North Staffordshire 0-6-2T

Dubious? Acting fully within their terms of reference is dubious? You need to chill my friend and untwist thy undergarments.

 

I thought it was stated upthread that this is the 7th loco to be de-accessioned ?

Jon

 

Indeed and one of the previous ones, a Hunslet Austerity named 'Respite', is also a former Walkden collieries loco.
A conspiracy in the making?
(joke)

 

Don't get me wrong- I'm quite enjoying the debate , but but if loans are all that is acceptable for an item in the national collection, then surely no stock, ever, should be de-accessioned ?

Jon

 

Currently the disposals process needs to be in line with that detailed in post 116 and I would expect those criteria to be met in all cases.

Jon

 

I wouldn't say that nothing should be de-accessioned. Most of the other 6 locos were not great losses to the NRM, especially the Nord 4-6-0 and the Austerity leftovers. And with so many main line diesels preserved, I'm not sure that the NRM needs so many. And I won't mention the Bullet Train. Whoops, I just did!

But seriously ... some items in the National Collection can be considered to be national treasures, and they deserve to be retained even if they breach the guidelines. The NER 2-4-0s are a case in point ... wonderful examples of Victorian engineering that just happen to have the same wheel arrangement. These are on loan to the Stainmore Railway and Darlington Museum (Head of Steam). There is absolutely nothing wrong with this arrangement and no need to de-accession either locomotive. But according to the guidelines, and using the rationale for the NSR engine, one of them should be disposed of. And perhaps the GER 2-4-0 and MR 2-4-0 should also fight for their right to remain in the collection.

 

If the company (NRM) charged you out at £475+expenses, then the FR (the client) would be paying for your inspection as part of the loan agreement, therefore no cost to the NRM.


Keith

 

And you think such an arrangement would increase the take-up rate of loans, bearing in mind those loaned the item will already be forking out for covered accommodation, transport, conservation and maintenance etc for the item?

 

Certainly hope so. Bellerophon's visit with the KHT has shown what can be achieved, and Dave S / Matt H / Rich W etc have all been very positive towards enhancing this relationship further. We all have ideas which may / may not come of, we shall have to wait and see how the next few months unfold. I just don't see why though someone who has contacted none of us, thinks it is ok to imply things aren't as they are - particularly in such a public manner.

 

No I don't.
The point I was making is that if there is a yearly NRM inspection fee to be applied for a particular item, then it would be the borrower paying that fee, not the owner. I pass no comment on whether such a fee is a good idea.


Keith

 

Even if the NRM pays it, it's a tiny price to keep an item in the collection. Provided its worth keeping.

 

But this whole thing about inspection fees is just speculative. We don't actually know what costs are incurred by the NRM in a long term loan arrangement.

 

So did the NRM give the loco away for free? If so, it seems a bit counter-inutitive for a cash-strapped organisation.