LSWR T3 563

Plus as for this ongoing issue of undercover storage, this is clearly an issue Swanage recognise and are working to resolve, and have such treasures as 563 will help to gain that bit more support for such an endeavour. Technically by having other LSWR carriages coming along, even if unrestored, that would help to get support and grant funding all the more. I for one wold never want to dilute what the Bluebell has, but at the same time, I view the preservation movement as a whole. If there are items that are clearly not as appropriate or needed on one railway, why not have them go to another where they would? Why insist on retaining something that really has little place or need in your collection?[/QUOTE]

The Bluebell has four LSWR coaches. 1520 the restored lavatory brake third, 494 a corridor third, 320 / 1288 a 58' lavatory compartment third and 25 a 6-wheel first saloon. 320 was one of the first two coaches to be acquired by the Bluebell and as such is unlikely to be relinquished, It will also require major structural repairs - the bottom rail is shot - it sits directly on an underframe that is slightly too wide for it - the coach was a prototype for the conversion of 48' bogies stock to 58' by the insertion of an extra compartment and a couple of lavatories. The northern half was stripped to a frame about 40 years ago and then left tarpaulined over.
494 is a corridor third and would find a place in our Maunsell early SR train. This type of coach was the most common Maunsell design but only 2356 (also at Horsted Keynes) survives and this is in very poor condition. 494 is, by comparison, an almost complete vehicle!
25, by virtue of its later conversion to a first brake, is a likely candidate for restoration as a wheel chair access vehicle for a very diverse LSWR rake or the 4-wheel LBSCR set. It was acquired along with 668 (LCDR 5-compartment third) from Yarcombe in Devon which was restored to traffic last summer as SECR 3188. If the Mid Hants continue to show an interest in developing a Victorian 4 or 6 wheeled train by acquiring more grounded LSWR bodies then this coach could be offered to them on a similar long term loan to Bullied 1456. (They have recently acquired a first /second composite from the Sussex coast.)

Dave (Bluebell C&W) These views are mine and not necessarily those of the rest of the department or the railway

 

My old gripe is the LBSCR Directors Coach on the Bluebell out of use in the open sheeted over for the last 30 years.

I think the idea of partial disposing of the National Collection of the NRM is rather silly. It is the sort of thing that would suggest a parliamentary inquiry and questions asked in the House. However If I were to consider any artefact in the National Collection for disposal I would not consider 563 in any such list - but this has happened much to my concern and regret and leaves me wondering what next? It isnt a case of selling off the family silver, but giving it away without regard for what may happen to it in the future.

I really do think it is time for a detailed press release re 563 by the Swanage other than last week's press release to address all the concerns expressed on here and elsewhere.

Cheers,
Julian

 

A gripe that we share, for I always thought surely a southern orientated observation coach made more sense then the other two it has. I know they say they got higher priorities, but all the same it gives a odd impression the railway's objectives in persuing a southern railway feeling in total, is somewhat conflicted by some locos and coaches that really just look misplaced on their line, yet get so much attention to being kept running.

Agreed, but repeatedly asking and stating their needs to be one on this forum won't help or change matters much... Just the facts as they are.

 

Ooh sir! May I suggest the following. 6229 - PRCLT West Shed Swanick
42500 - Riley and Son Heywood
2517 - Bridgnorth SVR
4003 - Anywhere GW connected!

 

Several things wrong with your list - one of the criteria was for duplication of type and I can only see one such and that is the last one. And I thought one of the things was they are to be given to charitable organizations so your second one is not only not a duplicate (how many other modern(ish) tank locos are in the collection) but also to a commercial company err sorry no thanks. If you do however think all this mindless speculation will change the NRM selection process I would think your somewhat wide of the mark.

 

My fault. It wasn't mindless speculation, it was irony. Maybe I should have punctuated with a smiley to make it more obvious.

 

Time to stand back methinks and look at what is happening. The NRM is weeding out its ever-growing collection but - as I have noted earlier - it is following a policy enunciated in 1977 when the NRM was established at York. That policy was to identify and collect items for the "National Collection" but, when the occasion arose, have it on public display within the area wherein it was most familiar subject to there being a sufficiently responsible body to take care of it.

That policy was followed in 1983 when the NRM elected to have the MerseyRail Class 502 trainset remain within Merseyside under the auspices of the Southport Steamport Museum where undercover storage was available. The logic was simple - it was a Merseyside unit that had never worked beyond Merseyside hence was best situated in that area. If someone was interested enough to see a Class 502 unit that was best achieved by visiting Merseyside; York's only need to have it on site would be as part of an exhibition dedicated to electrification / 3rd rail suburban transit / commuter travel and its decision to allow "local" preservation would include a right to recall it to York in specific circumstances.

Fast forward to the GCR Museum site at Leicester where I understand that 4771 / 60800 will be one of the items to be on display. Again a "local" item for a "local" interest. Whilst V2s were common all over the LNER network the Great Central operated a number of LNER locomotives in BR days; in 1950 Leicester Central had A3s 60048 / 49 / 52 / 54 / 102 / 103 / 104 / 107 on allocation and Woodford Halse had V2s 60815 / 17 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 30 / 31 32 / 45 / 53 on allocation. On a visit to Leicester Central in 1962 Leicester Central still had V2s 60815 / 863 / 890 on allocation although they had been placed in store at the time of my visit. Thus the siting of 4771 / 60800 in the proposed Leicester Central Museum is yet another indication of the NRM following its own policy.

Fast forward yet again and the NRM has decided that its York site has too many items available for display hence its decision to review exhibits. While the status of LSWR 563 is important is it seen as not as important for York as to the area served by the LSWR and the presence of the Swanage Railway within that area provides an example of a suitable recipient to receive and look after the exhibit. I do not know the conditions of the "gift" but I would presume that they will include some rights being retained by the NRM; that I accept as being "commercial in confidence" and would understand why no statements on conditions have been forthcoming.

Do I detect in the earlier diatribes on this thread a sense of annoyance that the "public" NRM has chosen to dispose of its assets without "proper consultation" without establishing which is the "proper body" to consult with ? If so I think critics ought to look beyond the immediate angst and consider the long term argument for the policy being continued. The NRM has limited space and resources; it identifies that certain items are best displayed with certain geographic areas; it identifies a suitable body within that area to look after and display the particular items; it "gifts" the item to the identified body and the result is that the item returns home whilst freeing space to display items with a wider more national relevance to the UK Railways.

To me this policy is not a retrograde step by the NRM but, rather more, an important acknowledgement of the maturity and value of the UK's Heritage Movement and the willingness of the NRM to join with it rather than denounce it or seek to compete with it. Many will think back to the glorious extravaganza of Railfest 2012; the appearance of the 6 A4s in 2013 and - of course - the renaissance of 60103 in 2016 but ALL of which were joint efforts between the NRM and the Heritage movement. Much of this work was also supported by national operators including Train Operating Companies (Freight and Passenger) and Railtrack and many individuals within those companies and perhaps it is about time that critics looked beyond their own narrow interests and looked to the wider picture in which the NRM and its policies are but a small part of the larger Heritage community which requires support - not carping.

 

All of which is fine, but neglects the difference between Leicester - which is an outstation - and this transfer; it also ignores the option of loaning exhibits. I would also add that, if the collections policy is as you suggest and applies to all national museums, there will shortly be a very large and empty building in Bloomsbury, and some very happy Greeks.

I will not offend the moderators by further repeating my, very much unchanged, views on this matter.

 

Good post Fred, as always. I'm going to pick nits. Don't take it personally!

The NRM is now removing items from the National Collection, which is the opposite of collecting items.

It would be very reassuring to know that this right exists for important artefacts like NSR No 2 and LSWR 563, but so far as we know from the information given, the NRM has washed its hands of these items.

It's not reviewing exhibits. It's reviewing its collection. The collection contains too many items for display at York, Shildon and Leicester. (I told you I was nit-picking)

I fully accept your other sentiments about the maturity of the preservation movement, etc., but there is a degree of risk, however small, if the NRM no longer has any stake in the future of these items. The same ends could have been achieved whilst retaining ownership within the National Collection.

 

send them back...it's where they belong.

 

To nit-pick your nit-picking:

The NRM is continuing to collect items, not just removing them. However, it hasn't got unlimited space or money. It would not be a representative collection of railway history if they stopped adding items to the collection (whatever our views might be about diesels/electrics).

The collection is far more available to view now than it was in 1977 (when the NRM opened), due to the hugely greater public access to the original York depot building, the building on the opposite site of Leeman Road (previously a store and not open to the public), Shildon and (in the future) Leicester. However, with very little storage space, the NRM must justify each of its exhibits and has the option to review its decisions.

You seem to be muddling up the NRM *loaning* items for local presentation/conservation/operation, and its de-accessioning of items such as NSR No.2 and LSRW 563. The NRM still owns the loaned items, but ensures that de-accessioned items are only given to appropriate organisations which comply with its requirements.

 

And I was just being plain silly.

 

I don't disagree with any of your post, except the bit that says I'm muddling up loans with de-accessioning. I'm not. I fully support loaning items long-term to suitable railways or museums. I also support the de-accessioning of items that are well-represented elsewhere in preservation. I'm not so happy about the de-accessioning of items that are unique and priceless jewels such as No 563, and maybe to a lesser extent the NSR 0-6-2 tank. I'm quite happy for these to be loaned long term for local preservation, but (IMO) they should remain part of the National Collection.

You are right that the NRM should continue to selectively add items to the National Collection. The post-steam railway needs to be represented, warts and all. But that doesn't preclude the enhancement of the collection with steam-age gems if they become available. Flying Scotsman for example.

This, of course, brings on the problem of storage space and funds, which is where long-term loans can benefit all parties, whilst retaining the option to recall in exceptional circumstances. Yes, the NRM has to make choices about which items are held in its core displays at York and Shildon, and which are dispersed for local preservation. We might question their priorities (I won't mention the Bullet Train) but something has to go. And I'm happy for NSR 2 and LSWR 563 to be preserved on home territory. I just don't understand why they can't still be part of our National Collection.

 

Tim , you are missing the point that the NRM is not about preserving a particular loco for it's own sake, it's about telling the story, and they have lots of other 4-4-0s of the same period to do that.

 

What I don't understand is why they need so many big express 4-6-2s. They have two from the SR (granted one is sectioned), two from the LNER and one from the LMS, as well as a BR one. Most of these have some historical claim to fame but do they really need all of them? It's already been mentioned that 60103 was allocated to Leicester and ran regularly on the GC, maybe they would like to give that one to the GCR's supporting charity where it will be better appreciated?

Just an idle thought, like...

 

I can accept that. I guess I'm just concerned that 563 has lost any statutory protection that it enjoyed as part of the National Collection. I'll just have to put my faith in the Swanage Railway and hope for the best.

 

So big omission here; no GWR one!

 

I realise you're not serious, obviously Mallard and Flying Scotsman have to remain at the heart of the collection, maybe there's a case for the Duchess being handed over, but it's unlikely and the two SR pacifics also will stay for obvious reasons..

The point is , I think, that 563 was on the fringes of the collection, duplicated by similar locos of the same period, it's locos of this ilk that may be privatised.