North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

OK its your choice not to travel on it, just as many on here will only take Mark 1 steam tours, however for you and a few others to continually criticise every action that NYMR takes is tedious, the comfort limitations of the Autocar are made clear and doesn't stop numerous 60 + males who make up the vast majority of passengers on it from travelling on the currently only way of enjoying a front end view of the entire line. I assume you also opposed the sold out Locomotion trips as the replica carriage had no facilities either.

 

I'm all in favour of its use, and that of other varieties of non-corridor stock, like the Thompson CL which I believe is having its central lavatories (removed by "preservationists" when it was first rescued) replaced. In later years (early 2000s) it was used regularly and was actually a popular carriage, but I still believe that the NYMR management will not want to use it because TTIs will not be able to move to or from it while the train is in motion. They will thus declare it of no probable use and "encourage" the LNERCA to move it to another railway - and the same will happen with the H&BR carriages. We are cursed with a management that, from the top down in both the PLC and now the Trust, do not understand what a heritage railway should be doing.

 

Of interest might be an interview in the current issue of Heritage Railway magazine, where Laura is quoted as saying they want to have the Teaks back, but currently need to prioritise keeping the mark 1 stock (which can run to Whitby) in service. Also that they don't want to do them a disservice by flogging them to death in daily use, but instead make it clearer to passengers travelling just how special those coaches are by making something of the trains on which they do eventually get used on.

 

I read that article and all I could think, having read it, was "lip service".

 

A bit of a sweeping statement.

 

I hate to boast (alright, just a little bit) - I was on one of our two Santa trains at the Bluebell, and the set was ten carriages ranging in age from just over 100 years to about 140. (A rather nice video appeared on the Bluebell thread). That is one of the two regular Santa sets, so will get significant usage over the winter. Moreover, to a significant degree it has to run reliably, since our sales are largely based on numbered compartments. I'm told that yesterday our trains were sold out, with around 400 passengers on board in 54 compartments each time.

The substantive point being that if you have operational carriages, then in most cases using them regularly is better than not doing so. Given the current rather damp weather, I'm sure giving those carriages a regular run out and heating them through is better than tucking them away and only bringing them out as "special" vehicles for occasional galas. Of course you have to rotate to allow carriages periods of maintenance (using the vintage set for Santa means it is the Maunsells that are sitting the winter out) but I am not sure that leaving older carriages as just for occasional use makes either heritage or maintenance sense.

I appreciate that Whitby complicates matters in working out diagrams, though that could of course be seen as another example of the Whitby tail wagging the heritage railway dog!

Tom

 

Again, I suggest you read what I actually wrote - in which I agreed with you that this would work. My concern is that adverse feedback would be abused to make a false case against non corridor stock, where the attitude to the teak stock is already depressingly unsupportive.

 

As a TTI travelling on the Autocar I only ever heard positive feedback, indeed back at the February half term observing some passengers foregoing a ride behind the Royal Scot and waiting the 30 minutes to ride the Autocar. Then later in the year a Pickering- Grosmont service where a child was desperate for the loo so we held the train at Goathland whilst they went.

Then subsequently when on duty on Sundays in the Pickering Booking office when some passengers were asking whether the 10am departure was steam I’d reply “sorry, no, it would be an Autocar”. but then on explaining its history (built 1903, pioneer to the Newcastle electrics, view behind the drivers cab etc), there was normally positive response (Indeed I cannot recollect a negative response). Indeed some passengers arriving before the earlier 9.30am departure sometimes deliberately waited for the 10am Autocar.

So I cannot understand the negative views on here of the Autocar booked to run a service over the Christmas period that in past years has never otherwise run.

 

I suspect Tom that if the Bluebell was like the NYMR and could only operate its vintage coaches over three quarters of its length the story might be very different. The fact is that the NYMR wants to retain an operational teak set but at the moment it can't afford to do so and, even if it could, it only has limited ability to use it.
Far from the Whitby tail wagging the heritage dog it's arguable that in terms of what visitors value and are willing to pay for it's wagging the tail that keeps the heritage dog alive.

 

This reply just goes to show the complete inability of those in charge to even consider thinking outside the box. We have plenty of locos that cant run to Whitby but we still try to maintain and operate them. There has been an internal Pickering - Grosmont diagram all this year using a short 3 or 4 car set which would seem to be under used. It would be ideal for marketing as a historic pre-war teak train if the will was there, but it clearly isn't. You want more volunteer input on the railway but here you are shunning a group of very willing volunteers who could help reduce the maintenance burden on the C&W dept. There is a fabulous set of locally based historic teak coaches just crying out to be used on "our" railway. Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth. It breaks my heart to see something like that fabulous Gresley saloon that was so popular in the past go off to another railway with more grass roots vision.

I could say more, but lets leave it there. But don't underestimate the credability problem you guys have when you say that you cant afford to utilise such a heritage asset on what is after all meant to be a heritage railway.

Peter

 

I think the point is: if you're running to Whitby, you need the right coaches to do so. Yes the Whitby set is Mk. 1s but I'd expect that you need to maintain enough so that if one set fails you have enough in reserve. You can take Mk1s from the Pickering set to boost the Whitby run, but I imagine it's harder the other way round If the Whitby set is already a short one.

If you spend the maintenance money on the teaks and the Whitby set develops flats, for example, you've then scuppered your entire Whitby venture. Whether you're otherwise running a set over only part of your line or not is irrespective. Likewise the complaint about shunning a group of volunteers. If there isn't the money there to do it... It's a recurring problem at many a heritage line at the moment: what do you prioritise and why?

 

This is much the same at the SVR who will have both LNER and GWR stock out on the Santa trains. There is no doubt that the carriage shed has helped considerably in keeping stock in good condition though. When covid stopped the use of open coaches and more recently the door modification programme kept some GWR stock out of use for a period, they did not deteriorate. The auto trailers and obbo saloons also had long periods out of use. I am not aware of much work needed to bring these back into use, beside a good examination.
At the end of the day though, using stock does keep all the heating and electrical systems in good order & (showing my supreme technical knowledge!) im sure help keeps all the moving bits happy!

 

You are right in what you say up to a point. Which is why there is a need to think creatively about the marketable asset that is being sat on at Pickering. It ticks so many boxes if only there is the vision there to see this. Tom (@Jamessquared) cites the Bluebell's Santa Special with 54 non-corridor compartments - that 108 doors to be serviced and maintained. Costly for sure but with vision a way has been found to overcome this. The difference seems to me that the Bluebell is run by railway people and not marketing people who do not seem to understand how to market the assets at their disposal.

Peter

 

It would be very interesting to know the actual comparative cost of running a rake of teak carriages vs an equivalent rake of Mark 1s, given that both sets exist (i.e. the initial capital expense of restoration is in the past). Particularly so since the LNER carriages also have a support group behind them who must (in a manner similar to locomotives) be providing an implicit financial assistance to defray the costs.

For the compartment stock on the Bluebell, the requirement for periodic door and lock maintenance is a major expense, given the number of doors. But the Gresley carriages presumably only have the same number of doors as a Mark 1. So if you are also storing them under cover, are they really significantly more expensive to operate than a Mark 1?

My feeling is that the cost of operating Mark 1s has been kept artificially low for many years because suitable vehicles were available from the mainline with residual life in them. Those could be pressed into service at comparatively low expense. But that is no longer true, and fairly soon - if not already - operators of Mark 1s are going to have to face up to the cost of rebuilding the ends of such carriages at considerable expense. You may fairly soon find you are having to do a 6-figure rebuild of a Mark 1 every year just to maintain sufficient carriages for the Whitby operation. You may well come to rue a penny-wise, pound-foolish turning away of an overhauled, supported set of heritage carriages that could easily run the non-Whitby part of the service, alleviating pressure on your Whitby-capable carriages!

Tom

 

Slight thread drift, but Swanage is running it's two Maunsells, Observation car and Bulleid composite in it's 7 coach Santa set. The compartment stock (marketed as family compartments) sold out first.

 

I'm delighted to read this, and especially at the sensible (and sensitive) response to a child in need.

As it happens, when I've had the chance to ride in the Autocar, I've prioritised that because it's a wonderful piece of restoration and, as a carriage, is far more interesting than yet another Mk1.

 

I’m intrigued at the ongoing statement that the teak coaches can’t run to Whitby. Why? Back when running to Whitby was first put on the table I’m sure that operating the teaks was part of it. I’ve taken the Pullmans to Whitby in the days when car 79 was operational and AFAIK that’s timber bodied. As far as I’m aware there isn’t a legal reason why not. They come under the definition of Mark 1 coaches in the 1999 regulations but, obviously exemptions are available for such vehicles. There may be a ban imposed by Network Rail but, in that case, they have the power to issue an exemption if the arguments are good enough. The EVL is. 30 mph single track line with no passing loops and arguably a safer stretch of line than the NYMR as there is no likelihood of a head on collision, the greatest concern with mk.1 vehicles.

 

As Steve points out the 1999 regulations are the basic legal prohibition on the use of the teak set over the national network. It's also correct that for the purposes of those regulations the teak coaches are officially Mark 1's! The time limited exemptions under regulation 4 and 5 are specific to individually identified coaches and include the requirement for crash pillars. Those more knowledgeable than I will be able to confirm whether the teaks include crash pillars but I suspect those are a feature of ex BR genuine Mark 1's? If so, the question is whether, however good the arguments, the ORR would also exempt wooden bodied coaches without crash pillars? As its attitude towards heritage stock appears to be hardening, as witness the moves towards central door locking and droplight restrictions, wider exemption seems unlikely. Whatever was allowed in the past is no longer relevant. The 1999 regulations have changed the ground rules. There's also the question of whether, if exemption could be extended to the teak set, its owners would accept the physical modifications that would almost certainly be required?

 

Now that you’re a member of Trust board you can start to show that @60044 is wrong.

 

It is correct to say that there was an ambition to be able to run the teak carriages to Whitby but the age-old NYMR management standy-by argument of "it would cost too much" soon came into play, with no real evidence offered - but iirc it would largely by been a question of fitting them with lower shelf brackets on the buckeyes, overhauling locks etc. the same as was done for the Mk 1s;admittedly, when CETs became compulsory later on they would have been a bit more of a challenge, as would CDL, although that still hasn't come into effect. Solutions to all these issues could - and certainly should - have been found to all these issues, but as I repeatedly keep saying, with no-one really providing any real evidence to the contrary, the NYMR has been run downhill by managers who Dr Beeching would have been proud of.

There was one incorrect point made - Car 79 did run to Whitby as part of the Pullman dining train but it is one of the 1927 all-steel cars, it does not have a wooden frame.