North Staffordshire 0-6-2T

From what a previous poster was saying, the cost to the NRM of loaning an item is low. However, the cost of recovering it and remediating any damage can be very high.

So I don't really buy the "Management Cost" argument. What can it possibly cost to have a vehicle out on loan? Especially if the receiving organisation is committing its own resources to the conservation of the item?

 

OK so not my last post was not my final say but this IS my final say. You are not convinced of the costs for management - well from what I've seen from the NRN they go about things in a professional way, but lets look at how I would charge for such a thing.

Lets just assume the loco stays just as it is stuffed and mounted and on display, what's reasonable let's assume one visit a year just to check they are keeping to the terms of any agreement. I have no idea what the daily rates are for NRM operatives but my company used to charge me out @ £475/day + expences. So by the time you've done all that and written a report on return to the office your easily talking the neck end £700-£900 now lets assume you have 20-30 vehicles up and down the country it soon starts to mount up. Then you add any additional inspections when a loco is overhauled and the costs go up again and that could easily amount to the cost of one member of staff. Now do you see - if you don't go and ask someone else I'm tired of this . . . . .

 

It also misses the point that there already are a huge number of NRM items out on loan at many different railways.

 

So the question is, is it worth £1K a year of public money to keep a unique pre-grouping 0-6-2T in the National Collection? I think so.

 

It is perfectly proper for a magazine to look at this story and ask pertinent questions - that is good journalism. What is disappointing is that the article leans towards the dramatic.

If the loco is returned to steam one day a visit to CVR metals would surely be high on the priority list.

Jon

 

If it had then there would be zero chance of it ever steaming again, personally I would rather see it working at Foxfield

 

I suggest that Johnb was saying that whilst in the care of the NRM NSR2 would be competing for restoration with many other items hence would be well down the queue for attention whilst its move to Foxfield will allow its priority to be upgraded and see a quicker return to service by those more interested in that specific item. I also interpret his posting as suggesting that that situation would apply whether the transfer was by way of loan or gift. The essential point is that NSR2 has "come home" to its spiritual environment with the happy co-incidence of combining both the NSR and colliery elements of its life story.

 

A little point. In its current condition NSR No.2 (or is it 72?) is not representative of a pre-grouping 0-6-2T, what it is representative of is an ex mainline locomotive that has been extensively modified to suit a colliery railway environment. To return it to pre-grouping condition would entail a major rebuild including a brand new boiler and extensive de-modifications to other elements of the locomotive. To return it to steam as it stands will be a much less involved process although it will be costly due to the previous owners getting every penny out of their asset meaning it is looking at an extensive major overhaul including new tyres on all driving wheels. Hopefully everyone who has expressed support for Foxfield's intentions to return No2 to steam will be happy to assist when the appeal for funds goes out in the not too distant future...

When restored it is unlikely the loco will find regular work at Foxfield due to its size and suitability and it is more likely it will act as a roving ambassador for North Staffordshire on visits around the country and yes, the Churnet Valley will echo to the sounds of a (modified) New L tank again.

 

One could argue that that history enhances rather than reduces the value of the locomotive to the National Collection - ex-mainline locos sold off to industrial concerns (and possibly then subsequently re-boilered and having other modifications) was an important part of railway history, but not well represented in the National Collection. So as part of the National Collection, the loco was representative of both a specific pre-grouping company, but could also tell the story of how old locomotives often lived on for a second career in industry once their mainline careers had finished. What other loco in the National Collection could tell that story?

I'm with @The Saggin' Dragon here: I have no objection to the locomotive going to Foxfield as a loan (either for display or to be put back into steam), but I can't see what advantage there was in transferring ownership.

Tom

 

I thought it might be useful to quote Anthony Coulls' explanation on disposals from the collection he gave in a previous thread elsewhere within this forum on this very subject.

"Our criteria for disposal are - poor condition/duplication/unsuitable for collection/more suitable for another museum
If an item is considered for disposal, I then make up a case which I present to our internal Board of Survey, where it is peer reviewed by colleagues from the NRM and across the Science Museum Group, and searching questions are asked.
The Board may then recommend disposal or they may refuse it - I have had both
If it is approved, then the case goes to the Science Museum Collections & Research Group for ratification or otherwise
It then gets taken to the Railway Heritage Designation Advisory Board who may make comments or recommendations
Then it goes to Science Museum Group Trustees for their approval and sign off

If Trustees sign it off, we can then offer it to a suitable recipient, who may or may not have already be identified.
Items for whom there is not a readily identifiable recipient go here, where the process is outlined again:

http://group.sciencemuseum.org.uk/object-disposal/

I hope that makes sense and explains that it is not being done on a whim. There has been a big review of signalling collections in recent times and there will be more. It's all about sustainable and responsible management of the collection."

 

Why does it need to be in steam? If the aforementioned journalist had done some proper research, he would be aware CVR and FR people are in fairy regular contact and the insinuation of disapproval & conflict amongst members from both railways is practically non-existent. As I've messaged Steam Railway, that article was something more akin to The S** than a magazine supporting the hobby it's meant to represent. Hopefully it's not caused too much damage to plans in the pipeline to help celebrate both CVR25 and Foxfield50 in 2017.

 

It certainly hasn't, Foxfield are well aware of the intentions of the article, which was aimed squarely at the NRM, and how it was put together, and I know discussions are ongoing regarding the celebrations of both railways and how we can work together as we have succesfully done in the past and will continue to do so.

 

Showing my ignorance but was the loco made part of the national collection on preservation or when the Shugborough collection was dispersed in 1984?

Jon