National Railway Museum transfers 2818 to STEAM

[dibber25]

I think Mr Wolmar is, at times, in danger of believing his own publicity...

I find myself disagreeing with him on many things, maybe even most things, with the possible exception of HS2. The NRM has been an undoubted victim of government austerity but relentless trimming of the collection is not the answer. The variety and diversity of the collection is the attraction. People go to a zoo to see all the animals, not just the elephant, though that may be the star attraction. You could tell the story of steam with Rocket and Mallard but if you reduce the museum to two locos and a fish and chip stall no one will bother with it. The diversity of the collection tells the whole story and 2818 represents the class which made heavy freight a reality. The first 1,000ton, 100 wagon freight trains that revolutionised the transport of coal by reducing the cost. Whilst the museum may well tell the story of 100mph express passenger trains with Mallard et al, it now has very little that tells the much more important story of rail freight. Whoever advised them to thin out and give away locomotives did us all a disservice. (CJL)

[Dunsignalling]

The problem at the root of all this is that, for those interested in the subject, the NRM's presentation is perhaps becoming a little superficial in order to appeal to the unconverted. 

 

My own thought is that the rot set in when the museum acquired an over-famous example of big-green-and-named passenger locos, which has possibly set a populist tone.  

 

The snag is that, in order to maintain the income stream needed to maintain its activities (visible and not) any specialist institution of such a size has to be a Grockle Trap, too. 

 

As a representative of what really made steam railways tick, the 28xx was one of the most significant locos in the collection, not equalled in its field until the advent of the LMS 8F or surpassed before the arrival of the BR 2-10-0 half-a-century after its introduction. Its departure undoubtedly skews the collection away from a balanced presentation of railway history.

 

If the NRM ever wants to mount an authoritative display of the history of rail freight in the UK (increasingly unlikely, IMHO), it will be necessary to borrow one.

 

John

[28XX]

A casual flick through any mid-20th c WTT reveals that there were more freight trains than passenger on most lines, even though rail was the default mode of transport for the majority of travelers, and its generally accepted that freight subsidised passenger until the rise of the motor lorry post ww2. So I contend the history of freight transport is a story they should tell well and often.

Edited August 17, 2017 by 28XX

[Fenman]

... The first 1,000ton, 100 wagon freight trains that revolutionised the transport of coal by reducing the cost. ...

 

I find this debate fascinating (though significant parts of my career have been spent in cultural institutions that have had to address questions like the one now being debated). But, to take your specific point, I would argue that we are in danger of falling into a narrow "enthusiast's" perspective. The 2818 may have represented a very significant improvement in efficiency compared to other engines, but the "revolution", to take your word, came half a century or so earlier when, almost overnight, railways crowded-out inland waterways for the transport of bulk commodities like coal. For most communities, a promise of a dramatic reduction in coal prices was a significant factor in securing local acceptance for lines to be built.

 

Like most museums, there's a debate to be had about who the NRM is for and what story it is trying to tell. The risk, if us enthusiasts get control, is that it will turn into a gigantic store-room of all our favourite rolling stock (have a look at most of our model railway stocks at home to see this problem in miniature), whereas the bigger story - in social, political and economic terms - is about the way the railways fundamentally changed the nature of our society. To make a publishing parallel, it's the difference between, on the one hand, detailed Middleton Press books about individual routes, and magisterial historical overviews by people like the late Jack Simmons. I would argue that, for a *national* museum, the NRM is currently too much like the former and not enough like the latter. Locomotion, on the other hand (which, personally, I prefer, given my own enthusiasms) is probably rightly much more like the former - after all, it was initially intended to be an overflow store-room and public entry was a later addition to the thinking.

 

While great institutions like the British Museum claim to tell "the world's story", in fact they are little more than vast collections of individual objects, mostly lumped together in ways that don't actually tell a coherent story - they instead present objects like artworks in a gallery, as individual things to be engaged with one by one.

 

So I guess, for me, the question is what is the NRM actually for?

 

Paul

 

 

Edit: for some bizarre reason I had turned Jack Simmons into a Jake. Mystifying. And I clarified my understanding of the development of the concept for Locomotion.

Edited August 17, 2017 by Fenman

[Clearwater]

I think Chris' point about the role of the 28xx in the development of the freight market is a good one. The key point is how that story is brought to life. People are beginning to forget the role of coal in the history of the UK. In a uk where we celebrate, rightly, coal free power dates, it's easy to forget the seminal role played in the development of our economy that underpins our prosperity today. By way of anecdote to illustrate my point, Last summer, I took my son to Shildon. On the way back we stopped in the small museum in Darlington. As we were walking around, I overheard a small girl, a note easterner by accent, ask her parents what that black stuff was - the coal... Freight has always been less glamorous than passenger trains - it's easy to sell the glamour of the Art Deco streamliners. Much harder to persuade people to look at dirty heavy industries that directly killed, maimed and shortened the lives of your ancestors and is now widely held responsible for global warming.

 

I can see how somewhere like the nrm needs space around exhibits to be able to show the context, the ability to rotate locos to refresh the offering. I don't think a loco, however handsome as the 28s undoubtedly are, can convey that story without info boards, the interactive displays etc. When you consider the size of the collection, the space available; I can see the logic in moving exhibits to other places rather than leaving them out of public display with no realistic prospect of bringing them into display within a foreseeable timeframe. as I've said above, I think the nrm overall does a good job. It can't be easy to take a decision to thin the collection. It's inevitably going to be controversial with the enthusiast community.

 

I'm sure he nrm has suffered from austerity but let's remember that it's free to enter. Not withstanding that, I generally donate when I visit and m happy to support their commercial initiatives such as locomotion' commissioned models. If thinning the collection allows better displays, allows the museum to thrive and allows exhibits to flourish elsewhere, then I'm supportive. Whether nrm/science museum has the right people to support them is a different and more complex question

 

David

[The Fatadder]

deleted - posted in wrong thread!

Edited August 17, 2017 by The Fatadder

[dibber25]

I think Chris' point about the role of the 28xx in the development of the freight market is a good one. The key point is how that story is brought to life. People are beginning to forget the role of coal in the history of the UK. In a uk where we celebrate, rightly, coal free power dates, it's easy to forget the seminal role played in the development of our economy that underpins our prosperity today. By way of anecdote to illustrate my point, Last summer, I took my son to Shildon. On the way back we stopped in the small museum in Darlington. As we were walking around, I overheard a small girl, a note easterner by accent, ask her parents what that black stuff was - the coal... Freight has always been less glamorous than passenger trains - it's easy to sell the glamour of the Art Deco streamliners. Much harder to persuade people to look at dirty heavy industries that directly killed, maimed and shortened the lives of your ancestors and is now widely held responsible for global warming.

 

I can see how somewhere like the nrm needs space around exhibits to be able to show the context, the ability to rotate locos to refresh the offering. I don't think a loco, however handsome as the 28s undoubtedly are, can convey that story without info boards, the interactive displays etc. When you consider the size of the collection, the space available; I can see the logic in moving exhibits to other places rather than leaving them out of public display with no realistic prospect of bringing them into display within a foreseeable timeframe. as I've said above, I think the nrm overall does a good job. It can't be easy to take a decision to thin the collection. It's inevitably going to be controversial with the enthusiast community.

 

I'm sure he nrm has suffered from austerity but let's remember that it's free to enter. Not withstanding that, I generally donate when I visit and m happy to support their commercial initiatives such as locomotion' commissioned models. If thinning the collection allows better displays, allows the museum to thrive and allows exhibits to flourish elsewhere, then I'm supportive. Whether nrm/science museum has the right people to support them is a different and more complex question

 

David

I agree absolutely! I'd happily sacrifice a loco or two to improve the displays and the telling of the story but that isn't what happens at the NRM. Even during the Great Gathering the story of steam and speed was abysmally told. The 28xx was one way to have introduced the story of heavy freight - the stuff that we now break up and send on thousands of 44ton artics instead. Lets have the interactive displays - alongside the real thing. Let's have a short theatre presentation as you go in, to explain what you're going to see (as was done at Royalty & Empire in Windsor and is done every 15min at the WB studio tour (Harry Potter). Let's do away with the pathetic poster boards that are quickly hidden by a crowd of people. But we don't get that. As soon as space opens up at the NRM it has a retail value and in goes another cake stall or whatever. Fish & chips will be next, it seems. Rather than shaking buckets at the door to collect donations (which the non-enthusiast members of my family found really off-putting when they visited) bring in an 'Adopt an Engine' scheme like the zoos do with their animals. At present the NRM is doing a spectacular job of alienating the very people whose support is the deepest and longest-lasting, while doing little to attract, inform and educate the fickle public whom it courts so hard. (CJL)

[John B]

I find myself nodding vigorously in agreement with Chris's comments above. I used to love the NRM, as a kid and then as a younger adult. I've been out of the country for 13 years now, and doubt I'd recognize the place.

 

If the NRM is serious about creating an "immersive, interpretive experience" they could do a lot worse than look at the way the California State Railroad Museum in Sacramento has done it - telling the stories of railroading without sacrificing the collection..

[Chris116]

My last visit to the NRM was about 14 months ago. I have been going there every 18-24 months since about 2006. I used to go to the old Clapham museum about every 9 months and the TfL museum at Covent Garden before it was updated I went to at least once a year. 

 

The NRM and Covent Garden are becoming childrens playgrounds with ever fewer exhibits. TfL used to have five or six electric trams plus a couple of horse trams now they have one or two electric and one horse. The NRM make space to show the exhibits off better but at least a third of the large exhibits do not have any sign to say what you are looking at or giving details on its history. Given my interest in railways I could fill in most of the blanks but still had to use the internet for some items. In my view EVERY item in the main halls should have a sign with the history of the item and preferably two signs, one aimed at under 15 year olds and one aimed at those of us who wish we were that young.

 

Most of the talks that are given throughout the day are very good but a few I have been on during my last two visits had a lot of wrong information which myself and other members of the audience had to correct and that does not give you any confidence in any of the information that is given out. One of the explainers was asked what the difference was between signals that went up and those that went down. The person asking the question was not being clever they simply knew very little about railways and they were keen to learn. The answer was that in diofferent circumstances they were used to give the driver information about the line ahead! At the end of the talk I took the gentleman aside and explained the difference between upper and lower quadrant signals. 

 

I have no problem with the NRM trying to make every penny possible out of sales of food and souveniers but there is a lot of wasted space so I feel that removing items is the wrong thing to do and if they do want to remove items they should be on a fixed term loan which can of course be extended if both sides wish. I do not think it is right to gift things away as there is then the possibility that the new owner could fall on hard times and have to sell the item which could mean the item was sold for scrap.

[brack]

Perhaps we should start a thread on what the nrm do which is working? I visit locomotion every month or two and York every few years. I have a four year old daughter who loves going (hence the frequency of visits - it's only 15 minutes to locomotion and it's indoors!) and a wife who finds things interesting. There is much which is good, but recent disposal decisions are not - I don't think I or many others can explain our position any more clearly than we have already. Maybe then our positive experiences may be more useful (and hopefully carry more weight) than Mr Wolmar's recent suggestion.

[Chris M]

I know that Great Western locos are more important than any others but I just can't get too worried about this disposal. There are six of thes marvellous beasts still in existence together with nine of the 2884 class. There is currently no danger of this class of loco disappearing and therefore ask whether there needs to be one in the national collection. Living in the midlands I am rather spoiled as I regularly see 2857 plying her trade on the SVR and used to see 2885 everyday on my way to work when it was at Moor Street Sation. There are a small clutch of them on the Glos & Warks in various states. To me they are very common locos and don't see the need for one in the national collection.

[royaloak]

Was 2818 built at Doncaster or shedded at York?

 

If not then there is your answer!

Me.cynical, never!

[jjb1970]

I think everything revolves around two questions, what are museums for and what is historically significant. And clearly opinions on both those questions differ.

[adb968008]

Personally I think the NRM missed a trick not acquiring the TCDD 8F when it had the chance.

There was two repatriated, both ended up sold and one let drift back out the country again despite the years of efforts bringing them in. One of em was even stored at NRM shildon for a period.

 

It tells so many stories.., heavy freight, UK exports, international war & overseas service, there really isn't a loco in the collection that covers it, additionally it could have become a focal point for Memoriam on war anniversaries...more so than a plaque on a wall, I suspect had 2818 been deaccessioned a few years earlier, there may now be that TCDD Heavy Freight 8F in the collection.

Edited August 17, 2017 by adb968008

[APOLLO]

Well, for me a museum is a museum is a museum. I like museums.

 

Last Friday we had a day out in London. We visited the Science museum, which for me is these days now a bit "dumbed down" - but still interesting nonetheless. We intended to visit the Natural History museum - but the queue to get in was a mile long, so we visited the nearby V&A (Victoria & Albert) museum - which I thought would be boring - WRONG. What a wonderful museum, a bit of interest for all - and I'm not usually interested in such arty things !!. We spent a couple of hours in there, and only saw a part of it.

 

I reckon the NRM should be the same for non rail buff visitors - a selection of everything UK railway over it's history, and I think the NRM does this well, though my last visit was "The great gathering" a couple or so years ago. The NRM has lots of exhibits - too many for York / Shildon to show, I think they need to rotate exhibits a bit more, and a few more events like "The great gathering" would keep interest up. 

 

I wonder if ever a Pendolino will end up there ?.. It was sad though to see the now tatty APT and lines of equally tatty MK 1 coaches at Crewe on the way down to London. Still, at least they exist.

 

Brit15

[jjb1970]

 

Last Friday we had a day out in London. We visited the Science museum, which for me is these days now a bit "dumbed down" - but still interesting nonetheless. We intended to visit the Natural History museum - but the queue to get in was a mile long, so we visited the nearby V&A (Victoria & Albert) museum - which I thought would be boring - WRONG. What a wonderful museum, a bit of interest for all - and I'm not usually interested in such arty things !!. We spent a couple of hours in there, and only saw a part of it.

 

 

 

How right you are, the V&A is a wonderful museum and you could spend days in there and not see everything. I didn't expect to like it either but my wife and daughter wanted to see it and I loved it.

[dibber25]

I know that Great Western locos are more important than any others but I just can't get too worried about this disposal. There are six of thes marvellous beasts still in existence together with nine of the 2884 class. There is currently no danger of this class of loco disappearing and therefore ask whether there needs to be one in the national collection. Living in the midlands I am rather spoiled as I regularly see 2857 plying her trade on the SVR and used to see 2885 everyday on my way to work when it was at Moor Street Sation. There are a small clutch of them on the Glos & Warks in various states. To me they are very common locos and don't see the need for one in the national collection.

2818 is the earliest example in existence and the only survivor in its original, Churchward condition with the straight frame drop. In that respect it is unique. It is also, the only loco in the collection which tells the story of the 100-wagon coal train. Just because there are dozens of Minis still on the road, does that mean that the motor museum shouldn't have one? (CJL)

[EddieB]

In the latest issue of RAIL magazine, which I've seen today, Christian Wolmar (who tells us he's on the NRM Advisory Panel) advocates getting rid of yet more locomotives (it'll only rile a few enthusiasts, he says) in order to..........wait for it......... accommodate a fish and chip shop in the Great Hall, because the railway made fish and chips possible. He's invited e-mail responses. He's already got mine. With advice like that from trusted individuals, I fear there's no hope for OUR National Collection. (CJL)

The central role of railways in provision of fish and chips seems to be one of Wolmar's great themes - I think he's used it in more than one of his books (copies on my shelves so far unread), interviews and several articles.  Clearly a Great Western heavy goods loco falls outside this narrative and has to go to make way for something to take its plaice.  Meanwhile, the NRM holds on to Livingston Thompson, perhaps to embellish this all-pervasive by recounting how the Ffesteringnog ran its steam locos on discarded oil from chippies.

[jjb1970]

I think we have to be consistent on funding. People have mentioned austerity, if entrance is free (and a while ago things got rather heated on a thread here where ending free entry was discussed) and government funding is tight then merchandising, sales of food etc are probably rather important to museums as an additional source of funding. If people don’t like museums to have coffee shops and merchandise stalls fair enough, but how will the lost revenue be replaced. The government could provide more money to keep entrance free and offset lost revenue but that won’t happen. If you have to pay to enter a museum then you have more of an argument to complain about sales stalls (even then the ticket price may well be cheaper than it would be otherwise) but if we want free museums and we know that government funding is tight then we can’t really complain about them making what money they can from outlets.

I tend to support entrance fees as somebody has to pay for museums and the work they do. They could easily charge for entry and have special arrangements for persons needing to spend extended time using their archives to do research. If money is tight and people want museums to continue their work then somebody has to pay.

That said, I do object profoundly to museums offering free entry and then using chuggers and trying to send people on a guilt trip if they don’t make a donation, it is either free entry or it isn’t. Have posters inviting people to make a donation and have plenty of donation boxes but don’t apply pressure, if they don’t want visitors walking through the doors unless they pay then be honest about it and introduce an entry charge. I always make a decent donation (including to a lot of museums I’ve paid to get into) but recently I’ve made a point of not doing so in protest at some of the techniques used to try and coerce people into “donating”.

[brack]

an entry charge doesn't put people off if they're on their own, but it does put people off with a family and 3 or 4 kids in tow. There's a lot of places I can think of where I'd go on my own, but taking my wife and daughter along makes it well over £30 to get in, which is pretty steep for many. National Museums being free to UK residents seems a good policy to me in terms of encouraging people here to value and enjoy culture and history. Free entry means I'm more likely to make lots of shorter repeat visits rather than trying to soak everything in in one long day and get my moneys worth (and bring my dinner and something to drink). Given the cafes, shops etc (and the carpark at york) I suspect that several repeat visits per year may be more valuable to the museum in a financial sense than one visit per decade, and people don't mind paying for other stuff if they've got in for nowt.

[adb968008]

2818 is the earliest example in existence and the only survivor in its original, Churchward condition with the straight frame drop. In that respect it is unique. It is also, the only loco in the collection which tells the story of the 100-wagon coal train. Just because there are dozens of Minis still on the road, does that mean that the motor museum shouldn't have one? (CJL)

2807 ?

 

Reading its page it has an even bigger claim to history than 2818..

 

http://gwr2807.blogspot.co.uk/p/why-2807.html

 

 

For that matter when it comes to semi-irrelevant minuta details that surpass most of the populace, 2885 would place an equal claim due to its First of modified type.

I could also include 5224 being the only remaining example of the modified 52xx's front end, all of the others became 72xx's without seeing service...

Then there's 60009 with its unique W1 hush hush tender..

 

The list goes on.

 

Historical footnotes do not always need to be National focal points, otherwise nearly every loco in the country at this point has some unique factor to its history and should be in the national collection.

Plenty of other GWR locos with straight frames, in preservation, it's neither unique (lots of GWR locos had this) , sole surviving (plenty of 2-8-0s including 2-8-0 tanks with drop frames, the 42xx preserved all have this) or the first (2800) or the oldest preserved (2807) of the class, even 3717 could tell that story.

 

A 72xx may have a better claim to the museum, especially if it were in exBarry condition, came from Wales, demised in Wales, the only class not yet to be have restored by preservationists after 56 years, the only 2-8-2t design in the U.K. only existed because of the Great Depression, and shows the might of industry determined to retain its workforce during dark days.

 

Ask Joe public about its straight drop, they won't even be able to point to its frames.

Edited August 18, 2017 by adb968008

[Craigw]

I know that Great Western locos are more important than any others but I just can't get too worried about this disposal. There are six of thes marvellous beasts still in existence together with nine of the 2884 class. There is currently no danger of this class of loco disappearing and therefore ask whether there needs to be one in the national collection. Living in the midlands I am rather spoiled as I regularly see 2857 plying her trade on the SVR and used to see 2885 everyday on my way to work when it was at Moor Street Sation. There are a small clutch of them on the Glos & Warks in various states. To me they are very common locos and don't see the need for one in the national collection.

 

2818 is the earliest example in existence and the only survivor in its original, Churchward condition with the straight frame drop. In that respect it is unique. It is also, the only loco in the collection which tells the story of the 100-wagon coal train. Just because there are dozens of Minis still on the road, does that mean that the motor museum shouldn't have one? (CJL)

 

Even more than that, the 28XX and the Star tell the story of the Churchward revolution - the engineer who changed so much on the railways. two and 4 cylinder, passenger and freight. You could lose the Castle or the King because the 28 and Star are the important GWR locos - and nationally important at that. it is also worth remembering that the vast majority of surviving GWR steam is a result of the Barry aberration. The Star and 28xx are in still in railway condition.

 

Regards,

 

Craig w

 

Craig w

[Zomboid]

I haven't been to the NRM in ages (except a flying visit to the gift shop, where they only had junk for sale), but I did find that some of the supposedly free museums in New York were particularly difficult to get into for free. You have to queue for the ticket desk, with loads of "suggested donation" signs all around, and then you tell the person on the desk how much you want to pay and they give you a ticket. It's hard to say "nothing" in that scenario, but you can.

Though the Smithsonian, Capitol and Library of Congress was very different - just walk in through the metal detectors and have a look around.

[phil-b259]

 

If the NRM ever wants to mount an authoritative display of the history of rail freight in the UK (increasingly unlikely, IMHO), it will be necessary to borrow one.

 

John

 

I do not see the need for any particular locomotive for this.

 

A train with 50 private owner unbraked coal wagons is fundamentally no different whatsoever than a train with 20 private owner coal wagons behind it. yes the tonnage shifted is different but both trains require the same loading / unloading techniques etc and as such so very little relevance to the 'story' of railfreight in the UK

 

Freight is carried in wagons - not locomotives and while a more powerful loco might be able to haul more wagons that doesn't tell anyone much. Far more important to the changes in rail freight are the introduction of long wheelbase fitted wagons and the developments in motor transport and the flexibility it offered to traders compared to railways. The story of freight also is very much a story of our economy and society - at one time heavy industry was dominant which produced traffics ideal for rail transport, plus of course we did not have things like the national electricity or gas grids forcing the requirement for coal to be supplied to thousands of small local merchants. Today our manufacturing is dominated by high tech stuff which does not require vast quantities of raw materials nor is the end product necessarily suitable for rail transport. As such rail transport has had to change what it does - and the type of loco on the front did not lead developments in this regard.

 

If you want to tell the story of coal transport you have a private owner mineral wagon, a HAA hopper then one of the modern bogie hoppers. Aggregate transport is pretty much identical to coal, while the story if general merchandise would most likely use a covered 4 wheeled van, a later long wheelbase vac / air braked one then a container / intermodal wagon

Edited August 18, 2017 by phil-b259

[Zomboid]

You could argue that a few road vehicles and something covering the 1955 strike would also be needed to tell the full story of freight by rail...