NRM IN ACTION
What’s behind the new operational strategy for the National Collection?
The future of the National Collection
It’s been two years since Steam Railway last sat down with the National Railway Museum’s Head Curator and Assistant Director Andrew McLean to discuss a series of topics, including the disposals of historic locomotives from the collection and plans for the redevelopment of the York site. Nick Brodrick returned to the NRM in March when he was joined by Senior Curator Ed Bartholomew, Senior Curator of Rail Transport and Technology Anthony Coulls and the Science Museum Group’s Head of Collections Services Jack Kirby, to examine its freshly published strategy for the operation of National Collection locomotives and rolling stock for the next 15 years, first revealed in the last issue.
NB: What is the context of this strategy?
AM: I think you’ve expressed surprise before that we don’t have anything like this. We have been looking at this because of our development, both here and at Shildon: we’ve looked at what vehicles, among other things, will go on display, but we’ve also looked at what vehicles will be operated for our own sites – and that’s our priority in terms of operations. So that’s here [York], Shildon, and because we’re covered by the Science Museum Group, the strategy also includes [the Science and Industry Museum] Manchester.
The key thing is that this is a strategy, not a policy. This is setting out our aspirations. There are some things on the list which might not happen, but could happen if the circumstances are right. We’re also examining things such as Flying Scotsman, which we’ll be looking to run at least until 2025, our [50th] anniversary year. Then we’ll be looking at longer term strategies.
In terms of the other headlines for this [strategy], we’re including diesel, electric and rolling stock in that as well, we’re identifying what we’d like for York, Shildon and Manchester, and we’re also looking at the situation in terms of loans to heritage railways and main line operations.
I’m guessing that the big headline to come out of all of this is that we’ve highlighted Green Arrow for potential main line operations. So the possibility, at some stage in the next 15 years, and which this strategy covers, shows Green Arrow potentially coming back to main line operation, something that certainly hadn’t [previously] been on the list.
We’re in discussion with [a potential partner for] Oliver Cromwell at the moment. Flying Scotsman’s already out there doing its stuff; we’re still committed to that and having ‘Cromwell’ on the main line.
NB: Green Arrow; is that something you’re actively working on?
AM: Not actively. You’ll also see in the strategy that, because we’re prioritising the redevelopments here and at Shildon, unlike Flying Scotsman, we’re not going to actively seek somebody to come and work with us. We’ve ruled out Green Arrow until at least 2021 in terms of main line operations because we’ve got just so much else on here at the moment. And that wouldn’t involve us fund-raising for Green Arrow – it would have to be someone approaching us with a proposal, in the way that we’ve been dealing with Oliver Cromwell.
NB: It would be under the custodianship of a group?
AM: It would be very similar to the Oliver Cromwell situation.
Some of the aspirational stuff is reliant on not just the funding and things being properly in place, but also the mechanical condition of things. We think that these locomotives are OK to operate, but that’s obviously dependent on surveys and investigations.
NB: Green Arrow was one of the nominated locomotives to go into the Great Central Railway’s proposed museum at Leicester. How does this impact on those plans, if indeed you still have any?
AM: Obviously, the situation with Leicester has changed dramatically from what it was, and we know that it is still the aspiration to build a museum of some description at the GCR. They’ve almost gone back to the drawing board, and that’s the railway with Leicester City Council, so we’re not involved in that and it was never our museum, of course, but we were going to be lending items to it.
The whole scheme that was being proposed has now changed completely. We would still be very open to working with them when they come up with a firm proposal for things, but we do have our own priorities.
There are plenty of other local connections that we can work with. Bear in mind what the GCR is talking about now is a smaller, less ambitious scheme than the initial proposal. I understand that it’s going to be a very different beast, including a big showpiece building, but we can’t hang about and wait for that to become reality.
JK: Previously, we didn’t have anything on the cards here or at Locomotion, whereas the Leicester project did. Now though, while we’re very open to receiving requests from people to borrow things, we have two projects of our own that are going to happen and that has changed the complexion of things. If they want to ask us for things then we are really open to that, but their previous project in its initial incarnation is on ice while we have two projects that are now happening.
NB: And that would be… AM: The entire museum.
If you think back to when the Leicester museum first came onto the agenda, part of the priority that we had at the time (and this is going back eight years) is the fact that we didn’t have any additional storage, but now our plan is for an additional storage building at Locomotion. That will house a substantial number of locomotives and rolling stock items, some of which are currently not under cover. In terms of our own facilities during the period that this document covers, we’re going to have far more storage and accommodation, so it won’t be so pressing for us to rely on a museum such as Leicester.
However, we’re committed to having our collection displayed across the country; we’ve got that long-standing relationship with STEAM [Swindon] and what’s becoming a long-standing relationship with the Museum of Scottish Railways at Bo’ness. We’ve got loans in progress in Wales, across the UK and sometimes beyond that as well.
We’ll certainly be supporting that museum [Leicester] in terms of the collection. I’m sure we’ll be able to do things with it.
NB: On the subject of loans, at the moment there is a policy of threeyear cycles. Is there no way that the period can be extended to better reflect the circumstances surrounding overhauling and restoring locomotives – and the high cost involved in that? That was one of the reasons cited for the disposal of the ‘T3’ – that Swanage could have invested hundreds of thousands of pounds in something that you could take back off them in three years [if it was loaned].
JK: The three-year period is best practice in the museum sector, so that’s why we go with it.
We can indicate to people that we have an intent that we will renew those loans, but it’s not easy for us to commit longer term: organisations change and circumstances change, so we’re happy with three years. But where people are going to do something like overhaul a locomotive, we can usually offer them some assurance that the intention is for a longer agreement.
We would have a break clause in a longer agreement anyway, so it doesn’t make a lot of difference at the end of the day.
NB: So the presumption is that they will continue beyond the three years, so long as they don’t foul up?
JK: Yes. With very long loan agreements, unexpected things do come up. We didn’t foresee digital photography, that we’d want to put things online, or how people credit us online. None of that would have been in a loan agreement from ten or 15 years ago. It wasn’t a big consideration then. Now, recognising us as the lender or, when we borrow things, recognising who we’re borrowing them from, has become important. That’s why a cycle of shorter loan agreements works – it gives you a chance to update your Ts&Cs to make sure that you’re reflecting current practice.
AM: There are two types of loan agreement: overhaul and operational, so this is a huge commitment on behalf of the borrower.
I don’t think there have been any examples, certainly not in my time, where we’ve taken something off someone that’s been the subject of investment. A good example, although it’s not steam, is the DMU at the North Norfolk Railway. They’ve invested significantly in the unit and it’s been on that cycle of loans; we have no intention of taking it back off them as long as they continue to look after it in the way they have been doing.
THAT WOULDN’T INVOLVE US FUND-RAISING FOR GREEN ARROW – IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMEONE APPROACHING US
ANDREW McLEAN, HEAD CURATOR AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR