NRM York Regeneration

Sorry but I have to respond to this. Yes the NRM is about more than the locomotives. I visited twice last year to view some drawings in the archives. Great stuff!

That said I think people on this forum have every right to be concerned about the future treatment of individual items in the NRM's custodianship, especially when they are bloody big, important items like 777 & 70013. Is it not the National Collection? Do we not all have a 1/70millionth share in these beasties*? Privately owned: your toy, your rules but this isn't the case here & I for one would welcome an explanation as to what's happening with "our" locos.

If the 5305LA were good enough one day and not the next I would like to know why? If Ollie is to go from mainline phenomenon to stuffed-and-mounted, I would like to know why? Transparency and all that.

*Purposeful over-simplification for illustrative purposes

 

Arguably the NRM is poorly located in a declining part of the country and would be better placed closer to the larger more affluent population further south, the LNER origins lead to a balance of exhibits that does great disservice to the Swindon innovations and this should be addressed, whether the museum should be run by public servants or a more rounded external steer be introduced is another question, few would doubt that rail privatisation has lead to great improvements generally. Selective disposal is inevitable for any living museum representing a continuing industry, Canada currently has a 3 year review of its assets of course, some may recall Belgium scrapping a few minor items, it is unrealistic to retain everything, sadly elements of Shildon resemble a scrap line which is unfortunate given its true historical significance.

 

Just to pick up on the phrase "stuffed and mounted" - I don't think it is a very helpful phrase for discussion. Locos pass from operational to non-operational and can go back, whereas the phrase "stuffed and mounted" implies it is a one-way journey. Essentially, when 777 and 70013 go out of ticket, there might be various procedural blockers that mean they are put on display rather than turned round for service again, but that is a political (small p) / economic / curatorial decision; not a technical one. Things can always change in the future; in the mean time, nothing fundamentally changes on a loco that precludes future overhaul between the day before its ticket expires and the day after. Better a loco is secure inside a museum without a defined operational future than outside in a siding with a promise it could be restored in the future.

I do also have a degree of sympathy for the view expressed by @Big Al that conditions external to the NRM have changed massively between when the first ideas for a national collection were being formed in the 1950s and now. Given the success of private railways and owners in keeping a representative selection of locomotives running on heritage railways and the mainline, the NRM isn't filling an otherwise unfilled gap by operating, as opposed to displaying, its collection. What do you gain by seeing 70013 in service that isn't met by seeing 70000? There's insufficient work for all the locos in the country that are nominally preserved, and insufficient resources to overhaul them all anyway, so I think you can make a strong argument for saying that the NRM should allow heritage railways and mainline owners to get on with that operational job which they can do better, and concentrate themselves on the display and conservation of their own collection. (That's not a validation one way or the other about catering strategy within York, which is a separate argument).

Tom

 

Time to take stock methinks.

When the NRM was established at York some 40+ years ago the Heritage / Preservation movement was still in its infancy hence the NRM set out to create an entity within the Preservation Environment as it was then. Move forward to the present day when the Heritage Lines / Preservation Movement has become an established industry in its own right involving not only (qualified) volunteers but permanent full time staff with a variety of skills and capable of offering apprenticeships leading to full time qualifications and skilled employment. Given that the NRM has always identified itself as complementary to Heritage / Preservation by providing the Macro view to the individual line's Micro view it is surely expected that the NRM now review it's own contribution to an industry that is vastly different to that which the NRM first became part of in the 1970s.

I well recall discussing the possibility of preserving Class 44 D2 with the late Dr John Coiley in 1977 when - on behalf of the NRM - he was prepared to offer short term storage should the locomotive be obtained with the understanding that it be moved to a permanent site as soon after purchase as possible. In this he expounded the view that the (1970s) NRM would be a repository for railway artefacts BUT it would also look to see items preserved in the areas where they had normally been in use as in the case of the LMS Class 502 trainset and the recent move of the LSWR 4-4-0 to the Swanage Railway.

It seems that many critics have not understood the NRM's ethos hence their concern at the current review that is taking place in the light of changed circumstances; IMHO a concern increased by comment from a magazine which has a contributor known for his challenge to NRM policies and actions in the past. In that respect I can understand the NRM asking the question of "why bark when you have a dog ?" as it seeks to consider its place in the modern era of heritage and preservation.

 

^ I take your point about stuffed-and-mounted. Is benched a better phrase? In either case I would like to know if Ollie is being benched or if there is a turnaround in progress (however long and involved that may be)? At the moment its as clear as mud. Just a short press release from the NRM along the lines of we have something cooking and will keep you informed OR Ollie will go into medium-term storage until such time as we make a decision or some-such would clear up matters no end.

If the NRM is to change, grow & improve may I suggest it could stand to work on its communication skills first.

As for what do you gain by seeing 70013 in service that isn't met by seeing 70000? I haven't seen 70000 since she was briefly in black! Ollie has been by far more accessible to me. So it has allowed me to see a BR 7MT in service full stop.

I would also like to say that criticising something does not make you a critic or detractor. You can hold something in high esteem and wish for more/different.

 

Whilst the matter is still subject of debate and offer from various parties I really do not understand what more you expect the NRM to say, the fact that one of the concerns raised re 5305 group management is the lack of somewhere to restore her rather suggests what the NRM want to see done?

 

A lot of anger has been expressed regarding the NRM's custodianship of 20th century locos which have run recently in preservation - and indeed, could still run. May I bring in another angle? As the country that gave the world the steam locomotive, we have ended up with an unparalleled collection of truly ancient machines dating from before the accession of Queen Victoria (1837). Think Locomotion, Billy, Rocket (Albeit much modified since Rainhill days), Agenoria. to name some obvious examples. These engines are absolutely priceless. of very limited use on a heritage railway (let alone the main line) and also not locos which anyone on this forum is clamouring to see restored to working order. For such antiquated artefacts, the NRM is, in my opinion, the only realistic custodian and whatever its faults in dealing with more recent engines (and I do not wish to be drawn into that particular debate), its role in caring for and providing a secure environment for these incredible locos should be acknowledged and appreciated.

 

A simple statement of intent would suffice. So far they have said nothing. A certain railway mag is all we have to go on, hence the frustration.

 

The railway mag has a statement from them, what more do you want?

 

Communication from the source not a third party. I'm sure I'm not alone having a fair degree of jaundice regarding certain publications.

 

Yes, poorly located in one of the most visited Cities in the country.

 

Rubbish. Have you ever been to York?

 

That's fighting talk and you need to justify your argument. Why is it poorly located and why is it a declining part of the country?

 

To people in London and its Catchment area im afraid London = England, the rest of it isnt considered important, which is probably why half the country gave a big two fingers to the Financial services Capital of the world by voting for Brexit, when that goes through we will all be in 'declining parts of the country'.
London is a nose i would quite spitefully / happily see cut of the face of this country, even if a backward semi rural/themepark/ cottage economy would be the ultimate result.

 

I have seen some rubbish posted on this forum but this post really takes the biscuit. If York really is declining and poorly located (which it certainly wasn't when I last visited), surely the argument would be to promote visitors to this part of the world with a world class visitor attraction? Not move the attraction to a South East corner, miles away from the rest of the UK from whom it is supposed to benefit.
It is this sort of economics that has upset millions of people in this country and caused massive inequality.

 

I don't think our professional contrarian has been any further than the bedroom in which his keyboard is located.

 

Yep, badly sited in less than five minutes' walk from a major main line station.

 

You have Didcot, and the GWR is over-represented overall in the heritage scene. I respectfully suggest your post is drivel at best, trolling at worst.

 

Coz it's north of Watford.

 

I went to Watford once.

Never again...