LSWR T3 563

Consulted != informed. And as has been said its most definitely our business what the processes are. Its a very significant item that has been with the National Collection a long time. The point is well made that there would be very little fuss if the locomotive had gone on a long term loan. Although the vicissitudes of Taff Vale 28 tells us that such loans can go badly wrong too. Fortunately that one has been rescued. If she hadn't stayed in NRM ownership would she still be looking like this?


(from https://www.flickr.com/photos/16308298@N02/8664166338/in/photostream/ )

 

It's not that significant in the general world of National Collections. A steam loco to 99% of the Public is just the same as another one, whereas each Rembrandt (for instance) is unique.

 

Do they?
Haven't noticed many politicians beating a path to my door to see what I think of proposals and decisions, nor holding public enquiries on everything that every government department does.
You banged this gong over the NSR Tank until we all had a headache and your banging it again. Rather than bore us all senseless on here, why not try writing to your MP and the relevant government minister?

 

Each Rembrandt is just another dark muddy painting, slowly disintegrating as the materials fall apart, then restored (=repainted) according to the fashions of the current generation of restorers...

 

Sorry, I thought you were all enjoying the debate.

OK, by popular request I'll leave this topic alone now.

 

Let's be honest, it's not really a debate but more a selection of deeply held views being trotted out again and again. I doubt you'll find answers to your questions here.

 

I do not expect the NRM to carry out a public consultation on decisions of this kind. But I do want them to explain the reasons for transferring ownership, rather than a loan, and to answer the kind of questions and concerns raised in this thread. That is accountability.

 

Define badly wrong. As for that argument about consultation, it is equivalent of saying we public are not good enough to be worth consulting.

There are ways a consultation could have been run that would have addressed all the substantive points raised here, and built support for the decision made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Quite - I've worked as an administrator in the NHS for the last 16 years and can assure you all that most of the changes that have been imposed on us by successive governments and their departments have happened with little in the way of consultation - many of those changes have made my job harder because nobody ever seems to ask those who do the job what will actually work. Which may seem to imply that greater consultation would be better - but only where practicalities are concerned. Open up the consultation process too wide and you run the risk of not doing anything because of a lack of agreement.

I, for one, welcome the move of 563 to Swanage. I can't believe that it happened on a whim, or that due process hasn't been followed. Future plans will become clearer with time (and, probably, more detailed examinations). Give them time!

Given the pressures on government and national finances I'm not sure that steam engines and museums are going to be at the top of the nation's priorities - 563 may actually have a safer future in the private sector where at least the railway's membership can have more of a say and a greater influence.

Steve B

 

Your points are valid and well made, do not be deterred from challenging the probity of the processes. It is a well established principle that checks and balances need to be put in place, such as the Public Accounts Committee. We ignore the requirements of integrity and objectivity at our peril.

 

Indeed but these checks don't need to be in the Public Domain with every trainspotter having an input. I think we take ourselves far too seriously. Leave it to the Porfessionals whose careers depend on doing the right thing.

 

Incidentally I don't subscribe to the notion that the loco will come to harm left outside. Many railways including some major ones have no or very little covered accommodation, preferring workshop facilities to a loco shed. Swanage is one of these but so is the Bluebell, The Mid Hants, the SVR, WSR and many more

 

Do you honestly believe that every government department should consult the public before ever making a decision?

 

That's what they used to say about Bankers

 

It depends on the materiality of the decision to the government body in question. And it is also frequently a way of reviewing a decision already made, and gaining support for that.

I believe that would have been appropriate in this instance. Otherwise, my views on this transfer remain as previously stated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So who would you have involved in this consultation, the public at large or just railway enthusiasts?

 

Identifying the key stakeholders and how they might be represented ought to be intrinsic to the governance arrangements which control the disposals process. In this case HRA might be one such body consulted in the initial stages to suggest which organisations might be considered fit to dispose the asset to.
Alternatively a consultation could be published online and anyone with an interest invited comment within a given timescale. The feedback can then be used to further inform the ultimate decision, lending considerable transparency in the process.
This does, however, presuppose some overarching strategy is in place.

 

A naively optimistic appraisal of the actors involved. Nice in theory but a long way from reality in my professional experience of seeing many parts of the civil service in action over the years.

 

Cloud, cuckoo and land come to mind.

 

I daresay you are well acquainted with that particular region so I will defer to your superior wisdom.