LSWR T3 563

Begs the question why they didn't do that? No doubt it is easier to type a message on Nat Pres than to actually ask the questions directly.

 

If you have any dealings with the press you soon learn that what you tell them is important and what they print is seldom the same - I'm not supprised the press picked up on the TV etc. stuff it's what they do (never let the facts get in the way of a good story), just be glad it's good publicity for the SR.

 

Easier in what sense and your basis for knowing others have not contacted NRM or parent body is........ ?
As has been mentioned the posted response from NRM does not address all of the questions and we are now in the hands of the fullness of time to reveal.

 

I also contacted the NRM and received a courteous reply with much the same content as posted by Spamcan81. I've asked for a clarification on a couple of points, most specifically about safeguards for No 563, and whether a long term loan was considered. If there are any new insights in the response I'll share them on here.

 

Exactly as I said - having seen the published information and other reports, time will tell, particularly as to the overall strategy, as to whether good outcomes are acheived. That's as far as it goes for me.

 

For someone to take the time in their working day to formulate a long reply like this to a member of the public is a great thing to see. I hope you expressed much gratitude for this!

 

Of course I did. What makes your think that I wouldn't have?

 

I had a further response from the NRM on my follow-up points. To summarise:

• If, at some point in the future, The Swanage Railway needs to dispose of the T3 then the NRM has first refusal. If the NRM doesn't want it then they will advise on suitable alternative recipients.
• The NRM is not allowed to arrange long term loans. The normal loan period is 3 years and the maximum is 5 years. Outright donation of the loco is the only available option that allows the SR to invest in the loco without fear of it being recalled.

The respondent also outlined some of the NRM's challenges and ambitions, putting the review of the collection into context. I was very impressed with the trouble taken to respond to my concerns, and the genuine interest taken in my points of view.

 

Out of curiosity - is that a new stipulation? Just wondering how it stacks up with the fact that locos such as 925, 850, 120 etc. have all been out on loans that were evidently long enough for the host railways to invest in overhauls?

Tom

 

To quote from the response:

"This wasn’t always the case but today we are bound, as are other national museums, by these timescales. The administration of loans is very time consuming for a variety of reasons and involves a whole team across the Science Museum Group. "

and

"In reality we would never terminate a loan early or refuse a new loan arrangement at the end of the current agreement if a borrower has spent considerable sums (a loco like Cheltenham on the Mid Hants would be an example ...)"

 

Now to convince the readers and editorial of Steam Railway...

 

*Some* readers and the usual tabloid-style blame-seeking editorial, you mean?

 

I was rather disappointed with that editorial. Harking back to the bad old days of Howard Johnstons infamous anti NRM, anti Scotsman rants...

 

Same here Simon, what's rather disappointing is the Ed is/was part of 70013's support crew.

 

I am very grateful to the endeavours of 'Spamcan81' and his quoting of the reply from the NRM he received.

Merely classifying locos in the National Collection by wheel arrangement seems to me to be rather strange and odd, and many other considerations ought to apply such as the historical significance of a loco class and it's designer.

If one were to apply the same faulted logic to the carriage collection we ought to see a great disposal of vehicles, especially of the various Royal Train carriages!

Cheers,
Julian

 

To be fair, this is but one of many criteria. If you read what was said it wasn't just the wheel arrangement in any event.

So the T3, T9, Cheltenham and the SECR D class. There are two LSWR locomotives, one SECR and one Southern Railway built 4-4-0. There are lots of 4-4-0s within the national collection in any event outside of the southern quartet.

 

I should be interested to read that outline as it might indicate the way the NRM is interpreting the SMG's policies.