LSWR T3 563

Plus bloody one. Well said.

 

Well said. And the same keyboard warriors wonder why Anthony and other railway spokesmen seldom comment on NatPres ...

 

Yet you still endorse it by taking part. Where is your solidarity with the offended parties?
For what it is worth I think the folks to which you refer are well able to make their own views known should they wish but have a sense of perspective about where the forum ranks in terms of importance. Its a bunch of folk exchanging opinions not a crusade or campaign. None of it is personal and if there are those who may take offence they are sensible enough to ignore it.

 

So to clarify, commenting on the behavior of others somehow invalidates a perceived solidarity with the NRM?

Well not quite; because, amongst other views, there's been a clear vilification both of a lack of information, the process used, the individuals involved and at times a rather shall we say partisan approach to the matter.

The posts decrying the NRM's actions may not be intended personally, but they do read that way, I am afraid.

 

I would invite you to consider whether taking the debate further into that territory is particularly helpful.
As far as I can see there has been extensive debate about the principle of deaccession, focussing whether the policy and process are right or wrong using this loco as the focus. Certain individuals have added heat to the debate by introducing a personal dimension to the policymaking and procedural aspects being discussed. The fact is every organisation is a collection of people who may or may nor agree with the organisations policies. They are set much further up the chain and that is where the real questions are being directed unless I am much mistaken.

 

Which will be encouraged by having more catering options etc.

When will enthusiasts learn that the bulk of the money received by Heritage attractions DOES NOT COME FROM ENTHUSIASTS - it comes from family groups, coach tours and suchlike who only have a passing interest in the subject matter and who are very likely to prefer enhanced catering options than lots of similar is exhibits. As such criticisms that such and such an organisation is ignoring enthusiasts is largely irrelevant as to survive the organisation must chase the money , not sit there telling visitors the museum knows best.

 

This argument is only partly true though. For normal running and operations it's probably about right. However, for raising money for "capital projects" like extensions, restoring certain items of non-essential rolling stock like antique steam locos and coaches that are more expensive that slightly more modern counterparts, it is enthusiasts that donate the most money for these sorts of projects.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

As no one seems to want to give me their engine (a tragedy I am slowly coming to terms with), nor does anyone want to borrow my garden shed for loco storage I would like to offer it as an outstation for catering or as exhibition space. To be decided by a referendum probably in June.

 

Firstly im quite relaxed that the NRM hs gifted the engine to the Swanage Railway, at least its gone to a home that is in keeping with its history, For me the real question mark is this, does it mean a change in the policy of the NRM as regards its collection, in the past items have been loaned to other museums , but with strict limitations on restoration etc, Is this a one off, or a change in policy, if so what are the rules over items in the National Collection, lets say for instance, Tyseley wanted the Duchess , to restore to steam, could offer a secure home and guarantee the engines well being, the NRM say its not going to be steamed in their ownership, they dont have the funds, so would the engine then be considered for disposal? with the knowledge its going to be going to a owner with the funds and skills to ensure its future? prehaps this could be the answer, to some of the NRM'S Problems, with gaps filled by other engines that are privatly owned spending time on display with in the museum in between railtour duties or on static display .

 

Quite, and most volunteers probably fall into the enthusiast catagory! (Although of course there are plenty that aren't)

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

As a general principle I have not seen a single compelling argument in favour of overturning an acession decision made many decades ago. Given that thinking ebbs and flows over the decades, it seems utter folly to go any further than a loan of an artefact which has been a long-term part of the collection. Decisions made several generations ago should not be subject to review through a prism of modern thinking. All long-term items should be sacrosanct from disposal in my opinion. Loan them by all means, if there is a good case to do so, but how can it be guaranteed any item disposed of will be better served in the long term?

 

At the moment we are in a vacuum not really clear as to the reasons for this decision, its implications or the steps that have been taken to ensure the long term conservation of the T3.

These are reasonable questions which deserve a proper answer.

I am sure that we can all accept that decisions are made that we do not agree with but when the rationale is explained we can accept them.

 

Have they? Doesn't read that way to me. More in the other direction actually. I just reviewed a fair amount of the topic and the most aggressive posts appeared to be directed at those who remain to be convinced that this gift is a good thing.

To question the wisdom of a policy decision is not being negative or spiteful, and neither is suggesting that it would be a good thing to have a lot more information about the future of the locomotive. There are, after all, a lot more linear scrapyards on preserved railways than there are at the NRM, and its by no means unknown for locomotives once in excellent condition to deteriorate drastically when not right in the front line, especially if in open storage.

 

I think that could be down to the fact his postings on here were used by a magazine article some months ago rather than him having a particular issue with NatPres

Jon

 

Ouch. If true, that explains a great deal.

 

I perhaps worded it wrong as I'm guessing that may be the reason, but he's not posted on here since the magazine ran the article. It's a shame as he was always prepared to make measured and reasoned contributions to the forum

Jon

 

If you did not agree with a decision made by my employer you may choose not to speak publicly about it so there are several different inferences that can be drawn from silence.

 

The "silence" has been across the entire forum effectively, so it doesn't really support your suggestion.

 

That Anthony is unable to comment is a separate matter, i am sure if he was able to , he would have explained the reasoning behind the gifting of the loco, that he can'y comment predates this so has to be viewed as a separate subject, My own view is that this should have been handled better by the public relations department and of course as the NRM is now part of the Science museum, it may have not been handled by the NRM Staff, all it needed was a simple " After the railway Children exhibition we are glad to announce the LSWR T3 563, is going to be displayed at the Swanage Railway, a full joint statement will be made at a later date when the loco is handed over" that is all that should have been put out, that would have given both organisations chance to work out a full statement and possibly a launch of an appeal by the new owner to fund its examination .