete rubbish but its all I had to go on and I didn't see a reason why they would lie about it.
Steve

 

The CVR has not done anything wrong. There is more to this than what is in the public domain, but once again (as is so typical of some members of Nat Pres in recent times) someone hears half a story and turns into a keyboard warrior and goes off on a rant.

The parties concerned are in discussion so I would say it be best to let them resolve the situation. If you want to help then put your money where your mouth is and offer a donation towards the crane. Otherwise just say nought, as continuing a pointless argument wont do anyone any good whatsoever.

 

The information you have Steve sums it up really, though metal thieves have not helped the crane's plight either.

 

Does anyone know which parts are missing? presumably all the non ferrous? any recent pics available, possibly at Reids??

 

That seems a bit contradictory! But I do agree that a little breathing space should be given to those who are working at resolving the situation.

 

i'm willing to put my hand in my pocket. i cant afford much but i'll give what i can. anyone else with me?

 

I think it's very commendable, offering to start the ball rolling. But would it be best to await the outcome of the NRM/CVR discussions that (presumably) are underway? We will then have a much better idea of any financial shortfall.

Further, following Heritage Railway magazine's top class coverage of the problem, the magazine may consider leading a quest to save the crane.

Incidentally, the start of build of this crane was only three years after the Wright brothers' pioneering flight of 1903, which fact helps put the antiquity of the crane into perspective for anyone who might not otherwise understand.

 

In reflecting on the crane being of the Wright brothers era, I might also have mentioned that, in general, its design was by then already 20 years old. So in that sense it pre-dated the first manned airplane flight by some margin.

In fact it was the last steam breakdown crane of the tall kingpost design which, in principle, had been launched a further 10 years earlier, in 1875, in the form of the Appleby Brothers' 5-ton breakdown crane (ref: http://bdca.org.uk/first.html).

So many claims to fame!

 

To be controversial, what is the point of preserving this crane? Will it be used or would its history and importance be better shown by photographs, plans and a scale model in a Museum?

I imagine it could well be purchased and parked in an obscure siding somewhere (again) until it gets to the point where there is no option but to scrap it (if it doesnt get stolen piecemeal in the interim)

I realise some of you are very knowledgeable and enthusiastic about Cranes, but to the average enthusiast (and certainly to the General Public) they are all more or less the same.

 

I'm sure your comments will be controversial with some! However your opinion, as others, must be noted as well, as we all have different interests.
Lets say all the steam loco's from a particular class were preserved. This will please most enthusiasts but they won't all look more or less the same, they are the same. In the case of the crane, via all the historical details noted in this thread, it is a unique survivor. There is a line between what is popular & what is historically unique. Anything that falls into the latter I feel is more appropriate as a museum piece, or at least well cared for whether as a static exhibit or operational. I agree parking it up in a siding to further deteriorate would be a pointless endeavor. I also appreciate that preserved lines must inject their cash into the popular category to fund itself, although there are several excellent C&W groups on some lines.
Aside from the crane there are many coach's & wagons out there that are unique. Some are in excellent well cared for condition, others are forgotten about & falling to pieces. There's one thing looking at a model or photo of an item long lost but you'll never beat the real thing.
Steve

 

I didnt say it was my opinion, I was discussing the situation.
OK so its old and no doubt significant in the history of cranes (and should not have been sold for scrap in the first place IMHO) but is it really crucially important for it to be preserved or is it of around the same importance as another preserved crane? Im not offering that as an opinion, I want to know so that I can form an opinion on this matter.

I dont think comparing it to the Kitty Hawk or a preserved steam loco is relevant as the first is of undoubted world importance historically and the second has a much wider appeal when it comes to raising funds and attracting volunteers.

Its seems to me there is little point in it being bought and moved somewhere if there is no plan to rebuild and display it.