LSWR T3 563

I think we can all certainly agree that there would perhaps be less anxiety and hostility towards this transferring of ownership, if we got more details in as to how and why this process was done in the first place. And I'm in total agreement too with both damianrhysmoore and Tim Light, there are questions that need answering. Unfortunately however, I fear we may never get that much out of them on this matter, for I don't recall them explaining that much when they got rid of NSR No.2... I truth I feel they have little concern for what enthusiast say or do these days, only when it involves the Flying Scotsman, but that's due to the public's avid interest with it.

In fact I'm getting an increasing suspicion that the NRM just does not have that much care or intention to utilise any of the other locomotives in it's collection besides Flying Scotsman, for it's a garenteed earner and been thoroughly overhauled to the point that they can do what they wish with it, without having to care for the preservataion of original materials on the engine. If they don't place it on a long term loan with little supervision so as to allow the custodians to do what they will with it (i.e. Oliver Cromwell, Sir Lamiel and possibly the T9 and Beatie Tank), then clearly it appears they'll simply just transfer ownership from now on, for they have zero interest in running or supervising anything else now beside 4472. Everything else seems almost an inconvience to them now, ones which they appear more then willing to be rid of if it frees up space in their tightly packed museums.

Having said all that, on the fun question of what engine in theory could be freed up next, I'd love to see one of the GNR Atlantics go, and how about that NER 2-4-0 at Bressingham going to the NNR to join the others of it's company? Now there's an unloved, unseen engine that could have it's fortunes changed if given up to somewhere like the NNR.

 

I get the outrage expressed in this thread but hasn't the NRM sold off iconic items previously? Wasn't 70000 Britannia sold in 1970 or so ?

As much as I don't like the NRM (or any National Museum) releasing items that at some point were deemed important enough to save in the first place, I am in two minds whether donating or selling an item is/would have been the better option.

Now I have no axe to grind with the Swanage Railway and would feel the same if the NRM gifted anything to any other body but if the T3 was sold to the highest bidder with conditions that it stay in the UK and that the purchaser could exhibit the means to preserve/conserve/steam the locomotive and the proceeds went to the ongoing upkeep of the NRM then I think that the release from the national collection would at the very least benefited the NRM. They could always of added a first refusal buy/back option as a clause to the sale as well.

It just feels wrong to give away the family silver like this (and yes selling would be just as bad) and again I feel right now apart from the Swange Railway I'm not sure the NRM have much support for their actions.

Also I find it strange that the Swanage have no public accessible covered storage, no budget to 'preserve/conserve/steam' only a plan and an appeal for funds to the public to achieve their aims. Again I have no axe to grind with the Swanage but I would have preferred to see this engine on loan to them for say 10 years instead of gifted.

Now that said I find it at odds with business sense that a artifact that has been generating some revenue in 2 recent short term arrangements (Canada and Kings Cross filming) and some obvious interest from the public/film makers/SST etc that the NRM would let it go. Maybe I just don't see the whole picture.

What this whole affair says to me is when will the Mid Hants make the case for Lord Nelson and the Schools they have on loan, after all the V class is just a shortened Nelson and 850 looks like a big S15 and they are not rare, what about that Saint at Swindon, aren't Didcot making a new one? all Western locos look the same so when will the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway make their case for it... or perhaps Evening Star to the S&D trust as 92220 hauled the last Pines in '62.

Thin end of the wedge you say? well we must make room for the planned arrival of a representative from the glory age of Sprinters, Electrostars and class 66s.

 

A couple of really good posts above (IMO).

It's true that we don't see the big picture, but that doesn't disqualify us from having an opinion. In fact the NRM are, indirectly, our servants, and there should be complete transparency into their strategy and transactions. The fact that this transfer of ownership has, once again, been conducted in complete secrecy shows that the NRM has total contempt for its stakeholders. Nobody has been given the opportunity to object or raise concerns. A public treasure has been given away without consulting the public.

The NRM might consider that the opinions of railway enthusiasts are no more valid than anyone else's, but we are the people who really care about our railway heritage, and our collective knowledge of the subject surely outweighs that of the people employed to care for the National Collection.

 

AFAIK Britannia never formally belonged to the NRM. She was passed over for a place in the National Collection, although previously listed as being intended to be 'saved for the nation', when 70013 became the last BR owned steam locomotive to be fully overhauled at Crewe Works. Fortunately her status still meant that she wasn't immediately consigned to a scrapyard, but time was given for a group to form and buy her. A very lucky lady...

 

I'm sure we'd like to think it does, but I fear most of us are rather ignorant of the practicalities of what it takes to care for such a collection. I suspect the problems and priorities are quite different even from what it takes to keep a locomotive running on a preserved line.

 

I find it difficult to believe that long standing curators, archivists and patrons of the museum do not possess the required knowledge to make decisions on the national collection.

Suggesting that railway enthusiasts collectively have more knowledge - knowledge of what? It's not all about tractive effort, number preserved, etc. They're primarily telling a story of railways.

I have mixed feelings on gifting the locomotive but there's no doubt in my mind that it a) wasn't an easy decision and b) wasn't made lightly.

This opens up opportunities for not often seen exhibits to go to places where they can and will be seen.

Don't take it as an excuse to start wishlisting though - I doubt it's as easy as matching locos to museums and railways.

If there is one lesson to be learned? Enthusiasts would like more advance notice to put their views forward. That seems reasonable to me, a fair compromise.

 

The NRM and its parent the Science Museum Group have their policies available on-line. There are many of them and they are not always clearly linked. This is the current plan:

https://group.sciencemuseum.org.uk/...16-17-Plan-final-minus-SM-annexe-01-06-16.pdf

It is written in typically opaque contemporary management language but I suspect it means that the NRM is going to change in ways that many ageing railway enthusiasts will find unattractive.

 

A couple of points:-

Firstly, whatever one's feelings about the NRM giving this loco away, no one can have any grounds to criticise the Swanage Railway for saying "thank you very much". Whether its future is to be static or as a working locomotive, it will be very much appreciated in its new home and no doubt, well cared for.

Secondly, it is most enlightening to compare by wheel arrangement the ratio of locomotives in public and private ownership. There are two 4-4-0s in the Scottish collection plus Morayshire which, I believe is owned by the Royal Scottish Museum in Edinburgh. The NRM owns eight 4-4-0s by my calculations. This makes a total of 11 against three in private ownership (926, 928 and 3217/9017). Also, the NRM owns more 4-4-0s than Pacifics, 4-6-0s or 2-6-0s. If the NRM has been saying "We need to thin out our existing collection slightly," a 4-4-0 would be the obvious choice to discard and superb machine as No. 563 is, it does not have the profile of,say, City of Truro, the Midland Compound or the T9.

 

I'm sure they would. But I very much doubt that either the NRM or the Swanage Railway were in favour of providing the opportunity for a campaign opposed to the disposal of the locomotive to get going. Much easier to present the world with a fait accompli. Some of the most misleading weasel words in public sector management these days are "no decision has yet been made" which all too often means "we've been planning this for months, its full speed ahead and it just needs to be rubber stamped by the committee"

I suppose the next on the list will be whether they feel they need all three of a Star, a Castle and a King...

 

I would agree with this. What I had in mind, though, was a knowledge of railway history, and the place of various railway artefacts within that story.

I can't see the harm in having an open debate about the future of items belonging to the National Collection. You would, of course, get a wide spread of opinions, but that would only enrich the discussion an enable more informed decisions to be made.

 

The preserved Atlantics the two GNR C1s. The large boiler C1 251 is currently at NRM Shildon and the small boiler C1 990 Henry Oakley currently at NRM York. The two were at Bressingham a flew years but have since moved.

 

Or even a well reasoned worded explanation from the curator rather than the usual NRM press release which seem to veer between the banal and passive aggression.

 

where do you give them to though? I reckon the Star would be kept and the obvious GWS already have both of the others. That leaves SVR, G&WR, WSR and possibly a couple of the smaller GW lines . Would any of them take on another 4-6-0? I guess the answer would have to be Yes

 

I think a separate thread is needed where the NRM policy can be debated, and where the museum curators are given every right to reply,
As regards 563, at least the Swanage railway can now look at appealing for funds to restore her, and can do what ever is needed to achieve that aim, under the NRM ,that would never have been possible, i believe that any appeal to restore this victorian gem to steam, will be very popular, and that the engine will be a very popular engine not just on the Swanage Railway, but equally on other railways, such as the Bluebell, and Mid hants, a line up of T3, T9, S15, V would be something worth working to same as the M7 and T3, or once 499 comes out, in LSWR, condition , seeing that one day at Corfe Castle, on some restored wagons, waiting to cross 563 with 2 ironclads.

 

That's going to be a very one sided thread since the NRM curator (@Anthony Coulls) no longer posts on this site. I believe there was an issue some time ago that led to his withdrawal from posting, although he appears to still read the forum from time to time.

A great loss to the forum in my opinion.

Keith

 

Copied from post 95:
Right, here we go folks. After looking at the SR Facebook page it seems that people on there have been asking the same questions posted on NP.
Below are the two responses so far from the SR. (Yes, she will be "bathing in the salty sea air" at Swanage for a while ).

We are currently working through the options as to where T3 563 will be on display for a period of time most probably at Swanage Station. It is a long term aspiration to restore her to full working order but presently there are no funded plans to do so.
17 · 6 hrs
View previous replies

Swanage Railway As stated it is an aspiration to restore her to full working order. To achieve that a significant sum of money will be required. Currently the SR is raising funds for a number of major projects including the Swanage Water Tower project, the Moguls (3) project, the Swanage Pit Project. Neverthless anything is possible and we are confident that in the long term such a restoration will be achieved.

It would seen that there are a few projects in the queue already which require funding/appeals. As I pointed out in a previous post the words 'long term' are quite significant I believe.

 

I for one would certainly dig into my pockets if 563 were to be restored, but it clearly isn't a priority at the moment as the post above has reminded us. If the Bluebell was to launch an appeal to restore 488, however, loyalties (and hard-earned dosh) might be a little divided! What a sight these two LSWR gems would make in steam together. Shame that as far as I am aware, at the moment there's only one LSWR coach in working order - 1520 at the Bluebell and this is a brake vehicle. There's also 320, one of the first two coaches the Bluebell purchased and similar in profile to 1520 but which has been out of use for many years, plus 494, which has never run on the line.

 

As a supporter of Swanage Railway I feel compelled to defend our benefactor with a few facts & responses. I'm not picking on anyone in particular but its just that OldChap has eloquently and concisely made many of the points conveniently just up thread.

Ensuring that the beneficiary of their gift "exhibit the means to preserve/conserve/steam the locomotive" is I assume part of the lengthy deaccession process that the NRM followed and I think that most would agree that Swanage can meet this test.

Any fee that the beneficiary pays obviously detracts from their funds available to "to preserve/conserve/steam the locomotive" so although selling the loco might be better for the Science Museum Group it may not be better for the locomotive and the public enjoyment of it. Isnt it that what most enthusiasts here want at the end of the day? For them and others to be able to enjoy it?

If the T3 were sold to the highest bidder, how do you insure that is is displayed in the correct context? What if the highest bidder was the Paignton and Dartmouth Railway? No offence intended to them but surly the intention here id for it to go to a LSWR line close to where it operated and where it can enhance the story of LSWR and its successors.

How would you know if they haven't?

What suggestions would others make for a better home? Although the IOW now has Train Story, the loco isnt really appropiate to the island. The MHR already has a full stable of NRM locos and guess what? These are mostly kept in the open. I'm not sure that the situation at Bodmin and Wenford is much different to the aforementioned.

The T3 hasn't been publicly accessible for a long time unless you call buying a ticket to a stage show for a short glimpse of it from afar publicly accessible. If it returned to the NRM it was probably unlikely to get much exposure.

The NRM will i'm sure be a powerful ally in raising the capital required to preserve/conserve/steam' be it grant funding or benefactors. This will probably enable Swanage to make the loco more available that the NRM could, perhaps even being the catalyst and centerpiece of something like Train Story for Swanage.

The problem with a 10 year agreement is several fold;
1/. If you are overhauling a loco that you own or have long term security over then you can make long a term investment in it. If you only have a 10 year deal you would tend invest just enough to see it through the agreement and it tends to finish the agreement term totally nackerd as it gets decreasing investment and more cheap quick fixes as the end approaches. Again this is not good for the loco or long term public enjoyment of it.
2/.If you are applying for grant funding a lot of bodies require you to own or have a 100 year security over the asset that is the subject of the application.
Its inherently a lot easier to raise money for something you own.
3/.If you are planning to return it to steam, By the time you have overhauled it a large part of the 10 year agreement will have expired. Realistically 15 - 20 would be a minimum period but still presents the problems above. If you are going to construct a display building around it, how could a heratage railway of limited means justify the investment? Again this is not conducive to the public enjoyment of the loco.
4/. taking up john Petleys point in post #189, if they retain everything, in 10,15 or 30 years time they would still have more 4-4-0s than they can justify.
5/. If the loan agreement is going to belong enough to satisfy the points above you probably will have been better just gifting it as continuing to have it 'on your books' at the very least implies some admin overhead and probably a lot more for a museum like the NRM to discharge its duty to monitor its asset.

I think it no coincidence that the transfer took place only at the end of these contracts.

Finally isnt it a good thing that the NRM are not only supporting the rich history of railways via their own assets and locations but also by supporting all the heratage railways of the UK who collectively probably have a bigger footfall (or however else you want to measure exposure/ awareness/ education/ enjoyment/ preservation) than the NRM itself?

 

Compared with any other appeal for funds, i think that the railway would have more success with a fund for 563 than any other engine, because of the following reasons,
1 its owned by the railway, not someone else,
2 its a very distinctive engine with rarity value
3 there is nothing like it already on the line, once 31874 is done, thats 2 Maunsell Mogols, in traffic, funds may not be as forthcoming for 31625,
4 it should once restored , be in demand for hire if the line so wished, and would make an ideal flag ship engine for the railway
5 it should hopefully have all its bits, so no motion to make and depending on the mechanical state of the engine be no worse than any other .