Flying Scotsman

The report can be made available by emailing pressoffice@nrm.org.uk and asking nicely. I am reading through it now and it makes interesting reading. Many thanks to the NRM for making it readily available.

 

Not that readily available is it…? I wonder why they're not just sticking it on their website; not like it costs more than a few pennies to share it…

Simon

 

Try this link Flying Scotsman report published - About us - National Railway Museum

 

Thanks, but I think that's just a link to the press release again, unless I'm missing something? It's not on their 'reports' page either. I'm going to assume cock-up rather than conspiracy; press officers the world over aren't very good at this modern computer stuff.

Simon

 

hmm..

FCP Homepage

The report does take aim at the "Cottage industry" of Heritage Railway Engineering..

My Opinion :

I dont this will be cheap, nor will it be driven by the heart, but more by the balance sheet, project manager and a viable business case... of course this may incurr additional management costs not previously considered (or assumed in volunteer effort).. which may reduce viabilty of some future restoration projects yet further when tested against financial measures. (Is this a bad thing for the hobby and a good thing for the tax payer ?..)

I can't envisage many situations whereby a consultants recommendation to resolve weaknesses identified would be to not use the services the consultant has to offer themselves, at a cost, as a method of that reducing risk..

I hope FCP has experience in the Heritage Rail Sector, it may yet be a bumpy ride..when it comes to approaching those "cottages" with proposals but equally a much more expensive (and less risky) option if it went to the "corporate commercial" industry for work instead of the "cottage".

 

Consultants? Pah! Wast of time and money IMHO. Given the in depth report by Bob Meanley, why does the NRM feel the need to engage a consultancy firm?

 

One can only hope that FCP have expert knowledge of Gresley valve gear.

 

As I said at the time, and will continue to, of course there are things which needed to be reported; there were without doubt, mistakes made and some serious happenstances which have led to the situation we have now.

However it is the manner in which he pursued his story which was tabloid journalism at its worst, and frankly targeting both the wrong man and the wrong people for his derision in his extremely rude interviews.

There are means and ways of going about it; the way he did more or less slammed and derided one man who cannot in any way be held personally and solely accountable for 4472's troubles. Frankly it can be argued quite proficiently that Steam Railway Magazine as a whole have not helped 4472's fortunes particularly (despite donations indicating the contrary) over the past decade in the NRM's ownership.

Bob Meanley has indeed written a fair, considered and extensive report. It lays the blame at the door of change of leadership, lack of knowledge, lack of structure and lack of decision making. The NRM must make sure this does not happen again for any project and must put into place levels of compliance to an agreed standard of structure and engineering, so that this will be prevented in future on all major projects.

 

Whilst commending Bob Meanley for his report in which, in the parts that I have read, facts rather than opinions have been fairly reported that does not excuse the aggressive interrogation of Steve Davies by David Wilcock which I found extremely disrespectful. Steve Davies as director of the NRM deserves a degree of support that the interview did not show; it appeared to be a case of a discussion in the headmaster's study with David playing the role of headmaster ! Not quite the scenario one expects of a guest in the director's office !

I accept that David has a reputation for "getting at the facts" but to do so in the aggressive manner revealed in the printed interview is simply unacceptable - so no apology from this critic.

 

Agreed. A non-stop tirade solely aimed at getting Steve Davies to admit he was 'humiliated' by the events was, in fact, not 'getting at the facts" at all. I doubt this formed any part of Bob's report. So no apology from me either.

 

No, there are ways and means. The interview was overly aggressive and a more inquisatorial, rather than adversarial, style may actually have got closer to the facts of what happened, rather than choosing a style calculated to gain headlines but equally calculated to make one of the main "witnesses" (for want of a better word) go on the defensive.

And equally, looking forward, suppose Steam Railway wants to run further articles explaining what happened to FS over its time in preservation. How likely do you think it is that other key players will willingly give an interview to them? If I were, for the sake of argument, someone who had played a key role in owning / maintaining / operating FS perhaps 10 or so years ago, but was now out of the picture, I'd hardly be lining up to return SR's phone calls when there was no compulsion to do so. So I think they may have shot themselves in the foot a bit. In the end, railway preservation is a small world, and the comics need the heritage movement for their stories to fill each monthly magazine every bit as much as the movement needs the comics for publicity. So while I certainly wouldn't want to stifle honest investigative reporting or exposure of genuine scandals, that article was simply crass and the wrong way to go about that aim.

So in as much as I was a critic of DW first time round, no apology from me.

Tom

 

The full report available as a PDF on http://www.nrm.org.uk/aboutus/~/media/Files/NRM/PDF/Scotsman.ashx

 

Very helpful - thanks.

 

Tom - could not have put it better myself. Well said sir.

 

A well prepared report that raises a fundamental point that might be worth developing - if the NRM is the National RAIL Museum should its remit also cover the fostering of engineering skills through such initiatives as apprenticeships and, in conjunction with specialist heritage lines, develop the range of skills required to keep steam locomotives operational.

Bob Meanley's report highlights that (a) the skills are present but, given the age of many persons, are likely to be in need of replacement (b) the Museum needs to increase the specific railway skills because the general engineering firms have no experience of the specialist needs of the "wheel on rail" interaction on metals and (c) the Museum needs to be able to call on the necessary skills if it is to retain the ability to operate steam locomotives on the main line.

In fairness the Meanley report has much to record on the problems of other owners of main-line steam locomotives, although these are specifically directed at the NRM experience. but my immediate thought in this is whether the report should lead to the NRM having a greater interface with the Heritage Industry to both co-ordinate and encourage the pool of railway skills and even whether the NRM should take a lead in this relationship.

In conclusion I think Bob Meanley's report has not only served the NRM well but has also provided a document that must encourage the Heritage Movement to think carefully about its longer term future. He has not only served the NRM well but also the heritage movement - and the movement will be all the better for acting on it.

 

I concur with all that....but why the need for consultants?......a waste of taxpayers money......

 

Agreed. As Bob Meanley has identified the failings in his comprehensive report, surely the NRM and any contractors involved should be able to act upon it themselves.

 

Congratulations Bob a very good indepth report let's hope other group's take notice before they buy loco's