LSWR T3 563

Sound logic again but both would represent short term considerations. Looking ahead the same thoughts will need to be gone through when the T9 loan ends. Also if loaning the T9 works why not the T3?
As has been said conjecture is the result of lack of information!

 

Ask the NRM (for the umpteenth time). You have so many questions and assumptions but none that can be answered or challenged on here. Only the NRM will know.

 

How are the NRM quotes out of context?

Please explain.

 

Last time I checked this was a discussion forum? Raising things to stimulate discussion is part and parcel but if you don't care for it why not stick to a thread that suits you better rather than acting as a back seat moderator in this one? Meaningful contribution not really your bag though, is it, judging by the tenor of your posts generally?

 

Deleted

 

Banging the same old drum time and time again is not discussion.

 

Discussion is surely self defining?

 

Tim, you've accused me of taking them out of context. My context was showing what had been said about the NRM. That's why I selected those quotes.

So if you would care to, please explain how the wider context of your original post changes the meaning of the comments I pointed out. I can't see that they do?

We talk about getting personal - it is frustrating to see so much indignation and sniping and defensiveness when pulled up on a point.

 

Don't worry about it. I've deleted my last two posts. I'm not keen to extend this discussion.

 

i think we need to look at the matter through the eyes of non-enthusiasts.

Our trainspotter mentality attaches a lot of importance to individual locos which is not the purpose of the National Collection.

It doesn't matter how unique or important we think a loco is, it is looked at by professional curators as part of the overall picture, I don't know how many more ways I can think of to say that.

There is and was no mechanism to consult us or explain a decision, we are not relevant to that decision.

We need to focus on how our community of enthusiasts can benefit from the process. Personally I welcome the exciting possibilities it may offer.

 

Once again I would invite you to consider the wisdom of heading down that track. The original substantive points were not remotely directed at you in the first place so you can perhaps understand why folk might be indignant and defensive when you start dissecting their posts apparently as a self appointed counsel for the defence?

 

There has been much criticism of the NRM as a corporate entity, with prima facie justification, which may or may not turn out to be misplaced if and when more information is forthcoming. There has also been a great deal of criticism of individuals on this forum by other individuals on this forum. However I recall seeing little if any personal criticism of NRM staff.

 

So to clarify: you can be self appointed counsel for the prosecution but I and others apparently are not to be allowed to be self appointed counsel for the defence?

Some real inconsistencies in this thread. On that note I think I'll call it a day.

 

Unconditional faith and trust in the decision making is what you seem to be declaring?
Meanwhile some evidence is awaited to generate optimism in the brave new world ahead. I was happier trusting the established way of curating the national collection.

 

My point is that you (and others) have questioned the decision making of the NRM, or required more information to be provided by the NRM. However, noone seems to have taken the opportunity to try to change this by actually directing their concerns to that particular organisation.

 

Your point is flawed because I have not criticised the NRM per se nor do you know what other communication channels are in play because none are mutually exclusive.
What has been criticised is the decision. Until more is known it appears absurd but as we do not know the process by which it was reached we do not know the accountability either. As I have now said several times, trying to portray legitimate questioning of a process as personally directed criticisms is unhelpful so would you mind confining your comments to the wider topic please?

 

Some interesting posts over many days.

A few have explicitely provided the NRM's policy for giving away parts of it's collection. The policy is quite clear.

What does not seem to have been addressed so far is the giving away something of clear monetary value as opposed to selling it.

The NRM had to buy Flying Scotsman at great cost despite it being knackered.

The IOWSR had to buy the E1 from those who owned it on the ESR (also knackered).

The Ffestiniog had to buy from South Africa the Beyer Garrets for the Welsh Highland.

Jeremy Hosking had to buy Royal Scot, and much else besides.

Virtually if not every preserved railway of standard gauge had to buy wrecks from Barry from Dai Woodhams.

The Bluebell have been given by the NRM a Westinghouse frame installed in the signal box at Kingscote. The IOWSR was given by the NRM a LBSCR cattle van.

I can appreciate that the above 2 examples were of little monetary value, but the T3 clearly, I suggest, falls into a quite different category of worth in monetary terms, plus much else besides.

The simple question really is why, if the NRM is lacking funds, it should have simply given away as opposed to sold the loco?

What did the NRM insure the loco for in value terms on it's recent travels?

Why should the Swanage have such a gift (and windfall of a significant financial asset) instead of the Bluebell or Bodmin?

Were the Bluebell or Bodmin offered to bid?!

It is one thing to sell off the family silver, and quite another thing I suggest to give it away!

Cheers,
Julian

 

A number of us have said that on the face of it we don't feel this has been a good decision and we would like to know more about how it was reached as well as any wider future policy implications. There is no "prosecution" or witchunt, it's as simple expression of views. Added to that is a public accountability dimension in any event.
You and others chose to be offended that we were apparently criticising NRM and it's staff at a personal level. Unless you have been asked to comment on their behalf why adopt the position of doing so?

 

What a curious posting from someone who is interested in railway preservation, lets break this down.

1. The NRM acquires a locomotive for next to nowt and decides for the long term good of this museum piece it should go to a ‘native railway’ where the loco worked in its past for future display and possibly full restoration, that's what I'd expect any professional museum to do.
   
   
2. That chosen railway would like to receive that locomotive, however has limited funds and will also have to raise funds to restore and house/display it.
   
   
3. You want to make it even harder for that railway charity by first insisting a fair market price is paid for that locomotive (and who knows what that value is).
   
   
4. Any value that is raised for that locomotive will hardly scratch the surface of the NRM’s budget shortfall caused by the savage cuts by this woeful government.

So what happens if the donor railway says sorry, love to host it but cannot afford to pay the xxxthousands of pounds needed for purchase. As it is already stated that it does not fit in with the NRM plans - it either goes to a less suitable place that can afford it (and all the ‘on costs’), or it goes on the open market and ends up on some stately home, shopping mall or theme park or if its really lucky on some far flung railway that has little to do with the LSWR.

The other railways you mentioned may be able to host it, but what's the connection to the LSWR and also will in addition need not only funds to purchase/restore it but also to house it (I know both have sheds, but there are always need for more space and one more exhibit means something else ends up outside).

There are an awful lot of repeated messages on this thread and your one is at least a bit different, but personally I don’t think it’s a valid argument for the reasons outlined above. Swanage & Foxfield have gained by this shift in policy, the locos are (or will be) on display, are the 'moaning minis' going to spoil these opportunities for others?

 

Then write to the NRM, relevant Government department, your MP as you are far more likely to get an answer than by continually harping on about it on here.