‘Scotsman’: NRM non-committal on long-term future
The NaTioNal Railway Museum is not disclosing whether it is setting money aside for the overhaul that its flagship money-spinner ‘a3’ No. 60103 Flying Scotsman will need, if it is to be hauling main line excursions in 2023 - its centenary year.
This significant date is one year after the expiry of its current boiler certificate. Private owners often set aside six-figure sums for the next major repair, which is why engines such as ‘Merchant Navy’ No. 35028 Clan Line return so quickly. ‘Scotsman’ is generating large sums from main line excursions, public appearances and merchandising, but it is unclear how this money is banked. A number of NRM engines, including LNER ‘A4’ No. 4468 Mallard and GCR ‘Director’ No. 62660 Butler-Henderson, only ran for one boiler certificate before being ‘polished and parked up’ at York, or one of its outstations. After being pressed on the finance issue, the NRM made this noncommittal statement on October 25: “The NRM is fully committed to the long-term future success and enjoyment of Flying Scotsman. Looking to 2022 and beyond, we have a range of options on the future financing and business model to consider. “All decisions are made with this unique locomotive’s long-term conservation and care in mind. This is paramount to us, and based on its operating performance which we review on an ongoing basis.” The NRM says it is happy with its two-year operating contract with Riley & Sons (Ian Riley); the Lancashire firm completed the ‘A3’s £4.5 million overhaul. What happens at the end of 2017 will be announced next year. Before the last issue of Steam Railway went to press, we asked the NRM for a broad breakdown of how the overhaul money was spent. Its response is that over £1.8m of the cost came from external funding, public donations and the sale of merchandise. This includes a £275,000 grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund. “Because we are part of the Science Museum Group, the trustees made extra resources available to the NRM. It hasn’t come from our normal annual budgets.” The statement adds: “Some have said that [No. 60103’s] restoration has been too expensive and questioned how we could ever have spent so much. We have been quite open about the shortcomings of the management of the project, for example in the published report by Bob Meanley [Tyseley Locomotive Works]. We looked to learn our lessons, and certainly do not claim everything has gone perfectly. “It is impossible to speculate what the minimum cost for the restoration might have been in a perfect world… all projects are different and we could trade good and bad examples forever. When it comes to value for money, it is clear that it cost a lot, but the value has been extraordinary.”