NRM rebranding - Railway Museum

[Norm81]

Rebranding astounds me, you pay some designer a significant sum of money to come up with a load of cobblers (putting it very mildly) and a new logo. It's money for old rope for these designer people.

 

They could've put it to the public and got some good ideas for nearly free? A competition of some sort.

[Kiwi]

Rebranding astounds me, you pay some designer a significant sum of money to come up with a load of cobblers (putting it very mildly) and a new logo. It's money for old rope for these designer people.

 

They could've put it to the public and got some good ideas for nearly free? A competition of some sort.

Except that when you get the public involved you end up with stupidity like ”boaty mcboatface”. If rebranding must be done it actually is worth using professionals. But note, I did day ”if”.

[Steamport Southport]

Competitions to name things always go well.   

 

Man wins competition to name new leisure centre in Selby and picks... Selby Leisure Centre

 

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/man-wins-competition-name-new-4595766

 

 

 

 

Jason

[G-BOAF]

 If HM Treasury does not see these projects as essential, when for example it is having to gold-plate UK border and customs arrangements for Brexit, then they either won't happen or alternative investment sources, such as private sector partnerships, might be considered. But that is speculation on my part.

Personally I don't see why a border and customs arrangement costs will impact the NRM at all, afterall this will be covered out of the £350m a week windfall that we have been promised. Certainly shouldn't be an either/or. And if it is WE SHOULD BE PROTECTING OUR NATIONAL HERITAGE FIRST AND FOREMOST. "a nation that forgets its past has no future" (Churchill).

OK private partnerships fine, but not if this involves giving non-state actors a permanent or significant control over our state heritage assets (I don't want to see Mallard in Branson livery)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DaSPBzwWkAAH_vd.jpg:large

Edited May 7, 2018 by G-BOAF

[Fenman]

...

OK private partnerships fine, but not if this involves giving non-state actors a permanent or significant control over our state heritage assets ...

 

You do know that most national institutions are already formally charities? Some of them are also “non-departmental public bodies”, while a very few are charities by virtue of Act of Parliament rather than registration under current charity law.

 

The UK’s film and television archive - probably the richest in the world - is held by the British Film Institute which, until a couple of years ago when it also became an NDPB, was just a bog-standard registered charity, albeit one which was incorporated by royal charter rather than just registration with Companies House (it makes no practical difference).

 

Given the enthusiasm with which government flogs off its own assets, you may find national treasures are generally better protected under the control of a charity (notwithstanding the irrational hatred of charities that a couple of RMwebbers hold).

 

Paul

[Norm81]

Except that when you get the public involved you end up with stupidity like ”boaty mcboatface”. If rebranding must be done it actually is worth using professionals. But note, I did day ”if”.

I disagree, "boaty mcboatface" came about when the public were involved in choosing the winner. There were several other sensible suggestions that had been put forward, had the judgement been behind closed doors "boaty mcboatface" would've quietly slipped into the bin.

 

Anything would've been better than paying professionals to come up with the branding of "Railway Museum" for a Railway Museum.

[G-BOAF]

You do know that most national institutions are already formally charities? Some of them are also “non-departmental public bodies”, while a very few are charities by virtue of Act of Parliament rather than registration under current charity law.

 

The UK’s film and television archive - probably the richest in the world - is held by the British Film Institute which, until a couple of years ago when it also became an NDPB, was just a bog-standard registered charity, albeit one which was incorporated by royal charter rather than just registration with Companies House (it makes no practical difference).

 

Given the enthusiasm with which government flogs off its own assets, you may find national treasures are generally better protected under the control of a charity (notwithstanding the irrational hatred of charities that a couple of RMwebbers hold).

 

Paul

yes I am aware of some of this... but the national collection/SMG is a NDPB is it not?

As I alluded to above however, charatiable entitites not backed up by the state - look at the Wedgewood collection... I'm sure there are other examples.

Edited May 7, 2018 by G-BOAF

[wombatofludham]

In the Mendoza Review and the parallel Department for Digital Fun review of the Museums it has responsibility for funding, it explicitly stated, and has been accepted by the Government, that the current status of what might be termed the "National" museums is not to change. They will remain independent of the Department of Fun but state assisted.

 

Interestingly both Mendoza and the parallel Department review make one of the primary objectives "Cultural education" and saw a need to increase, and diversify, the target audience. The NRM is in places ahead of the Reviews by loaning out exhibits to heritage railways around the country and developing "Locomotion" in partnership with the local authority, two things the Reviews say needs to be done, and in expanding supporting revenue streams like the shop and on site catering. However the Reviews also highlight as a prime objective the conservation of collections for future generations, which when you read of the condition of some of the more "modern" objects in the collection is a cause for concern, after all, no-one currently alive can say confidently whether future generations might find the Merseyside EMU, APT-E or Class 71 just as interesting as some of the steam exhibits, and above all, returning to that particular steam locomotive, I fail to see how all the time and effort expended in putting that back to main line condition in any way expands and diversifies the visitor numbers to York, given it will be a certain age and cultural demographic who largely spend money on rail tours. Neither Mendoza nor the DDMCS review suggest that Museums supported by the Department need to attract bigger audiences at all costs, and that they should see themselves as part of the leisure and entertainment industry, in fact both go out of their way to highlight their unique and important role as place makers and cultural educators.

 

However, the Reviews are an interesting read and as an aside it's interesting to hear that changes are afoot in the way the NRM is carrying out the presentation of it's collection. Of course it goes without saying that the front line staff deserve a huge recognition for carrying out their thankless task against a generally uncertain background of standstill budgets and increasing changes to employment towards more part-time or volunteer use. The criticism of some of the decisions made in the past by the NRM is levelled at the very senior management and the Department of Fun.

[phil-b259]

....and the Department of Fun.

 

I like it

 

Sounds all nicely bureaucratic, as in "This Government believes all its citizens should have fun and we have assembled a committee of the finest minds / consultants to tell you how (just as long as it doesn't cost the Treasury any extra)"

Edited May 8, 2018 by phil-b259

[rodent279]

Why am I suddenly reminded of the ghastly Siobhan Sharpe and "Perfect Curve" in Twenty Twelve and W1A?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCQJEAcYSCw

I'll bet the marketing consultants really did ask them "if the museum was an animal what sort of animal would it be?" and yes I have been asked that question by branding "experts" at least twice (though to be fair one of them did come up with some pretty good concepts) .

Wonder if the (N)RM has a Director of Better?

[brack]

Am I the only person who thinks that the enormous media and public attention given to flying Scotsman wherever it goes is a good thing for the NRM and railways in general. It's something that attracts the interest of people who know little about railways. Whether it's worth the money spent is a different question, but I think it's good to have it out and about keeping steam in the public eye. Certainly better value for money than a rebranding or two, or a PR campaign or TV advert, and probably more effective PR just running about.

I suspect modellers and enthusiasts on here become quite cynical about it because its famous, popular and has a sort of celebrity appeal to those who know nothing else about railways.

[jjb1970]

Am I the only person who thinks that the enormous media and public attention given to flying Scotsman wherever it goes is a good thing for the NRM and railways in general. It's something that attracts the interest of people who know little about railways. Whether it's worth the money spent is a different question, but I think it's good to have it out and about keeping steam in the public eye. Certainly better value for money than a rebranding or two, or a PR campaign or TV advert, and probably more effective PR just running about.

I suspect modellers and enthusiasts on here become quite cynical about it because its famous, popular and has a sort of celebrity appeal to those who know nothing else about railways.

No, you're not the only one. I have virtually no interest in Flying Scotsman and don't particularly like the locomotive but it was be silly to try and deny that it has star quality and is a huge PR banner for heritage railways and the NRM.

[Zomboid]

After the blaze of publicity when it was purchased for the NRM, there really was no choice but to get it running. And it's unique and has the first verified 100mph run it's not undeserving of a place in the national collection anyway.

It doesn't really excite me, but I am certainly behind the general idea of keeping and running it.

[E3109]

I'd love to find out one day that 4472's frames, motion and God knows what else were actually stamped up with, say, Spearmint's identity.

 

Mr McKillop for one would be pleased...

[Steamport Southport]

I'd love to find out one day that 4472's frames, motion and God knows what else were actually stamped up with, say, Spearmint's identity.

 

Mr McKillop for one would be pleased...

 

I'm pretty sure much of what's now Flying Scotsman came from Salmon Trout which was dismantled for spares. One of the tenders came from A4 Lord Faringdon.

 

Salmon Trout after it had donated it's boiler, cylinders and valve gear.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/oldrailpics/32416055762/

 

 

 

 

Jason

[rodent279]

How much of F*"ing S****man is actually original? In percentage, at a guess less than 10%. I'd be surprised if all its wheels are original, the boiler and large parts of the frames certainly aren't, the cylinders aren't-I'll bet the names and parts of the cabside and maybe the running plate are the only original parts.

Didn't it run with an A4 boiler for a while?

[Fenman]

yes I am aware of some of this... but the national collection/SMG is a NDPB is it not?

As I alluded to above however, charatiable entitites not backed up by the state - look at the Wedgewood collection... I'm sure there are other examples.

I was working in the sector at the time of Wedgwood and I can assure you it struck a note of shocked terror into the hearts of most of us.

 

For those who don’t know, it was a case of unintended legislative consequences: the post-Maxwell pension laws were designed to protect pensioners when companies went bust, giving them precedence over most other creditors. The tiny Wedgwood Museum was an independent charity but with close historic links to the company. When the company went bust, the museum was held to be liable for the entire remaining pension fund deficit of the company, because a handful of their staff were also members of the company pension scheme.

 

It was obviously “unfair”: it forced the museum into bankruptcy and its historic collection had to be flogged-off (all this pain reduced the pension fund deficit by a tiny amount). The staff were all sacked. The wretched government of the day refused to intervene to help preserve the collection.

 

Other than being careful about who you get into bed with, I don’t think there were wider lessons from the Wedgwood debacle. I can’t think of another relevant case.

 

Which leads me to think that collections held by independent charities are not more at risk than those held by NDPBs (if you think the latter are not at risk, remember the “deaccessioning” of parts of the historic newspaper collections of The British Library). Aren’t some RMwebbers already exercised over similar disposals from the NRM collections (NRM/SMG already being, as you point out, an NDPB).

 

Paul

Edited May 9, 2018 by Fenman

[Sir Hadyn]

How much of F*"ing S****man is actually original? In percentage, at a guess less than 10%. I'd be surprised if all its wheels are original, the boiler and large parts of the frames certainly aren't, the cylinders aren't-I'll bet the names and parts of the cabside and maybe the running plate are the only original parts.

Didn't it run with an A4 boiler for a while?

https://blog.nrm.org.uk/how-much-flying-scotsman-original/

[rodent279]

https://blog.nrm.org.uk/how-much-flying-scotsman-original/

Interesting. So really, FS could probably legitimately be numbered and named as any one of dozens of A3's.

 

I'm not surprised how much is original, though there's more of the frames left than I thought. It deserves it's place in the National Collection, though whether the hugely expensive overhaul was worth it only time will tell.

[Sir Hadyn]

Interesting. So really, FS could probably legitimately be numbered and named as any one of dozens of A3's.

 

I'm not surprised how much is original, though there's more of the frames left than I thought. It deserves it's place in the National Collection, though whether the hugely expensive overhaul was worth it only time will tell.

Are the repairs to Big Ben worth it? 

[wombatofludham]

Are the repairs to Big Ben worth it?

Slightly more iconic and generating more tourist scheckels than Flying Scotsman ever will. It would be interesting to do some market analysis to see if anyone seeing Jockstrap passing by has ever decided to make a trip to the NRM as a result. I have an itchy feeling in my water if any have done so it will be vanishingly small, and with regards to UK plc's tourist division, probably significantly less than the number of Japanese and American tourists who come to London to see the sights, of which the Elizabeth Tower is a prime one (technically they can only hear Big Ben). So, with regard to the overall economy, spending money on renovating the Clock Tower on the Palace of Westminster has a relatively straightforward and useful payback to the amount of money being spent. With regard to the wider economy, or for that matter the economics of the NRM and it's remit to grow and diversify their audience, the investment payback is far more opaque and questionable with regards to 60103.

[t-b-g]

I think people are being a bit unkind to the NRM over the Flying Scotsman situation.

 

Once you take into account the extra revenue it has generated for various preserved railways it has visited, it must have repaid a significant part of the cost of he overhaul back to the preservation movement as a whole as well as recouping costs for the museum. I recall seeing reports of how much extra revenue it generated for one railway in a single week and it was many tens of thousands of pounds but I can't recall the exact details.

 

Much went wrong during the restoration and it ended up costing a lot more than it probably should. It could be argued that better appraisal of the loco before the restoration started might have highlighted problems but there are certain things that cannot easily be spotted until you actually get the thing apart and realise that it won't go back together as it should. Faults that were created during previous works, which could possibly have been patched up and worked around were corrected and it is very harsh to place the blame at the door of the NRM for things that were not done properly previously.

 

If you accept that the NRM should have a steam "ambassador" out and about, then having possibly the best known loco around to fill that role is a no brainer.

 

As for Big Ben, how many tourists come to London just to hear the bell ring and for no other reason? If you use the same argument that has being used against Flying Scotsman, you could say that there are lots of other worthwhile bells and that Big Ben could be stuffed and mounted and replaced with a recorded version. I would bet not one. Yet people have turned out just to see Flying Scotsman in great numbers. 

 

I am not the biggest fan of the NRM on certain things but on that one, they have my backing and I am glad they saw it through and didn't give in when the going got tricky.

[E3109]

How much of F*"ing S****man is actually original? In percentage, at a guess less than 10%. I'd be surprised if all its wheels are original, the boiler and large parts of the frames certainly aren't, the cylinders aren't-I'll bet the names and parts of the cabside and maybe the running plate are the only original parts.

Didn't it run with an A4 boiler for a while?

My friend has a full cabside panel off 76037, sadly cut off above the handrails so no windows.

Anyway, I informed him the other week that when I win the lottery I'll rebuild the rest of the missing parts, utilising his cabside panel, in return for half ownership in the 'rebuilt' loco.

 

Do you think 0.5% genuine EM1 DNA is enough to qualify? He he.

[t-b-g]

Just out of interest, how much do people think should be original on a loco that was built 95 years ago and has run the miles that Flying Scotsman has? 

 

Do people not understand the way locos were overhauled, often taking a boiler and perhaps a tender, that have been taken off a loco that was brought into works some time previously. Overhauling a boiler was one of the biggest jobs and having a spare available could cut down the time a loco needed to spend out of traffic and replacing a corroded tank on a tender was not a two minute job either.

 

It was common practice and I would be more surprised if Flying Scotsman did have the boiler and all the fittings it was built with.

 

Parts get worn and get replaced. It has always been like that and why people make a fuss about it happening to a particular loco is beyond me.

[wombatofludham]

As it happens I don't think the NRM needs any sort of "ambassador", as I still contend that I cannot see Scotsman attracting many extra people to York or Shildon by scooting past on the main line or turning up at the SVR. Frankly the NRM could have stuffed and mounted it, and probably generated just as many new customers to it's site, and satisfied it's role as guardian of the National Collection. I'm sure "Tornado" generates a lot of income for heritage railways it visits, as does Thomas the Tank Engine in spite of seriously offensive licence fees being charged by the rights owners, but neither of them require the management input of a publicly funded educational charity.

 

I just don't see the restoration of Scotsman to main line condition as a core priority for the NRM when budgets are at a standstill, it's an irrelevance and a properly thought out advertising campaign would probably deliver more people across their threshold for a lot less. Which I suppose brings us back to the rebranding in a sort of way.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I was arguing that the repairs to the Elizabeth Tower are probably justified in terms of the tourist revenue generated. The point about hearing Big Ben was that is the name of the bell, so tourists don't technically stand looking at Big Ben as it is hidden in the tower.