LSWR T3 563

Much easier to be a keyboard warrior and play to the audience surely?

 

But for many it's not a discussion, just repeating the same old thing and "demanding answers," answers that nobody on here can give.
Now if someday came on and said "I've written to the NRM and here is the reply," that would be a) a breath of fresh air and b) useful comment. Wont be holding my breath for that to happen.

 

You need to look harder then.
As for a discussion - it's going nowhere. The usual suspects are having a go at the NRM just as they did in the NSR Tank thread and Tour Company threads but they never seem to address their concerns to the organisations they seek to criticise. Is writing to the organisations concerned such a difficult concept for them to grasp?

 

Now in the local rag.........

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne...ailway_Children_locomotive_arrives_in_Dorset/

 

This link may prove useful to some on here, revolutionary though the idea is.
http://nrm.org.uk/getinvolved/feedback

 

I would be happy to take such criticism were it not coming from someone who seems to specialise in snide commentary on other people's posts rather than making any constructive contribution to a topic.
If you don't like the content of the thread move on and leave the discussion to anyone who does. Reading this thread seems to be causing you some distress but it will reach a natural conclusion without your hectoring.

 

I think it legitimate to question the overarching policies of the Science Museum Group. For a number of reasons, not least contemporary ideas of equality, a prime policy is to increase visitor numbers and widen the audience to include under represented groups. An inevitable consequence is more facile exhibition and explanation. The professional historians, researchers, archivists, curators etc. are not over concerned because their work continues behind the scenes much as it always has. Many visitors are pleased as the main reason for their visit is entertainment. The knowledgeable amateur enthusiasts are the group losing the most. The Science Museum itself is further along this path. The Science and Technology Faculty in which I once worked decided to stop visiting with student groups as the educational benefits were too limited.

The same overarching policies drive decisions about the display or disposal of exhibits. The gifting of the T3 is an example.

 

Beginning to think you are trolling.
Nobody is having a go at the NRM. A decision made has caused a degree of consternation and prompted a lengthy debate on a discussion forum. That's it.
You have no evidence to suggest that other forms of communication are not being taken up that is a rather fatuous remark.
Finally, it is neither your role nor mine to attempt to control the nature of posts. As the previous posters said - if you don't like the discussion, don't read it - simples. You could always mute those posters you don't care for?

 

The posters complaining of repetition are themselves at risk of becoming rather repetitious but I wouldn't restrain anyone from contributing to a debate. So please, say it again if you really must.

 

The NRM are far from the only steam loco owning group to have given their charges away; they are simply the highest profile one. Other examples include the owning group of Witherslack Hall which gifted their loco to the David Clarke Railway Trust, and I believe the Ivatt trust locos to the IOWSR (correct me please if they paid for them, I don't think they did but am not fully aware of the facts).
In both cases these gifts have turned out to be absolutely the best thing for the locos concerned.

 

And, to be clear, my concerns at least are not that a transfer of ownership is automatically wrong, but regarding the process of that transfer. I also consider that a national museum needs to be held to a higher standard than a private organisation.

I quite agree that a new home has the potential to find new life for an exhibit, though I am with others in wondering why that can't be achieved under loan arrangements.

 

The Ivatt trust gifted 3 Ivatts and an austerity at around the same time the army Museum gifted 2 Austerities and a diesel. Six steam locos and a diesel were gifted in total.

 

The H class trust and the Wainwright C Preservation Society both transferred ownership of their respective locos to the Bluebell Railway Trust in the last few years. 178 also changed ownership from SLL to the Bluebell.

Personally, I am less het up about the details of ownership of 563 but rather that a loco that had secure accessible undercover storage for the vast majority of its preservation life has gone to a line without such storage available.

Tom

 

Well not every line is as well endowned with such things as your's is Tom, though it would be great if they were... It's already been said many times before of the railway's lack of accommodation, but it's something that their more then aware and will no doubt be working on addressing, especially with 563 now in their care.

Though right now their hoping to get it assessed for being restored to steam, something I'm sure most of us would love to see and support wholeheartedly.

 

The editorial in the latest Beano echoes many of the concerns raised in this thread. The mag posed a number of questions to the NRM along similar lines to those here. The reply from NRM published does not respond to the questions directly, being much the same as the press release.

 

So tell me this, I read that the NRM transfer a fully restored GWR open wagon to the Welshpool Railway last year, following what I assume is the same process, said wagon is now on open display having spent I don't know how long at Sheldon and no-one bats an eyelid.

Why is it any different for a steam engine?

 

Because there are double standards we all employ depending on awareness and personal importance.

However, knowing nothing of said wagon, is it comparable in age or rarity?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk