LSWR T3 563

Yes I think you are, the Collection is vast and many items will be found to be not necessary to the telling of the story. I'd suggest it is better to have items gifted now to reputable bodies than auctioned off to the highest bidder later on.

 

That'd be fair comment, if the argument in the blog weren't that 563 is able to benefit from not being under the constraints of NRM ownership.

 

Accepting we are where we are with this, the pro deaccession argument remains considerably less supportable IMHO.
Noted that the latest Steam Beano carried reports of an MP raising this via select committee plus ex NRM head openly questioning the process and decision.

 

But surely, does the blog not suggest that this is general museum practice, just applied to railway vehciles?

 

At the risk of thread drift, when is it going? It's one of my favourite exhibits and I'd like to see it again before it's stored or whatever becomes of it.

 

It's going to be at Corfe Castle until the end of September.

 

As mentioned above, NRM ownership comes with tighter "rules" which don't apply to all the privately- and railway-owned locos you see working today. Many of them wouldn't be working if they were restored under NRM requirements, as the constraints and costs would be prohibitive.

You should only be concerned if the Swanage Railway had a poor record of restorating or operating steam locos.

The nearest equivalent I can think of is listed building consent. By deaccessioning, this loco has moved from Grade 1 to maybe Grade 2*, giving more flexibility to the owner in how it can be restored or maintained. That doesn't stop them restoring it to Grade 1 standard but it gives them more scope.

 

The media will always find people who disagree with a decision. That's their job. However "Steam Railway" doesn't have a great record of balanced viewpoints - they tend to look for the tabloid headline to get more readers.

Also, I'm not specifically in favour of deaccessioning or the NRM. I just think museums should have the scope to review what they're doing within their funding and resources, and within agreed rules, and not be tied to earlier decisions forever. They are looking at railway history, not individual locos or wheel arrangements. What may have been significant back in the day may become less important years later. The world moves on, and so should they.

 

I meant 35029.

 

Post deleted (duplicate)

 

Does someone know something else about 35029's longer term future then,
Joking apart, if a decision has been made to take 35029 off display, who would want it? i suppose Hoskin might if 35022 were used as a donor to replace the butchered parts .

 

Seems 35029 is going to Corfe Castle in September.

 

I follow, but still don't understand how a reduction in the level of listing (to use your analogy) helps the future of a locomotive - or why it's a good idea that it should. I can see that - just - relaxation may help if steaming is being considered, but the blog post doesn't mention steaming at all.

 

Well, if the alternatives are disposal or scrapping, and disposal is only possible if the "level of listing" is reduced, then the relaxation does help its future. The trouble is, in these days of relentless positive spin on everything, its no longer possible to admit that something is a least worst option. Its pretty clear that keeping 563 in the National collection was not an option on the table. It also seems evident there was no other suitable organisation willing to take the locomotive on who would be able to give it the same standard of care that has enabled it to be preserved in good order under cover for the last 70 years or so. So here we are.

 

If that is the choice, then yes, I agree. But I wasn't aware that the choice was framed in those terms - or that the NRM were considering such radical measures.

 

Well, that's the age of spin for you. With a bit of experience in reading such papers its clear to me from the NRM paper that keeping the locomotive in the National collection was not an option on the table. The rest follows logically. I doubt it was ever framed in such brutal terms: bureaucracies try to avoid such a level of plain speaking. Nevertheless the fact is that if you are determined not to keep something, the only alternatives are disposal or destruction. If destruction is unthinkable then you must dispose of it, and if acceptable potential recipients will only accept it under certain terms, then you really have no alternative but to agree to those terms.

When I worked in a bureaucracy I tended to get in trouble for too much plain speaking. I recall a supplier taking us to a reference site, and when the supplier was out of the room saying "OK, with all the advantages of hindsight, would you still buy it now?"
My colleagues were appalled: "you can't ask him that, its not fair"
I said, "why not, its what we want to know isn't it?"

 

I am coming around to understanding the NRM's reasoning. An item in the national collection enjoys certain benefits and is subject to certain constraints. They decided that 563 in particular did not desperately need all those benefits and that they would prefer to use the space and resources for something else, while the different benefits and constraints that would apply to 563 itself, if de-accessioned and transferred to an appropriate new owner, would be reasonable and even an improvement. So they did have valid reasons for their decision and it was taken in accordance with procedure. We're still entitled to our personal opinions as to whether the decision was right or wrong, and our opinions may evolve as Swanage's plans develop.

 

I'm not convinced it was as binary as that - rather that there was a lot of pressure to offload a cost liability.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-40107476

 

That is my assessment too. It is what concerned me from the outset, an arbitrary policy target imposed with managers expected to comply within an equally arbitrary deadline.
My interpretation is not intended to cast any slur on either Swanage or NRM. Best of a bad job hopefully has a very happy end outcome.