Flying Scotsman

What? You want consistency? Whatever next...

Tom

 

I very rarely read the railway media so I have no idea what is being said or why but I do see a recurring trend that is a bit concerning.

Steam Railway are perfectly entitled to report the overhaul of 4472 however they like. If they wish to portray it as a disaster for the NRM then they have enough evidence to reinforce their perspective. I'm not sure why people think that the railway media should be nice to 'poor old NRM'. There's obviously been some mistakes made with 4472 and it deserves some of the criticism that is coming its way. Whether people think Steam Railway is going too far is up to their own judgement but the editor and his reporters/contributors are entitled to express whatever opinion they feel provided they have facts to back up their assertions. At the end of the day Steam Railway needs to sell magazines and the approach by the editor reflects the ethos of the magazine all through its history - it's attitude has always been to go for the jugular and run sensationalist headlines. I'm not sure why people are suddenly upset about this now when it's been doing it for a long time. There are alternative magazines that cover the heritage sector for people to buy.

If the NRM has decided that it no longer wants to talk to Steam Railway then that is a poor decision that looks very childish. Big institutions (as well as little ones) have to engage their critics, regardless of what is said about them. Simply refusing to talk to a media organisation because it writes nasty things about them is immature. Imagine what would happen if the government simply refused to speak to newspapers that are critical of its policies. At some point both the NRM and Steam Railway will need each other again and a reconciliation will have to happen. Hopefully both sides can move on.

 

As much as I dislike the tone, attitude and 'paint everything black' ranting of David Wilcock I must admit that I actually (and begrudgingly) agreed with his latest article in Steam Beano regarding the repatriation of the two door wedges. The bill for this exercise is going to be colossal and it is one that will be found to the detriment of the NRM's own collection. There was no need to bring them over at all bar the fleeting enjoyment for a few that will photograph them and then disappear and demand something else be organised so they can point a lens at it a few months later. Todays magazine covers with the six together are tomorrows recycling fodder. The bill for this jamboree will be there long after. The money and resources could have gone into something tangible and permanent such as the 2500 overhaul. When the party is over two other foreign museums will have had there assets refreshed and returned courtesy of the NRM - and ultimately the UK tax payers.

With regard to 4472, after the public shaming and humiliation of the NRM's engineering team and the replacement of Steve Davies with a Bean Counter I'm not exactly hopeful that anything else will ever be restored or released by the NRM for restoration to working order. After all, they are a museum and museums core objectives are to conserve and display to the public at large. It isn't a giant toy-box for ungrateful anoraks to raid at their leisure. Why on earth would the management team put themselves through all this aggravation to be belittled and abused by the very people they are trying to please? Massive own goal folks - prepare to smell the brasso.

 

At last - two posts from Maunsell Man and Neil Scott that are not naive and show some understanding of the function of journalism. Steam Railway has been villified for years [i recall hearing the first 'Steam Beano' reference back in the 1980s] by those who consider their own active involvement in railway preservation renders them superior in some way to those who are not, a sort of preservation freemasonary who are beyond criticism and who close ranks at the first sign of criticism with a 'none of your business' response. Sorry, that is not the case as mostly these are not private clubs but railways and centres that depend upon the general and railway public for their survival.95% of the content of Steam Railway is purely factual reporting of news from the various preservation centres, mainline tours etc, essential reading for anyone who is a provider or a consumer. However surely there has to be room for some investigative journalism or provoking of debate where , for example there are disagreements or disputes within particular societies -which is exactly what their items on 'Scotsman' have done given we are up to page 190 on this thread. In the case of the NRM public money is involved and there is a greater onus on that body to be transparent and responsive.

What some posts seem to be suggesting is that , if there are further delays in completing Scotsman, then everyone should just sit tight and wait for the NRM to make a statement. Try applying this logic to the West Coast franchise fiasco or the BBC/Jimmy Saville affair. Are we confident that , if a cock up has been made or,assuming that there is a problem created at an earlier date, and that the news is not good, those responsible are going to come forward with hands in the air of their own volition offering a mea culpa or an explanation unless invited to do so? If a paper or journal has a controversial story then there is the editorial responsibility to decide whether there is enough evidence to publish or not. If they publish and the information is incorrect they risk, at worst, legal proceedings, and at best making a grovelling apology and losing credibiity.

Either there is a newly discovered problem with 'Scotsman', or there is not, or the matter is still under investigation [which seems unlikely given the the scrutiny she has been given]. The NRM are aware of the interest and I have noted at least one of it's staff browsing this thread. The speculation could therefore be laid to rest right now with a simple statement.

 

I agree with you to an extent Neil - the magazines can report however they like. However sometimes it's not what is being said, it's how it is being said.

David Wilcock has thoroughly exasperated me several times during the course of 2011 and 2012 for two different railway magazines (!) and to be frank, his recent faux pas with regards the painting of Dwight D. Eisenhower (for which he put a very short apology in the middle of his article on the A4 repatriations this month - I'm sorry, that's not good enough: the apology to Heritage Painting should have been a separate section entirely) is yet another example of a writer very keen to push certain ideas but without doing the depth of research required, or simply not caring about the consequences of his actions.

That in itself is the point. Consequences. The Railway Magazines (all three) at some point have used the temporary A4 Pacific repatriations as a way of selling their magazines with lots of glossy double spreads, full page front covers, etc etc. If you read Wilcock's latest article on the costs for the repatriation and gathering, he admits he got his figures wrong (hopelessly wrong it seems) in the previous issue. So how credible is his argument, really?

Absolutely Neil, I don't disagree with you at all. That's where Bob Meanley's report and the next forthcoming one will come into play. Objectivity required when dealing with the criticism however: to start slating Paul Kirkman for 4472's overhaul would be unfair (but you know this will be the next card the railway magazines play. They did, after all, do the same thing to Steve Davies more or less).

Absolutely Neil, and you are right to bring that up. However, there's a level of hypocrisy in Steam Railway's approach which very much sickens me. They spend so much time and effort charging the NRM down and beating them up, so to speak, in their articles that the objectivity which Bob Meanley pulled off to great aplomb, does not exist. They are then surprised and "outraged" when the same said institution refuses to talk to the press or allow them to photograph the locomotive in question.

If Steam Railway are allowed to print story after story sensationalizing the whole affair, for which they accept absolutely no responsibility for the consequences of those actions, which cause a huge amount of damage to the NRM, then the NRM equally have every right to turn down requests for interviews and similar from them.

I can only see that happening if Steam Railway were to severely change their attitude to the NRM. In amidst Wilcock's article on the A4s, I noticed a mention of 4472 going BR dark green again - which rightly, the NRM should do. But is trying to hound out and humiliate all associated with 4472's latest overhaul the way to get what you want?

I believe criticism can be handed out by the railway magazines, and constructively instead of destructively.

We like to think the people running the railway magazines are all like us - passionate about railway preservation in this country and elsewhere. I've not seen very much to show for that where 4472 is concerned, more destructive and having one's cake and eating it with selling magazines than you would be comfortable with.

The bigger picture needs to be seen by all concerned. 4472 as an ambassador for the NRM and railway preservation in general, is at its best when it is in steam. To achieve that, the overhaul needs to be completed. Ergo, by all means, when they go wrong, point it out. But don't throw in the malicious and derisory tones on a constant basis. When you spend your entire time knocking someone down, eventually there's a point where they won't get back again. They'll have given up the fight. We are in danger of that with 4472.

I am not saying don't criticize where it is warranted.

I am saying do so with the bigger picture in mind and with the common goal of getting 4472 steaming again.

From where I'm sitting in my armchair (!), the bigger picture is being ignored by the railway mags, and Steam Railway in particular, in favour of an agenda.

Yet the big thing overlooked is the sponsorship for the whole event, for which the NRM has stated several times had covered the costs of both the travel of the A4s, and their restoration ultimately. If it is private individuals and companies covering the costs of those two significant portions of the "great gathering", then I have no problem (as a taxpayer) the NRM using the money they get (in donations and from their owning group) putting on a show for which it is guaranteed there will be thousands of people attending, spending money to get in and in the shops around the museum.

There will not be another opportunity like this in anyone's lifetime: and if, like me, you've seen them all singly but wished to see them in one place, you won't miss this.

Railfest unfortunately was hampered by significantly poor weather - I would expect the A4s to be next to each other on the turntable perhaps this time around, rather than outside!

A much better way of putting my own thoughts on the matter, well said Sir.

However may I add as a caveat, that I think the problems of 4472's overhaul may lead to more positive overhauls in the future on other items of NRM stock. Lessons learned and all that, I think we may get a wiser NRM out of it at the end of the day - but I think we could have had that without the appalling witch hunt over the last two years.

 

I do think its appalling that SR decided to publish an itemised list of expenses incurred by various contractors who had given their time for free to make this happen.

I don't see how this is appropriate or in the public interest. It does however demonstrate their prudence, there certainly was no corporate jolly or living it up large.. But not that SR was portraying it that way, indeed the only depth it mange to question was a night stop over in a Newark New Jersey hotel, having had the displeasure of several overnights in New Jersey I can definitely say that is not something I would relish !

Given this level of sensationalism, why would anyone offer to do anything for free for a public body again, if later, to have to read about your lunch bill in a railway mag is beyond me.

 

I won't quote it as it would make this post enormous, but the above from S.A.C Martin puts the points I am trying to make much better than perhaps I was...

My frustrations stem from the fact that there is a story to be researched and presented re 4472 as it has been poorly managed and delivered, but instead they just seem to take an angle and run with it researching half a story and running it as fact, there is lots of complaints regarding the mainstream media splashing poor storys then putting little apologies in later additions why should the railway media not be the same. Its all very well slating the NRM for mistakes (rightly so) but get your facts right, I have only followed this and the A4 story in passing but even I could pick holes in the mopst recent A4 missive and the carefully overlooked sponsorship issue.

Again i would agree that the NRM needs to engage with the media, but it needs to work witha professional media, the frankly laughable hatchet job that Wilcock tried to do on Davies was pathetic and following this I can understand that the NRM is loath to engage as there seems little point. Clever journalists get the story by clever questioning, not be acting like a petulant Paxman wannabe.

 

"a petulant Paxman wannabe" - you owe me a new keyboard for that one!

Mark

 

Quite. It must surely put folk off - that is, if the other things that have been flying about haven't already...

Mark

 

I think the NRM should admit they have not got the money to finish it, if they had it would have gone back to Bury and probably finished by now.

 

Would it?

 

Which is that we await FCP's report

 

Thank you Anthony. That should put an end to all the wibble and speculation then ......... shouldn't it?

 

I'm sorry-I don't know what I was thinking... ;-)

 

And will that report mention the latest concerns with the centre cylinder?

I haven't read SR - and don't intend to buy it, just for what most seem to feel is sensationalist reporting. The story likely has some basis in truth, however, as SR risk serious trouble if they simply made the story up.

Whilst NRM don't have to make any statement at all, it would be in their interests to make a statement of as much fact as they have available regarding the centre cylinder, simply to stop all the "wibbling and speculation". And if they don't wish to comment to the press, who may make money out of the news, there's a perfectly good forum available for disseminating the info.... :smile:

Perhaps the NRM have forgotten that we are on their side - even if it doesn't always seem that way.

 

I honestly don't understand the clamour for "make a statement, make a statement". The engine's not going anywhere. There's no rush. Why not - as the NRM appear to be doing (and very sensibly I might add) wait for the report before preparing a statement?

Rushing out some statement without all of the facts to hand would just make things worse in terms of the spin and sensationalizing we've seen.

I don't think it's fair to say the NRM have forgot the public - far from it: every NRM employee I have ever met has always had the public at the forefront of their mind, and their activities when working for the NRM.

 

Hear hear - and we're very pleased to have his presence, & also his contributions

Mark

 

Sorry to be pedantic Anthony but your comment suggests that the report is still awaited as at January 09 2013 whilst Steam Railway published 5 days earlier reads as though a report has been received - despite the article stating that the NRM has not confirmed that fact. Whilst the article also says the information came from "industry contacts" I'm afraid that the Press Office is giving the impression that the NRM has something to hide and the unwillingness of the new director to meet with the railway press seems - if not to suggest - to confirm the growing impression that all sections of the railway press have been identified as "the enemy".

Whilst we are grateful for the time taken by you and others to keep the public informed about what the NRM is doing and - more importantly - the rationale behind many of its activities it is interesting that the good public relations come from an outstation rather from the centre where it seems that the barricades to communication are well and truly up.

I can understand the concern at York when the expenses of those involved have been widely published despite Steve Davies pointing out that many of those costs had been "donated" to the project. It may be the case that for commercial / tax / accounting reasons the expenses were initially paid by the NRM but reimbursed by various contra agreements in which the NRM received benefits in kind and therefore subject to confidentiality which the latest Steam Railway revelation does little to encourage.

I am concerned however that the constant state of attrition between SR and the NRM has led to the NRM refusing to discuss anything with the press simply because one magazine has adopted a policy that upsets it; if the NRM is concerned about a particular magazine / writer / publisher then by all means take the necessary actions including refusing it access but do NOT cut the rest of the interested parties off from communication with the NRM because of one errant sector of the press.

Whilst grateful to Anthony for his continued willingness to communicate with the public, the NRM needs to appreciate that the NATIONAL Rail Nuseum is valued and supported as much by its public as by its staff and that communication with that public either by internet or press is the only way to retain that support; the current policy of not communicating simply lends credence to the view that the NRM "has something to hide".

 

I will tell folks what I can. And that is that I am not aware of the report having been published yet.

I work for the NRM, and that is York AND Shildon - so my base is whichever keyboard I happen to sit at. Yesterday it was York, today it is Shildon.