North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Limited, and certainly very limited at the main access point of Pickering. I'm with @60044; the question is not whether there's a challenge to be dealt with, but the nature and choice of response.

 

Space at the NYMR is very limited, which is why Levisham Station became a focal point at wartime events - but that was surely a good thing because a. people had to use the trains to get there, and b. they were a captive audience when they did - miles from anywhere (including the nearest village!) The privately-owned car park at the former trout lake next the the Pickering Station car park is rumoured to be currently up for sale, and would make an invaluable acquisition as both an overflow car park and events area. Ti9mews are obviously tight, but I've suggested the NYMR should recently look to sell its two unused (or at least, misused and non-earning) catering facilities at Pickering to fund its acquisition, but I suspect that suggestion has fallen on deaf ears. It would, though, give big opportunities for broadening the scope of what could be done. Another outside possibility would be to use the land the railway owns at the New Bridge pig farm. Like Levisham, it is inaccessible to customers other than by rail, but could be served by a shuttle service from Pickering to a temporary platform at New Bridge yard in between service trains, although I'm not sure if the present signalling would currently permit that. Possibilities like these need to be explored and opportunities taken, though if the NYMR is to broaden its commercial opportunities.

 

I can at least agree with 60044 , and Tom, that space on the NYMR is very limited. Unlike some other lines the original purchase didn't include large areas of freehold railway operational land that could be re-purposed; a key reason why the carriage stable is built on land acquired on a long term lease. It's also not helped by large parts of the railway being within the North York Moors National Park with the inevitable extra planning restrictions. There is one flawed assumption in 60044's post that needs clarifying. If two properties suggested were to be sold the proceeds would be nowhere near enough to pay for the former trout lake site, indeed even if the Park Street offices and the former Pig Farm site were also disposed of there would still be a substantial shortfall. I'd also agree that the site now up for sale would be hugely beneficial, apart from the possible negative consequences if it was acquired for development involving loss of the overflow car park, but the idea that it can be funded out of disposals of other property is a non starter.

 

Is there any chance that a special appeal (dedicated funds) would possibly be successful? If that won't work, how about recruiting a wealthy backer to buy it and hold it, and rent it to the line for a somewhat nominal sum? (What other ideas am I missing?) That lot sounds like it would be very useful to the NYMR to have available (if it's actually being sold, of course). Are the current management looking into any of these?

Noel

 

That sounds like the usual "it would cost too much" answer to everything, but with no supporting evidence. The NYMR is not a unique business in that beneficial things don't usually happen out of the blue and come to fruition with no help or effort from the management. I would not expect the sale of other properties to buy the new site in full - but they should surely raise enough of a partial payment to justify either applying for a grant to cover the rest, or even to take out a commercial mortgage. I just wonder whether the possibilities have been seriously discussed at Trust and PLC board meetings. Has the Trust's run of legacies dried up? Surely they would be better spent on a long term development like this rather than on supporting the PLC wage bill?

 

With perhaps one exception, there really isn't much opportunity to acquire much more land adjacent to the NYMR - it's not a missed opportunity, the goods yard at Grosmont was quite small and is now the (inadequate - though fortunately supplemented by the NYCC one on the ironworks site) station car park, Goathland and Levisham very very small and what there was are also now carparks, and most of the Pickering complex lay beyond where the line now terminates, alongside and beyond the old engine shed. The one possible exception is the field alongside the headshunt beyond Grosmont Shed; it has been talked about in the past as a possible site for a larger shed, but I don't think the National Park authorities are very keen, and I don't believe the landowner is either, but it might make a good special events area, if there's at least vehicular acess for exhibitors, and could be served by a shuttle link without really affecting most other train movements.

 

Doesn't that field flood as well?

 

I was careful to avoid exactly that response! I just pointed out that the original, now amended, suggestion that the two property disposals could fund the acquisition was unrealistic. There may be other ways in which it could be funded which are being actively considered. One of the recent successes, for which no credit seems to be given, is that the levels of borrowing have been reduced steadily to less than one third of their one time high. Clearly a commercial mortgage would reverse that improvement but at least the success in overall debt reduction might open up that suggested option.

 

Interesting, I've been told by someone with more financial acumen than I possess, and with his ear closer to the ground in the Park Street area, that the NYMR has recently raised its borrowing limit with the bank so perhaps it isn't expecting to last that long.... Be that as it may, a commercial mortgage should be longer term, allowing for some recovery before the bulk of the repayments occur. And I wasn't unrealistic enough to suggest that the sale of the two properties would cover the cost of the new property in question, merely that they should cover an initial payment. IMHO sometimes it's necessary to speculate to accumulate!

 

Conversely it would also increase the asset base long term. Don't forget much of the line was bought via a mortgage from the county council, which wasn't paid off until the 90s.

That was before your time, so you probably don't realise the amount of tightrope walking there was until then. That is why various assets were sold historically such as Farworth cottages, Levisham station masters house and so on and also 80135, although that was to someone who financed it and hired it to the railway. It is also why so much rolling stock and even the railwayana on the stations was privately owned by volunteers, staff and non working members.

Were you aware the NELPG used to loan the NYMR and large chunk of their overhaul funds every winter to offset the overdraft?

Could the residential part of the property on the site be converted into volunteer accommodation? You could then also throw the sale of the property at Stape into the equation.

Sawdust.

 

.... or turn it into another holiday cottage so that it at least earns some money. It could be marketed as "Very, very far from the madding crowd....!"

 

70 minutes in the up direction sounds appropriate. In the mid to late 90s I recall services departed Grosmont at xx50 and arrived at Pickering at xx00, and then forming the down working at xx20. Not much time to attach a strengthening coach from the beck siding, but that's all history now!

Sent from my M2003J15SC using Tapatalk

 

I don't think it does, but others may know better.

 

Even though I've only been involved for the last 20 years I'm probabbly more aware than you assume of how financially precarious the NYMR's position has been on a number of occasions. The late Bernard Warr's book of reflections on his time as its General Manager is particularly illuminating. Whether increasing the asset base would enable further secured loan funding is an interesting question.