IN or OUT?
To keep, loan or dispose? NICK BRODRICK questions the National Railway Museum’s Head Curator ANDREW McLEAN on this area of museum practice, following the gifting of two pre-Grouping locomotives.
O ne can imagine the surprise and delight of the Swanage Railway when the National Railway Museum offered it one of its 4-4-0s. Free of charge. When the news broke in late March, the public also reacted to the disposal of the National Collection Adams ‘T3’ No. 563. Some of the reaction was in positive concert with that of the Purbeck Line. Some much less so. The gifting led Steam Railway to request an interview with the museum to find out whether a clear-out of steam locomotives was now under way, less than a year after it had already given North Staffordshire ‘L’ class No. 2 to the Foxfield Railway. The NRM subsequently invited the magazine to York to sit down with its Head Curator on May 30. Andrew McLean may not yet be a household NRM name, in the same vein as the likes of John Coiley, Richard Gibbon or Helen Ashby, having only been in the role for three years. But his CV reveals a museum background spanning two decades, with stints at the National Trust and Mount Stuart Trust, as well as being a member of the Science Museum Group’s Railway Heritage Designation Advisory Board and co-chairman of the Railway Studies Forum. In his time at the museum he has overseen the restoration of No. 34051 Winston Churchill; the re-creation of a First World War ambulance coach; and the long-awaited return to steam of Flying Scotsman - to name but some of the prominent achievements. Concerns have abounded, however, about the museum’s methods for disposing of objects, such as the two pre-Grouping engines. The impassioned reactions from some supporters of the museum following the ‘T3’ giveaway, including those printed in previous issues of this magazine, has led to a change in the way it communicates its disposals methods. As highlighted in an NRM blog post, published five days before the date of this interview, the museum will, in future, “advertise” all future disposals. And so, against the impressive backdrop of the Great Hall, I began the discussion by reflecting on the detail of that article…
THE HOW
NB: Your recent blog on disposals explains much of your thinking behind the process. Within that, Anthony Coulls states that: “we’re committed in future to… advertise every rail vehicle disposal.” This is clearly a positive development and you should be commended for taking this seriously; can you explain precisely how this will be effected? AMc: Obviously, there’s been a huge amount of interest in the ‘T3’ disposal in particular, so that’s the reason for taking that [action], even though we don’t need to do that strictly by the [Museums Association] disposals flowchart. So, once a disposal has been agreed to and firmed up, we will advertise it, so people can make comments. Obviously, anyone else who might have an interest in acquiring a particular vehicle - not just locomotives, of course - will have the opportunity to do so through that. We’d probably have an idea of the people who’d be interested in something that comes up. Obviously, in the case of the ‘T3’, the Swanage had something of a unique claim on it in many ways, but this [new process] will offer other people that opportunity. It’s quite important to point out that with the ‘T3’, no other railways came to us and said that they wish they’d had a shot at acquiring that particular vehicle. NB: Were other railways aware that you were going to dispose of it? AMc: No, but once we’d done it nobody said ‘we would have had it’. A few railways have come to us and said ‘that was absolutely the right decision’, so I think that was quite encouraging. Of course, as you know, the Swanage is a very good railway, with lots of very detailed plans starting to be developed for the engine.
NB: You say that you’re now going “above and beyond” and interpreting more strongly, for want of a better word, the guidance that the toolkit advises? AMc: What is an important point is that, with the ‘North Staffs’ engine, as with the ‘T3’, these processes have been ongoing for quite some time, but the news has been staggered because of the nature of the process. We thought that these were going to be quite good news stories, but then they came out in a staggered way. The ‘T3’ news came out later because it was still part of The Railway Children stage show, and because that was so successful, it kept being extended, otherwise this would not have come out several months after the ‘North Staffs’ engine. NB: So the idea was to announce those two at the same time? AMc: Not necessarily at the same time, but around about the same point, because we viewed these as good news stories that we wanted the new owners to be able to share and make that announcement. That obviously didn’t come out the way that we thought it was necessarily going to be, so with all of that experience behind us, we have now taken the view that the best thing to do is to open up at the end of that process. If you look at the disposals flowchart, it says ‘after transfer of legal title, you can communicate the process actively with stakeholders and the public’. Obviously, we’ll be doing that with any other future rail vehicle disposals that follow on from the current piece of work that’s coming to an end at the moment. NB: There are one or two grey areas in the disposals toolkit; you mention making an announcement after you’ve disposed of an object, but then other parts of it talk about liaising with the public during the process, so you are now veering towards the latter, aren’t you? AMc: We’ll be making the announcements more publicly available, and the process more detailed, we’ll be more heavily involved in the Railway Heritage Designation Advisory Board as well, in that process, before it goes to our board of trustees. The board of trustees have the final sign off. So we’ll be extending the process and advertising what it is that we’re doing, too. If there was, for example, a wagon, and there was no obvious place for it to go, and two or three parties were interested in having it, this gives them an opportunity to put something together with clear cases upon which we can make the final decision. Again, we need to point out that only these two locomotives have been particularly contentious but, of course, we’ve disposed of many objects since we opened 40 years ago. Mostly, things pass off without comment. NB: But locomotives elicit a more emotional reaction, don’t they? AMc: Steam locomotives do. We disposed of a VEP electric unit which passed without comment whatsoever, so I think it’s an interesting distinction that clearly certain things don’t seem to attract that kind of attention as others. And even with the steam locomotives, something like the ‘T3’, because of its status as an express engine, its very elegant design and its colour, seems to attract more interest than something that’s a bit more basic. So that’s an interesting distinction; a lot of what we do just doesn’t pass comment. It’s really been these two vehicles, and the ‘T3’ in particular, that have aroused the interest. Again, that’s perhaps part of the reason why we’ve been surprised by the level of the interest, because normally things pass off with very little comment and usually just some tacit support from people, because they know the processes that we go through. NB: Staying on that point, you talk about consultation with the public, in effect. Will that be along the lines of the two-month period that the toolkit suggests? AMc: We still have to work out what sort of format that will take. I think it’ll be pretty clear that there will be plenty of notice about what we’re trying to do and to give people the opportunity to make
WE THOUGHT THAT THESE WERE GOING TO BE QUITE GOOD NEWS STORIES
whatever representation they want in terms of the particular vehicle itself, whatever that might be. NB: So, to be absolutely clear about your future implementation of the disposal toolkit guidelines, can you confirm that the public consultation and opportunity for other potential claimants you speak of will occur before a final decision is taken and legal title transferred? AMc: We strictly follow the Museums Association’s guidelines on openness and transparency and publish details of all significant decisions affecting the Collection. However, this does not extend to providing details of ongoing discussions regarding the management of the Collection. A decision to dispose of any significant item must be approved by several committees, including the Railway Heritage Designation Advisory Board (RHDAB) which includes a range of external museum, railway and heritage railway experts and these members act to ensure that the interests of the public are being taken into account. We publicise disposals after the decision has been made by our Board of Trustees, who are appointed by the Prime Minister, and who act as guardians of the public interest. Our current process, outlined in our Collecting Policy, is guided by the Museums Association code of ethics. However, given the exceptional interest generated in the ‘T3’s’ change of ownership, we will commit to advertise any future disposals alongside our existing communications channels, to ensure the public is informed prior to the transfer of legal ownership. The process is as follows: 1. Proposal for disposal from curators; 2. Board of Survey recommendation; 3. Consultation with RHDAB; 4. Trustees’ decision to dispose; 5. Advertise intention to dispose; 6. Legal transfer of ownership to recipient.
We can hold discussions with potential recipients throughout all stages of this process, and there may be an intended recipient at the time of the trustees’ decision. We think it is a good idea, in general, to take forward in parallel the thinking on whether to dispose of a collection item and who might be the recipient. Advertising might help us identify a more suitable recipient and although we would not expect this to happen often, the possibility of a transfer to another organisation is not excluded until legal transfer has been made.
THE WHY
NB: We’ve covered some of the ‘how’, including your blog, so it’s worth covering the ‘why’ concerning some of these disposals, in particular the ‘T3’ and the ‘Knotty tank’ which, as we touched on, are the emotive ones. I know the museum has previously described its reasoning, but can you talk us through the specific reasons for the disposals of those two locomotives? AMc: We continually look at our collections, at the suitability for display, and also for loan, and those two particular locomotives do have duplication in terms of the collection. OK, they might not be exactly the same class, or from exactly the same company. The duplication of type, for example the Taff Vale [No.] 28, which is undergoing some restoration work just now, tells some of the stories that the ‘Knotty tank’ does, for example. We have other 4-4-0s in the collection from the VictorianEdwardian era, and we have quite heavy Southern representation, but as well as the duplication side, we have to look at what the future is for locomotives like that. A lot of the time it [the ‘T3’] was buried away in Shildon, and I’m not aware of anyone making a pilgrimage to Shildon to come and see it. By putting it into an appropriate setting, back on its stamping ground - where there is a real potential to shine a spotlight on it properly - it goes from being something that’s lost up in Shildon to something that becomes a star attraction. The ‘T3’ is a very beautiful and elegant locomotive, but what does it really tell in terms of our stories here, in terms of the stories at Shildon, or wherever? Can that be told if it’s in an appropriate setting, in this case the Swanage Railway, which, historically, those locomotives have been involved with? Another question that’s come up is: ‘why not just loan it to the Swanage?’ We could do that, but how would it affect the level of investment? In our experience of loans (we can only do loan periods of between three and five years) the investment that then has to go into something like this is of such magnitude that heritage railways, quite rightly, will not commit their own funds, because for loans of three to five years, things can change. As part of a loan agreement, if we’re not happy with the way that something is being looked after, we can end the loan before the end of that process and that has happened in the past. There have been cases where loans have been particularly successful for a while, but then the management of a railway has changed, and things aren’t as good as they were, and we then have concerns. And that involves a lot of administrative work. We have to go to railways to do surveys and make sure that things are being looked after properly. We do try to lend as widely as possible throughout the UK, so we’ve got locomotives at Bo’ness, items at Swindon, the Mid-Hants Railway have vehicles from us, the Taff Vale [‘O1’] in Wales - we have things all over the country. We need to be sure that they are being properly looked after. In these two particular cases [Nos. 2 and 563] we know that the future of the locomotives is probably better served by being gifted. You saw [during the handover] at Swanage on Saturday [see News], there’s a real love for that engine there, a real excitement has been building up. A lot of people are already saying that they’d like to help with fundraising, and hoping to restore it to steam if it’s possible or practical, and if not, there are obviously plans in place. But that’s not just us saying that’s the end of our responsibilities. If anything goes wrong, at any stage - not that we’re expecting it to - then locomotives can be offered back to us in the first instance. We’re confident that it won’t happen, but if it does, then there is a safeguard in place. From reading the comments, some people were concerned that we were ‘just walking away’ and that we’d have no other responsibilities. We’re helping Swanage out in terms of conservation assessments and conservation templates; how to look after it in its current condition, and obviously, we’ll be there to help and support with advice, depending on what path they decide to go down. If the engineering report suggests that it can go back into steam, we’ll help and support that in whatever way we can. If the idea is just to have it on permanent display, then we can help with that too. NB: You’ve talked through your justification for the gifting of the ‘Knotty’ tank and the ‘T3’. The museum has explained some of the specifics of the ‘Knotty’ in relation to its closest duplicate, in the form of the Taff Vale tank engine, but we haven’t similarly addressed the ‘T3’. Its closest equivalent in the collection is naturally the ‘T9’. Therefore, why was the ‘T3’ considered weaker than the ‘T9’, or indeed, why was the ‘T9’ considered more appropriate for retention?
IN THE END IT WAS THE LONGEVITY OF THE ‘T9’s’ CAREER THAT SWUNG THE BALANCE
AMc: The ‘T9’ was considered more appropriate for retention due to its longer working life, and the fact that it is already with a good loan partner who has invested in it, operates it and maintains it in an accessible and appropriate manner. It was a close call, but in the end it was the longevity of the ‘T9’s’ career that swung the balance. NB: Going back to some of the reasoning behind your decisions, where I see the relation to the rules that you are governed by in the National Heritage Act 1983, your justification is that they are ‘duplicates’… AMc: They are, there’s duplication, yes. NB: What is your definition, therefore, of ‘duplicate’? In at least one of the press releases that you worked with the Swanage Railway on, it uses the word ‘unique’ to describe the ‘T3’, so that appears to contradict the term ‘duplication’ within the collection. AMc: We’re all unique and everything’s unique in some way. Mallard’s unique from Bittern, for example; they’re the same class of locomotives. In terms of our duplication, we’re looking at the type of locomotive; the wheel arrangement; the purpose that it performed and so on. The other bit in the National Heritage Act is: “…disposal is by way of sale, exchange or gift of an object which, in the Board’s opinion, is unsuitable for retention in their collections and can be disposed of without detriment to the interests of students or other members of the public”. If you want to be a student of those types of locomotive, of course the locomotive is still available. We’re not scrapping it or anything like that. But we can tell that bigger picture story with other locomotives that are in our collection, while at the same time knowing because of that, the ‘T3’ would not have had anything like the attention and focus. By going somewhere like the Swanage, it can actually be that shining jewel in the crown; it can become the symbol of that railway; it can, once again, glide into Corfe Castle station with the castle behind it and really re-create something and give something back to that railway. And actually, it’s helping to secure the long-term future of the railway, because it will give it a unique selling point. And that is where there is a uniqueness to it; it becomes more unique in its setting. NB: You think it strengthens its story? AMc: I think it does. We always felt that this was a good news story. One of the things that we’re constantly asked is ‘why is everything not operational and in steam here?’ Let’s start with Agenoria. Okay, well that’s the end of the argument there. But in all seriousness, we couldn’t put the ‘T3’ back into steam - it might not even be possible, but the guys [at Swanage] are really going to look at that seriously. We also need to get away from the idea that we’re not enthusiasts. You know Anthony Coulls very well; my own background is very railways-based - I was brought to this museum as a kid, I’ve got a real interest in railways and enthusiasm for them - and for me, seeing something like the ‘T3’ at Shildon, or seeing it steam past Corfe Castle. With my enthusiast’s hat on, I know which I’d rather see. I’m sure your readers and the wider public would make that choice too, if it was available to them. NB: That is indeed a tantalising prospect, as is that of the ‘Knotty’, the restored North Staffordshire train at Foxfield. But you also mention this word from the 1983 Act: ‘unsuitable’. A lot of this language is subjective, or can be interpreted as such. The ‘T3’ may have been less suitable, for argument’s sake, than the ‘D’ or the ‘T9’, but what is it that actually makes it ‘unsuitable’ for retention in the collection? AMc: We have an imbalance, in terms of locomotives of that type, and of that era, to give a proper, due prominence to those locomotives. What we’re trying to do is rebalance the collection a little. In that regard, we felt that this locomotive didn’t tell the strongest story. It’s also about looking at what the future can be for the locomotive. Does it have a better future outside of the National Collection, where it can, as we’ve just talked about, have that focus put onto it? We know with this one that it absolutely can. It has also led a bit of a nomadic existence.
Someone commented that every time they came to the museum it was their favourite exhibit. But it hasn’t been on display at York since 2004. I’ve looked at the files - there have been no letters of complaint about it not being on display here. It went to Canada in 2011, and of course it was at King’s Cross for a long time. I started this job three years ago - it’s been on NRM sites for maybe about six months of that time, if that. It’s spent a lot of time away and I think that’s been obvious for quite a long time now that it’s not been regarded as one of the stars of the collection; it’s not something that was enjoying a prominent position within the Great Hall; it was on display at Shildon, but didn’t have a particularly prominent position there, that was more just to give it covered accommodation. It’s obviously been looked at by previous generations of museum staff, with the view that it’s not been a primary focus. From that perspective, we have a very, very large collection and we have to remember that this is a tiny percentage of our overall collection. The number of rail vehicles alone is less than half a percent of our collections, so you can imagine what proportion of that these two locomotives represent. So from that point of view, there is an unsuitability for us, because we don’t have any plans to use that as part of our overall displays, or as part of our exhibition programme. Looking at that, is it morally right for us to be holding onto something which we clearly don’t have a core purpose for, in terms of its use, when we know we can help create a really good news story, something that’s going to be a very exciting story, attract a lot of positive publicity and attention, and it also helps to show that we’ve got a wider range? It’s not just about the NRM here in York. We are very much looking to play a key role in the preserved railway history of this country and, in this case, it was deemed that this locomotive might not be suitable for our purposes but we know that it’s suitable for somebody else’s. If that organisation can give this locomotive the attention then that, to us, seems to be a good thing. NB: If you draw on references from other museums, like the British Museum, they are governed not by the same act but by a similar one, and some of the language used [in its own internal policy] is very similar to that which is relevant to the NRM, which says there is a “strong legal presumption” against de-accession of vested objects. In 2002, SR conducted an interview with former NRM head Andrew Scott who said: “We may dispose of a few items, but that certainly won’t include any steam locomotives”. That’s echoed by Helen Ashby who, in 2006, said that at that point “there is no prospect of any disposals of steam locomotives to other owners, because the rules laid down [in the] National Heritage Act 1983 are unlikely to enable us to transfer ownership of them, given their history and provenance.” (SR325 July 2006). So is there a different interpretation now, or has the policy towards these objects changed? AMc: We follow the National Heritage Act 1983 and, obviously, we follow the disposals toolkit; to say that you can’t dispose of something from the collection clearly isn’t the case. NB: So it is too restrictive to say that you can’t de-accession steam locomotives? AMc: It’s like stamp collecting. You’re trying to acquire everything and have the most complete collection. We have to bear in mind that the rail vehicles are quite large, so to look after them properly they need to be in proper storage, and they need to receive proper care. By reviewing, or looking at what we have, we can keep that collection far more fluid, and this gives it sustainability. As we acquire things, we bear in mind that we only have so much space. Would it be morally right for us to acquire a High Speed Train and not be able to do anything with it? We want to be in a position to acquire a HST if we need to. Our collection development policy, which is available on the website, sets out quite clearly the challenges of space. We want to get away from this idea that we’re giving the collection away, or that we’re somehow making the rail vehicle collection smaller. Far from it we are looking to acquire things, as well as dispose of them. The Eurostar is the most recent acquisition because things move on, we don’t want to stop at a particular point in time. This museum opened in 1975, when ‘Deltics’ were running up and down the main line; we now have one in the collection. We need to keep adapting to changes. We’re very myopic in this country sometimes, we are very inward looking. In Denmark at the moment, they’ve had such a problem; they’ve acquired so much and they don’t have enough space that they are actually now scrapping locomotives in their museum collections [SR467] and that is a course of action that we would never, ever entertain. That is not a position that anyone would ever want to be in. So we have to be responsible in what we do, we have to keep things sustainable, but we also have to recognise that the vast majority of the rail vehicle collection is still here - it wasn’t disposed of.
We’re talking about two locomotives, and you can see just behind us the scale of our overall collection - and this is just a fraction. We want to be in a position where we can add to our collections as well. 2002 [when the Andrew Scott interview took place] was before we acquired Flying Scotsman. If anything came about like that again, you can only guess at what might happen in the future, but do we really want to be in a position where we don’t have the sustainability within our collection to be able to make a decision, about whether we should make future acquisitions or not, because we haven’t properly considered our collections in the past and don’t have the space to properly display things? Coming back to the balance, if there were particular gaps in our collection that we should be looking to fill, surely we should be doing that at the expense of something where actually the bigger, broader stories can be told through a multiple of other vehicles, or even other objects. There’s a very important contemporary, sectioned model of a ‘T3’ in the Science Museum Group collection, so there are other ways that you can tell stories. The point I’m trying to make is that the best collections are sustainable. I came from the National Trust, which isn’t allowed to get rid of things because of the way that it was set up. It causes huge problems because people would turn up at properties and say ‘here’s a load of stuff that you want’ and once it’s in there, you can’t do anything with it. It’s a complete nightmare: the scale of it, the administrative side of it and the challenges and headaches that it then presents. We don’t want to be in a position like the Danes have been, where things are actually going under the cutter’s torch. That is something that we would never, ever consider. By being proactive and making these decisions, we can have a very sustainable collection to make sure that the NRM celebrates not just its 50th anniversary, but its 100th and 150th anniversaries. Although some people might not quite understand the processes, these are tough decisions that have to be made, but I think that it is absolutely the right thing for us to do, to keep things sustainable and to actually leave our successors with a manageable situation, not one which causes challenges which, as we all know, can get out of hand, and means other things start to suffer. We don’t want to do that. We want this to be the showcase of the railways and the impact and change that they’ve had in Britain and on the wider world. Part of the way to do that is to have a sustainable collection. NB: Is the size of the collection at the moment unsustainable, or is it close to becoming unsustainable? AMc: It’s not unsustainable, no. And the process that we’ve just gone through has helped to make it more sustainable. We’ll look at the Masterplan later [see next issue], but we’re also looking to fill some gaps in the stories, so we are looking to acquire things. Now that may not necessarily be vehicles, but we want to be in a position to add to our vehicle collection. To achieve that balance, we’ve got to do that. When I arrived here three years ago, our most up-to-date vehicles were the muck trucks from the Channel Tunnel. We’ve now got a Eurostar. I know it’s not steam, but we’ve got to tell the whole railway story. Many of the lessons learned from the 19th century can really be told with part of the 21st century story. HS2 is a great example of that. We’ve got a fantastic archive and wealth of material that documents the first London-Birmingham Railway - Robert Stephenson’s amazing, first big inter-city line into London - and the parallels between that project and what you see today with HS2, including so-called ‘NIMBY’ complaints, is being reflected today. Our historic collections can help set things in a modern context. We’ve seen that with Flying Scotsman recently, with the ‘Four Trains’ event. It demonstrated that actually this wasn’t some new kind of development of the East Coast Main Line, that it’s always been about innovation, speed, elegance and style, which Flying Scotsman, Mallard, the Stirling Single, the Ivatt ‘Atlantics’, can all symbolise from our collection. We need to show that the railway doesn’t stop, and that there’s a new golden age of the railway. We need to recognise that for the railway to be sustainable, we need to keep moving on and the collection has to meet that need, as well as represent that. We have to be a place where you don’t just get the history of the railways, but where you can also find out about the ‘now’ of the railways, and their future.
SAFEGUARDS
NB: You touched on the prospect of an in-steam ‘T3’ on a former LSWR branch line and the ‘Knotty tank’, close to Stoke on a variety of trains. That all has exciting potential, but before any of that happens, what assurances have those individual railways given you as to their care? AMc: Obviously, the fine detail of that is very much for those railways to share if they would like, but both have plans for the locomotives. For example, the Swanage does have a Plan A, which is to restore it to working condition, but they also have a Plan B, because they realise that may not be practical, and it does need an engineering assessment. Now if that engineering assessment is encouraging, then I think we’ll see very quick progress there. One of the concerns has been about a lack of covered accommodation at Swanage; they are working on that this year, it will be covered, and it will have covered accommodation over winter, which will enable them to do the engineering assessment. Then, hopefully over the next year, we’ll have a clear indication of what the plan for the engine is - whether it stays static, which could include covered storage and access, or it’s restored to operational status which, of course, is what most people would want to see.
MAJOR CLEAR-OUTS OR GIVEAWAYS JUST ISN’T WHAT WE’RE ABOUT
Similarly, the Foxfield hopes that their acquisition will become the focus of a working train, to try and create a more representative North Staffordshire train experience as part of their offer. Again, as I’ve alluded to, if things started to go wrong, say they wanted to dispose of them, they’d have to offer them back to us in the first instance. Also, however, we can step in if we’re concerned about how things are going. That would be in a helpful, supportive way. We know from previous experiences that things have gone to places where, maybe, they haven’t had the proper care and attention, and we’ve been able to step in and ensure that things get properly looked after. We’re not the police, we’re there to help where we can and to make sure the safeguards are there. We don’t want to see things turn to scrap - we want them to have the future that we believe they deserve - and if they don’t, then we do have safeguards in place where we’ll help ensure that things are improved. NB: So it’s not a case of policing the movement, but rather helping and advising those railways? AMc: One of the things we’re really starting to look at is developing partnerships with those railways that have really good organisational structures in place, that have a really good forward plan, and that are planning for the future. The last thing we want to see is preserved railways closing down, or being seriously in trouble because of not having enough volunteers, so we will support where we can and also try and raise the profile of preserved railways. I think something like Flying Scotsman shouldn’t be forgotten in all that. It attracts people to get out and visit preserved railways and so we can play our part in ways that people may not think are particularly obvious. We want these places to thrive. We want vehicles that we want to retain in our collection out on loan. The Mid-Hants has been a great partner for us, for example, where some of those great Southern locomotives can be seen in operation, but we’re not looking to dispose of those vehicles and that’s been a very positive relationship. We’ve talked about storage issues here. How much better is it for something that we want to hold on to, but can’t display here or at Shildon, to be on show somewhere else somewhere like STEAM, or the new Main Line museum in Leicester, or running, such as the Beattie well tank, the ‘T9’, Cheltenham, Lord Nelson, and so on? There’s no ‘one size, fits all’, and the museum has wrestled with this problem since the 1970s. We’ve got a lot of big stuff, but we don’t have a lot of space to put big stuff in. This is about balance and trying to get that balance into the collection. I’m a very experienced collections manager, coming from historic houses background, working with national galleries and national museums, and it’s very interesting coming here and seeing how the scale and the nature of some of these remarkable engines creates challenges of their own. It’s not unique, because there are other places like that, but it’s a very different challenge. Even before the museum opened, the staff at the time were trying to work out what to put in the hall here. There were big problems with where things could go. A lot of loans were agreed at that time because there was no alternative. A lot of those loans have proved to be strong partnerships. We’re looking at the opportunity to work very closely with preserved railways to see if there’s any mutual ground. One of the things we’re trying to do is get out and see as many people as we can. But finding the time to travel around the country is difficult when there’s an awful lot of work to be done here in York. We’re really starting to look at preferred partner schemes, in which we work with people who we know will look after things properly and who run things very professionally. Together we can build those kind of professional, national and international standards, and set examples of how these vehicles can be looked after. So you can see a whole host of areas in which it becomes quite a challenge to get those things right. We know that whatever we do, some people might like it, and some people won’t. We’ll never be able to please everybody. We want to show the operational capabilities, in appropriate settings, whether on the main line or on suitable preserved
railways, but also to make sure that our 750,000 visitors - hopefully about to rise to a million-plus as part of our redevelopment - will have a great experience when they come to York. Striking the right balance and pleasing everybody is difficult, so we have to take decisions for the greater good.
THE FUTURE
NB: Will the future collection be a similar size, in terms of what you currently have? And how many more steam locomotives are you seeking to dispose of? AMc: As you saw in the blog, as part of the piece of work that’s just coming to an end, there’s one further locomotive, which will be announced… NB: …That’s a steam locomotive…? AMc: ...That’s a steam locomotive, yes, and then that’s the end of that particular piece of work. That leaves us with a collection of around 260, which we feel is about right for us. We’re not looking to acquire every electric multiple unit that comes out [of service]. There are practicalities there, so we’re going to have to focus on the really key vehicles. In terms of additional steam, it’s hard to envisage what may come along. A hundred years from now, Tornado may become available and that would be of interest to our successors, but Tornado’s going to be running for decades to come, and long may it do so. You can’t see us adding many more steam locomotives, but you just don’t know what may become available - I don’t think anyone expected Flying Scotsman to come along when it did [2004]. So, it’s hard to tell from that point of view. Major clear-outs or giveaways just isn’t what we’re about. We want to ensure that we can still acquire. This is not a financial thing, where we need to get rid of all our stuff and downsize: we are aiming to ensure that we can maintain the world’s greatest railway collection in proper conditions, and keep it as relevant and up-to-date as possible. NB: Foxfield’s ownership of No. 2 and Swanage’s acquisition of the ‘T3’ does, as you say, give those railways security over any potential investment. Do other parties who have locomotives on loan from the NRM have any assurances against their investments, over and above the three to five-year loan periods - unwritten or otherwise? AMc: Yes they do. We have offered letters of assurance which incorporate the presumption of renewal after significant investment.
An example of this would be our Class 101 DMU, as the North Norfolk Railway has spent a lot of time and money on its restoration. Nevertheless, the loan agreement always gives the museum the right to end the loan prematurely, especially if there are concerns over its care. Even with assurances in place, some railways - quite understandably - are not keen to spend their funds on a locomotive, carriage or wagon that they do not own. NB: You touched on your strong relationship with the Mid-Hants Railway. That draws attention to the fact that you have three Maunsell express locomotives in the collection [Lord Nelson, Cheltenham, Sir Lamiel], and then you start looking elsewhere at royal vehicles; the collection is weighted towards those. How are you seeking to redress that balance, either in terms of what you own or what you loan out? How is that going to be shaped in future? AMc: In terms of those vehicles, there’s absolutely no plan to [deaccession]. The royal vehicles, although there’s still quite a lot of them, they have been thinned out in the past, before my time, but a number of royal vehicles were ‘Board of Surveyed’ over the past five to ten years. There are fewer royal vehicles in the collection now than previously. One question that often comes up is ‘why isn’t there a museum in the south for Southern stock; not just for the steam locomotives, but for some of the electric units too?’ I think it would be nice if someone did develop something in the south, as Leicester has done, but it’s not for us to push for that. I can see where you’re coming from with the question, but there are no plans to dispose of any of those Maunsell locomotives at all. NB: Of the 12-15 National Collection vehicles that are going to the new Main Line museum in Leicester, will they all be loans, or will any of them be de-accessions? AMc: No, all loans. Everything will remain in our collection. The loans will be there; these will probably be fixed museum displays, so they’ll be on display for a number of years and, as with all loans, there’ll be safeguards in place in case something’s not being looked after. This is going to be a state-of-the-art museum; professionally run; well visited; so we don’t foresee any problems, but if there were any then obviously we’ve got the safeguards in place. NB: Beyond Leicester, will there be any more steam locomotive loans? AMc: Yes. We get requests, even for the stuff that’s already out on loan - the ‘T9’, for example, will be attractive to other railways for galas. We continue to get requests for loans, often on a temporary basis. One of the things that we are looking to do, referring back to the preferred partner scheme, is the potential of loaning out some of the vehicles that we’ve decided we’re holding on to. They might not necessarily be stars in the Great Hall, because we can’t put everything in here, or they might not be part of any redevelopment we do at Shildon. At Shildon, we’d be telling more of a focused story rather than having it as a kind of accessible storage, so the vehicles would really be much more a part of a museum-type experience. That means we will have vehicles in need of a home. We’re looking at our own storage requirements, and we may be able to expand our accessible storage, either here or at Shildon. These are very embryonic ideas. We need to be in a position to develop them, so we are looking very much towards the future. It’s not about the here and now, we’re looking at the sustainability of the whole collection. But it may transpire that it makes more sense to place some items at preserved railways, so we’ll work very closely with them on that. Any preserved railway looking to borrow a vehicle can come to us for loans. For example, Cornwall’s off down to Quainton [see News], and that’s come as the result of a direct request for a loan. We consider all applications, and if there is a case, we can get the vehicle moved safely and we don’t have a particular plan for it over the next few years, then something could go. If you look at somewhere like STEAM, in Swindon, the vast majority of, not just the locomotives, but the carriages and everything else in there is part of the National Collection. There are over 2,000 loaned items in Swindon - it’s astonishing. Obviously, the locomotives obscure some of the smaller items in the collections there. It’s a very important relationship for us: STEAM can take a huge amount; it’s geographically based. We’ve got a large Great Western collection: we’ve got Lode Star and the Railcar here at the moment, but it’s great that you can have a great concentration, like City of Truro, King George V, Evening Star and Lode Star have been there, as well as the Dean Goods. Leicester will give us something similar. Again, the vehicles there will have that kind of geographical balance and focus. We’ve loaned various vehicles in the past to the Museum of Scottish Railways at Bo’ness; a Class 84 electric built in Glasgow is there at the moment, but may come back here at some stage. And we’re still actively looking to make sure there’s a good spread of what we have. If you look at somewhere like the British Museum or the Tate, for example, they don’t have the same amount of stuff out across the country. We talk about museums being very London-centric; I think one of the great things is that, a) we’re not in London and b) a lot of the National Collection is out across the country, and with something like ‘Cromwell’ or ‘Scotsman’, they travel the country as well, where they can be highly visible. I think that is something that we can be proud of, and I think that sometimes people can overlook the fact that, as museums go, we get more of our stuff around the country than probably anybody else. SR ●●
IT MAY TRANSPIRE THAT IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO PLACE SOME ITEMS AT PRESERVED RAILWAYS