OUR QUESTIONS TO THE NRM
We put a fist of searching questions to the NRM to find out why - and received the following answer. You can make up your own mind whether the museum’s response is acceptable. “De-accessioning is done in an open and transparent manner and full explanations for disposals are presented within the recommendations made to the Science Museum Group’s Board of Survey, which then pass through the Railway Heritage Advisory Board for approval, before final agreement by the Science Museum Group’s Board of Trustees. “Our communications strategy with regards to this is to work with the organisations receiving the items on press release/ announcements to celebrate their new acquisitions. With regards to the Foxfield Railway, we worked with them on their announcement and supplied a quote. “In 2015, the NRM accessioned 239 items and disposed of ten items. Given this volume, we do not issue individual statements for each of these, but do make information available where they are likely to be of particular public interest - for example with the Foxfield Railway and NSR No. 2.” Given that the NRM itself didn’t make any announcement about NSR No. 2, this last paragraph simply doesn’t stand up. But the museum claims to have collaborated in the Foxfield statement about its new acquisition so what did that statement actually say? The notice issued by the railway on April 17 - three days before No. 2’s arrival at Blythe Bridge - says only that Foxfield “is about to receive” the engine from the National Collection, and NRM Senior Curator Anthony Coulls is quoted as saying: “We feel that the Foxfield Railway is a very appropriate home as it is a locally significant item built in Stoke, and fits in with the growing collection of North Staffordshire Railway rolling stock there. “In addition, it fits the industrial and colliery ethos of the Staffordshire attraction, whose profile has been significantly raised by the activities of the Knotty Coach Trust (a reference to the trust’s £100,000 restoration of NSR four-wheel passenger coaches Nos. 61 and 127, which ran for the first time on April 24 this year, behind 1874-built former Haydock Foundry 0-6-0WT Bellerophon). The notice concludes: “The Foxfield Trust is delighted that No. 2 is returning to its birthplace [not entirely true - it was built at the NSR Stoke Works, some five miles away], where it will be housed in the museum building and put on immediate display.” A summary of the history of the locomotive, which forms part of the notice, fails to mention that No. 2 was in the custody of the Churnet Valley Railway for ten years.
Omission
Despite having input to the Foxfield statement, the NRM made no attempt to mention this, or explain that a change of ownership had taken place - or say why no dialogue or contact was made with the CVR - which for the past 15 years has operated regular steam services over the 5¼-mile section of the former North Staffordshire route between Cheddleton and Kingsley & Froghall. Small wonder that those who read it assumed that the North Staffs 0-6-2T still belonged to the nation. Was this failure to disclose No. 2’s removal from public ownership a knowing deception by the NRM which, saddled with year-on-year budget cuts, has disposed of almost 500 items
over the last ten years, including many large items of historically important rolling stock? And if it wasn’t, why was the NRM still listing No. 2 as part of the National Collection as recently as September 2016, five months after the engine was given away? Unconvincingly, the museum’s official mouthpiece says: “It is standard procedure to review our collections on an ongoing basis to ensure their future sustainability. We apologise if there was a misunderstanding about the change of ownership (of NSR No. 2) and will make it clearer in similar cases in the future. “We are carrying out a significant project over the next 18 months to improve our web estate, including our collections information, and unfortunately there are some issues with updating collections information. We apologise that the information on NSR No. 2 has not yet been updated.” Now that the true status of NSR No. 2 has been flushed into the open, we asked the NRM to explain why the locomotive had been ‘de‑accessioned’. It told us: “In terms of tank engines, the North Staffordshire engine is unremarkable, other than it is the sole surviving steam locomotive of a design from that railway. It did not actually work for the NSR, being built under LMS jurisdiction and is actually the best parts of three different locomotives. “It is a heavy tank engine built for the coal traffic around Stoke, hauling empty wagons up to the collieries and full ones away. Its purpose mirrors that of Taff Vale Railway tank engine No. 28 which, while nearly three decades older, was used for exactly the same purpose, and the TVR locomotive is under an active programme of restoration and conservation. “Its later life as a colliery locomotive also is reflected in the TVR locomotive and the Hunslet ‘Austerity’ type of which we have an example [ex‑War Department 0‑6‑0ST No. 75133 King Feisal of Iraq, currently awaiting heavy overhaul at the Flour Mill Workshop, Bream, Forest of Dean]. “It is low down on the priority list for any attention or conservation, and is far more suitable to the region it worked in, where the North Staffordshire Railway Trust, based at the Foxfield Railway, is working hard to create representative goods and passenger trains of the NSR.”
‘Odd move’
Undoubtedly, there will be many who fundamentally disagree with the NRM’s rationale, and view with disquiet the very principle of giving away items from the National Collection. Among them is former Llangollen Railway volunteer Martin Perry, who contends “While I think it’s great that No. 2 is going to Foxfield for restoration, I’m personally not so sure that the National Collection divesting itself of the only surviving North Staffs steam locomotive isn’t a bit of an odd move.
We feel that the Foxfield Railway is a very appropriate home. NRM SENIOR CURATOR ANTHONY COULLS
“I am intrigued to know why a change of ownership was part of the deal, whereas loans seem to have sufficed in the past. Is this the start of a new policy? Are there further transfers planned?” NRM Senior Curator Anthony Coulls made a worthy attempt to explain. “It’s not a new policy but part of a wider collections and stewardship review which is ongoing”, he said. “Each item in the collection is being individually assessed on considerations such as condition, stories, relevance, and how it fits into the next 20 years of development at York, Shildon, Leicester and other partnerships. There’s a lot of thought going into this, and it’s going to take time. “Our criteria for the disposal of items include poor condition, duplication, lack of suitability for the collection, and assessment that an item is more suitable for another museum. “If an item is considered for disposal, we then make up a case which is presented to our internal Board of Survey, where it is peer‑reviewed by colleagues from the NRM and across the Science Museum Group, and searching questions are asked. “The board may then recommend disposal or they may refuse it ‑ we have seen both. If it is approved, then the case goes to the Science Museum Collections & Research Group for ratification or otherwise. It is then put to the Railway Heritage Designation Advisory Board, which may make comments or recommendations. “Finally, it goes to Science Museum Group Trustees for their approval and signing off. If the SMG Trustees do this, we can then offer it to a suitable recipient, who may or may not have already been identified. I hope this explains that ‘de‑accession’ is not being done on a whim. There has been a big review of signalling collections in recent times and there will be more. It’s all about sustainable and responsible management.”