IS IT TIME TO DISPERSE THE NRM COLLECTION?
I have read with interest the two interviews with the NRM representatives (SR492/494). It seems to me to be a list of contradictions leading to a strategy which has little hope of success or confidence in the NRM’s ability to manage the collection on a sustainable basis.
Here are a few observations.
1) On the one hand, not wanting to duplicate its operational locomotives with identical locomotives already operating on the main line, and yet proceeding with negotiations to return Oliver Cromwell to main line use when Britannia is already running.
2) Producing a list of National Collection locomotives identified for operation for the next 15 years which has only one representative from both the LMS and GWR. These two railways probably operated 60% of the total main line steam fleet, yet there are five from the SR which had the smallest main line steam fleet.
3) The NRM fielded no fewer than four interviewees to answer Steam Railway’s questions. This hardly supports the contention of limited resources. In early NRM days or even before, when BR was putting the collection together, the curator would have conducted such an interview alone and, as the curator, been master of the subject.
4) Long experience has shown that those entrepreneurs who are able to fund restorations always require ownership before they will invest (e.g. Alan Pegler, Sir William McAlpine, Dr Tony Marchington, Brell Ewart, Jeremy Hosking), hence the original permanent loan agreements devised by John Scholes with Sir David Follet’s support as director at the Science Museum and perpetuated by John Coiley.
Nobody safeguarded the collection more tightly than John Scholes, or was more possessive of it, but he understood that long loan agreements with suitable conditions are essential to justify substantial investment in an object. This experience indicates the NRM is being totally unrealistic in expecting a probable investment of over £1 million in Green Arrow based on a three-year loan agreement without a copper-bottomed extension clause for at least another 27 years. It would be more financially attractive for an entrepreneur to build a replica to modern standards. In any case, what has happened to the considerable hire fees earned by Green Arrow over the many years of operation under NRM management? These should have been ring-fenced to pay for the next overhaul.
5) The NRM’s claim that its policy is designed to protect the longterm security of the collection is hardly consistent with sending GWR 2-8-0 No. 2818 to Swindon
– a major milestone in steam locomotive design which should have been at the top of the list for retention in the National Collection. Security at Swindon will only be guaranteed for as long as the local authority can afford to financially support the museum.
6) The best means of conservation is to use a mechanical object and keep it well maintained. There is no evidence to show the Scholes long-term agreements were in any way detrimental to the locomotives. In the case of No. 70013, it ensured it was not scrapped.
If the NRM requires evidence that its strategy is flawed, I suggest they look to the Ffestiniog Railway, where locomotives dating from as early as 1863 have been restored to working order. Furthermore, the workshops at Boston Lodge, which are the oldest in the world, are being sensitively restored so they can maintain a sustainable railway.
When the NRM was set up in 1975 it was looked upon as the organisation which set the conservation and preservation standards, and it was the lead contributor in providing exhibits at major historical events, e.g. the Shildon and Rainhill anniversaries.
It also provided, in those early years, many locomotives and carriages for operation both on the main line and on private railways.
It even put together a complete train of dining cars to celebrate the centenary of railway dining and toured the country.
The NRM appears to have as many staff now as it did then. So what has happened to reduce operational visibility of the National Collection to its present paltry state, together with a proposal to abolish its excellent well-equipped workshop, installed at considerable cost with taxpayers’ money, with the purpose of displaying how locomotives were maintained?
Today, private railways offer Victorian and Edwardian vintage locomotives and carriages superbly restored offering nostalgic and educational train journeys at no expense to the public purse and collectively attracting well over 10 million visitors per annum. If the NRM continues with its unenterprising policy, the question will soon be asked ‘is the taxpayer receiving value for money from the NRM?’ – perhaps it would serve the public’s interest better if the rolling stock items were dispersed to those who have shown with ownership they can be just as well restored and cared for and the NRM be limited to providing a resource for the study of records and drawings?
I suggest those at the NRM would be well advised to look outside their restrictive policy and see what is being brilliantly achieved by the A1 Trust, Didcot, Tyseley, Crewe, Grosmont, Sheffield Park, Bridgnorth, Bo’ness and Boston Lodge, all with dedicated expertise and without any call on the taxpayer but still providing long-term security to the object. The photographs in SR494 of 2-6-4T No. 2500, Hardwicke, Midland Spinner No. 673 and several other NRM locomotives show what can be done by loaning locomotives to reputable organisations on long-term loans without any detriment to their long-term conservation. The proposal to ‘wall in’ for up to 20 years key members of the core collection seems particularly short sighted. Have they forgotten what was involved in extracting Caerphilly Castle and Deltic from the Science Museum? David Ward, Cambridge