North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

“Proceeds the sale [sic] will be reinvested in the NYMR’s heritage fleet and infrastructure” (my emphasis)

Which rather sounds like they have sold a loco to pay for a bridge. Probably pragmatic in the circumstances, but even so …

Wasn’t 76079 on the market for quite a while? You wonder whether a sale has been under some distress, i.e. sold lower than might have been hoped because of the cash-flow urgency?

Tom

 

Sorry to see her go - a capable and user friendly loco and in my opinion well suited to the Moors, especially with the lighter trains that we seem to run theses days. But she does need a lot of money spending on her which it seems that Strathspey have and the Moors certainly doesn't. More selling of the family silver.

Peter

 

It always was a distress sale - the question is how much the distress has been compounded.

But, given a choice between an NYMR without the resources to overhaul her, and a Strathspey with those resources, I'm glad she's moving on

 

Totally agree Peter, had some happy days on the 76 in its ELR days. Being a Horwich loco gives it a special affection too so I'm glad it has a working future again, albeit rather far from "home"!

 

The standard moguls were used heavily in Scotland so it’s quite appropriate. As part of the team restoring 76077 I’m looking forward now to a day in a few years when we might see all 4 survivors in steam, even better if 77, 79 and 84 all ex Sutton oak and Wigan engines in one place!

 

Wouldn't go that far, was only purchased by the NYMR less than 20 years ago, did one ticket and a bit there? More heavily associated with the East Lancs, even Llangollen and she did plenty of mainline trips under Ian Riley.

The likes of 5428, DVL, 75029 and 80135 are NYMR family silver.

 

If you do the sums, 76079 is better suited to the NYMR than a Black 5 and, in terms of tractive effort, it has pretty much the same as a Black 5 in hand on 7 coach trains. Why better suited? A Black 5 weighs more and that extra weight has to be dragged around.

 

And roll over bridges!...

 

Whilst is disappointing to see 76079 leave the railway, it's important to note that since it arrived I think the NYMR have also added another Black 5, a 9F and a second Standard Tank to the ranks. Plus the S160 Omaha!

Post Covid, heritage railways have been reported to now be operating a leaner smaller pool of locomotives. Some even opting instead for hire in arrangements.

Here 76079 seems surplus for today's NYMR requirements. Not ignoring the income generated by the sale will be very useful right now!

 

The 5, 9F and S160 are all privately owned so in theory they could be removed at relatively short notice which would leave the railway very short of motive power.

 

I hope 80136 takes the place of 76079 in the shed at Pickering rather than being left outside for years.

 

Part of the problem is the NYMR has a history of running an company engine and then being unable to progress the overhaul.

2253, 44806 were bought by supporters for the railway. The NYMR ran them and couldn't afford the overhaul, and sold them.

80135 overhaul is being completed from a legacy. 75029 appears to have stalled and the Class 25 is also stopped.

3672 overhaul is happening because a group of volunteers came together to raise funds for a company loco.

80136 has been gifted to the railway and now is out of traffic requiring an overhaul.

76079 was ideal loco for the line with the added benefit of the mainline equipment plus has sufficient water capacity for the runs to Whitby. (I remain curious how 80135 will manage given that services from Whitby don't use platform 2 with the watercrane to avoid blocking the junction).

Selling 76079 feels very much to me a distress sale and fits the pattern of the line being under significant financial pressure.



Sent from my LGN-NX1 using Tapatalk

 

I would rather the class 25 was undercover (unless it is?), than 80136, given how quickly diesels can deteriorate compared to steam when stored in the open air.

 

I know we've gone over it and got nowhere but can anyone explain the logic of selling the 76 but the 75 is treated like the favourite child? They're both main line registered with the same nominal output. I've seen supporters of the sale say 76079 isn't capable of what is needed. I'd almost buy that but 75029 is otherwise identical apart from the extra leading wheelset. Or are they just repeating HQ's statements as gospel?

 

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with your analysis. You can add to that Antwerp and Meteor, which, although not owned by the NYMR, were on a run and repair arrangement. No. 5 may have been similar and let’s not forget the LNERCA teak coaches. D5032 has at least has bucked the trend but its overhaul has been going on for more years than I care to think about.

 

As someone who has driven 76079 many times on 7 coach trains, I’d say that it is more than capable. Its Achilles heel has been its firebox with it regularly suffering from leaking tubes. This has been put down to the work it was doing.

 

Whilst 76079 might be capable, heavy trains on steep gradients will take its toll on a class 4 quickly.

Wouldn't a fleet of 2253, DVL, 3814, 9F, S15 be ideal? These locos would work far less towards their maximum limits like the class 4's?

 

I agree with all the points raised in the full post. With regard to this snippet, I can only see that the tanks will have to be brimmed at Grosmont, then last until Goathland (is that realistic?). Its either that or when its run as a Whitby engine its always swapped back off at Grosmont, which though a regular happening in recent years nobody likes doing.

 

Yes for the gradient but only one of them can go to Whitby which is the bread and butter requirement.

 

Probably nothing to stop 3814 and 2253 going to Whitby