North Staffordshire 0-6-2T

Doesn't do any harm to canvas opinion from people who actually care.

I don't think anyone on this thread has said that the loco was better off at Shildon. Some of us would have preferred the loco to remain public property.

 

Stepping back from this, it seems obvious that either Foxfield or Cheddleton locations were the "appropriate location" for NSR2 to be based so who else would be an "interested party" ? As noted by Sidmouth the NRM followed its procedures by identifying an item for release - and an appropriate location for it to move to, inquired whether retention or deaccession was the best policy and then put it through various committees to confirm the proposed actions.

If - as you note - public knowledge is required are you then prepared to accept the possible time wasters who could apply but be totally unsuitable for various reasons ? The Diesel Preservation field is already being bothered by an individual without means or resources trying to generate sales of locomotives with consequent delays to overhauls as current owners delay effort in the expectation that a successful purchase will lead to continuation of the overhaul. When the "sale" fall through the lost time and wasted effort cannot be recovered so be grateful that the NRM policy at least identifies a prospective new owner before continuing with its current policy.

 

I think the best thing to do is sit back and let the fun continue lil Bear. At the end of it CVR and FR can laugh together and wonder what it was all about.

 

Quoted upthread in post 116:

Our criteria for disposal are - poor condition/duplication/unsuitable for collection/more suitable for another museum


It would be interesting to know which of those criteria applied in this case. The loco looked presentable when I saw it at Shildon a few years back, so presumably that rules out poor condition. You can hardly say a steam loco is unsuitable for a railway museum, so that rules out the third point. More suitable for another museum would seem tenuous, and in any case wouldn't rule out a loan. So that suggests duplication. In a very broad sense, it's a pre-grouping tank engine I suppose, but it isn't duplicated by company, isn't duplicated by other locos that have post-mainline industrial history, and is scarcely duplicated by wheel arrangement - there are far more pacifics in the National Collection than 0-6-2 tanks, if that's the criteria; or three different 4-cylinder GWR 4-6-0s for that matter.

So while I understand the need to have a clear disposal policy, it's hard to see how this would be a strong candidate to for disposal under the existing policy.

Tom

 

How have we got to 8 pages from 1x individual's rant against the NRM? I hope there is this much interest when the appeal to restore NSR No (7)2 goes live!

 

The article contained a lengthy, and not exactly positive, from the CVR chairman about the situation. Am I to take it that this does not reflect the CVR's actual position?

 

His words were taken out of context. Remember there is always two-sides to every tale...

 

Indeed - thank you for clarifying.

 

Thank you for describing my original posting as a rant. I think it was a perfectly reasonable challenge to an interesting development.

And I'm delighted that people care enough to express 8 pages of opinion.

Or is the forum not here for that purpose? Is it just a place where people pat each other on the back?

 

Various posters have expressed an interest in knowing the reasoning and process which lead to the de-accessioning of NSR No. 2 and transfer of ownership. However none appear to have submitted a FOI request and received a copy of the deliberations. Surely, unless they do then comment as to whether the de-accession was justified or not is pointless.

I would agree the NRM needs to be a little more open about such decisions. In this day and age making the various documents available through their website would be a solution and avoid wasteful FOI requests. Perhaps this might happen once the fit for purpose collections section of the website goes live. Unfortunately, like with other Government IT projects, it is taking far longer and presumably costing more than intended to come to fruition. I am though assured that the day of going live is getting closer.

Comment has been made that the rolling stock element in the collection is disproportionally locomotives. True, but an accident of history as it was locomotives that were preserved rather than other rolling stock by the NRM predecessors. Of course the NRM did attempt to re-dress the balance by acquiring significant numbers of other types of rolling stock. Probably in hindsight they acquired too many and failed to match acquisitions with provision of suitable storage facilities and a development of a properly costed future strategy for these vehicles. Other factors may not have been taken into consideration as predicting the future is always difficult. Examples being reduced funding and the costs associated with managing and removing asbestos. The current NRM curators have in away been left, unintentionally, with a poisoned chalice to deal with by their predecessors. Unpalatable decisions have though had to be made, such as the scrapping of six wagons from the collection that had deteriorated in condition significantly due to unprotected outside storage.

I have to admit being rather surprised about where some de-accessioned items have ended up and very disappointed to see how they have deteriorated with new owners. Some though have probably faired better than they would have if they had remained in the collection.

 

But we've been presented with a summary of the NRM's rationale via the railway press (the October Railway Magazine in my case). I'm not sure what a FOI statement would add.

I wouldn't say that comment is pointless. It's always interesting to get different points of view.

I appreciate that the NRM has inherited what its predecessors left it, which is a fantastic collection by any standards, but one that is inevitably skewed towards glamour locomotives and Royal vehicles. Has the NRM ever considered entering a partnership with reputable preservation societies to sponsor the restoration, operation and demonstration of railway equipment away from the York/Shildon museums? I'm thinking of organisations like:

The Vintage Carriages Trust (allowing the pubic to ride in - not just look at - vintage carriages)
The Tanfield Railway (demonstration freight trains and paddy trains)
The Bowes Railway (demonstration freight trains and rope incline)
The Great Central Railway (main line signalling and TPO operation)
The Foxfield Railway (demonstrating industrial railway operation)
Didcot (demonstrating the Broad Gauge)
Beamish (demonstrating primitive railways)

... and many more. By making these attractions part of an extended National Collection, the public could be encouraged to see these interesting facets of railway history being brought to life around the country.

I realise that this would take money and energy, but if the NRM is going to fulfil its mission it has to go beyond what it can achieve in York an Shildon. This is not just about lending rolling stock out. It's about a real partnership where the NRM works with other organisations to ensure that the story of railways is told in its entirety.

Sorry to rabbit on .....

 

The GNR Atlantics, with 4472 illustrate the progressive design improvements that culminated in Mallard, and therefoe should not be taken in isolation. What story does the NSR 0-6-2T help to tell, other than this railway had locos and they were absolutely typical of the genre? The relatively few GWR loco the museum possesses cab be used similarly showing both evolution and standardisation, but they don't need an example of every class to do that.

 

To some extent, yes. But I think the NRM could do so much more in collaboration with the wider preservation movement to sponsor activities that these individual groups can do so well.

 

Yes, and the Stirling Single too. And the Deltic are all part of this story. But the criteria quoted for de-accessioning the NRM loco must put some of these items at risk.
As for the NSR loco, there is no doubt that whatever story it can tell, it will tell it better in Staffordshire hauling some typical wagons or carriages. But instead of washing its hands of this typical loco from a typical provincial railway, I would have preferred the NRM to make a long term loan and to promote the loco as a working part of its collection. If every visitor to York and Shildon were to be given a leaflet that told them where to find items from the National Collection on display or in action then surely everyone would benefit.

 

Until this thread appeared I thought there was nothing more to be debated on the de-accession of NSR L Class No. 2. The thread https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/nsr-new-l-no-2.692013/ ran to four pages in April and came to a natural end. I appreciate the OP in this thread was not a member then and had reacted to the RM and SR articles that appeared in October. Why it took almost half a year for those magazines to get excited about the de-accession is though a mystery.

Anyhow both articles have reached me through local circulation. An initial reaction is why wait until now to make a fuss not only about this locomotive but the other items of rolling stock that have been de-accessioned. Perhaps future editions of SR in particular might give an insight. Surely the likes of David Wilcock (SR) and Nick Brodick (RM) were well aware of the other items and the concerns expressed in some quarters about what had been happening.

Quickly reading the SR article two things immediately stuck out which surprised me, a deeper read may reveal more.

Firstly, that the Churnet Valley Railway had not been considered as a suitable beneficiary. Is that really surprising when you consider what happened to a previous de-accession to them. I am of course talking about LNWR STEAM BREAKDOWN CRANE RS1020 + MATCH WAGON 284235 1907 (1978 – 7125/6) In 2011 this was sold to a scrap merchant in Stoke-on-Trent by the Churnet Valley Railway to whom it had been gifted from the National Collection. The story appears not to have been covered by SR but Heritage Railways devoted almost a complete page to the story at the time. Fortunately the Crane survives and hopefully the guys at Crewe Heritage Centre will reverse the deterioration it suffered whilst on the Churnet Valley. I will make no comment regarding the other item of rolling stock gifted to the Churnet Valley Railway in 2003, BR 40 TON BOGIE BOLSTER WAGON 996724 1949 (1987 – 7018) http://www.ws.vintagecarriagestrust.org/ws/WagonInfo.asp?Ref=8311 as I have not seen it recently and as such can't comment whether it has faired better that the crane.

Secondly, I was intrigued by the NRM comment in its justification for de-accessioning "Its later life as a colliery locomotive also is reflected in the TVR locomotive and the Hunslet 'Austerity' type of which we have an example [ex-War Department 0-6-0ST No. 75133, King Feisal of Iraq, currently awaiting overhaul at the Flour Mill Workshop, Bream, Forest of Dean". This locomotive was discussed at a meeting I had with a Senior Curator from the NRM earlier this year at which I was informed that it was then going through the de-accession process and was to be gifted to the Flour Mill. Either the de-accessioning has not been approved or the NRM statement is simply not correct.

I presume part two of the SR article is in the current edition and it will be interesting to see what else David Wilcock is willing to make public.

 

Peter

Thank you for pointing out the earlier thread. As you said, I wasn't a member when that was posted. It was the article in SR that prompted me to join the forum and raise this discussion.

Your fourth paragraph above is interesting, and demonstrates exactly what the risk is that comes with de-accession. I don't know the full story around the LNWR Breakdown Crane, but by de-accessioning it (giving it away) the NRM washes its hands of the item and its future preservation. They can have no comeback if the recipient organisation ends up scrapping it or letting it rot. Unless there is something in the de-accession agreement that guarantee's the item's future. Is there?

We probably need to make a distinction between items that are unique and irreplaceable (like the NSR loco), and those that are duplicates of items preserved elsewhere (I mean real duplicates, not just something with the same wheel arrangement). For example, classes 08, 20, 31, 37, 40, 47 and 55 (as well as the Black 5) are very well represented in preservation, so I would be happy for the NRM examples to be gifted to good homes.

 

But surely the Modernisation era diesels should be represented in the National collection, regardless of duplication? D200 plays its part in the story of Britain's railways .

Jon

 

I think so too, but to be fair English Electric is very well represented at the NRM, so if the NRM decided to de-accession one of them, without guarantees for its future, then it wouldn't be a disaster.