North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

The teaks are not exempted from regs 4 & 5 because they have not been registered on the list of coaches in the exemption by the NYMR, unlike Pullman car no 79 which is of pretty similar build to the teaks with a timber body on a steel underframe. The only difference appears to be the fact that the latter is owned by the NYMR and was once regarded as a core member of the Pullman set which the NYMR once had aspirations of running from Whitby and, indeed, did so at least once. That aspiration appears to have now died or is very low on the list of priorities.
The whole concept of running to Whitby and, indeed, to Battersby along with a lot more ideas happened when Philip Benham was the General Manager. He certainly knew how to drive the railway forward, unlike later GM’s. A lot of good things happened under his tenure. It has been a case of retrenchment ever since.

 

Car 79 is an all steel 1928 Pullman. More akin to a MK2 as I think they are monocoque construction. The only wood is the marquetry panelling.

 

If that's the case I stand corrected and will eat a huge slice of humble pie. From memory I thought it was timber panelled outside, as well.

 

That's not a problem Steve. If you remember it had to go away for specialist roof repairs to stop it twisting.

 

Well, yet another "red herring" non-answer! Does it imply that the teak coaches will never run again at the NYMR if the railway decides that it too should opt for CETs on all passenger stock? Of course, although it would be a tempting case for the management to make, there are a lot of currently non-equipped Mk n1s and the GW saloon and Car 79 so it would mean a lot more conversions for the NYMR to do (and pay for) whilst I imagine the LNERCA would have to pay for, and carry out the work mon its coaches foc.

 

Were the NYMR to decide to fit CET to all carriages I do hope that the way they justify that to themselves and others is done in such a way as to NOT set precedents for others to have to follow.

 

The point is being missed by a country mile! The observation was not that the NYMR might opt to fit CET for use between Pickering and Grosmont. The post was clear that the issue for owners would only arise if fitting of CET becomes mandatory for heritage lines i.e, it is imposed on them. The issue is likely to be one of conditions for those working on bogies contaminated by human faeces rather than track workers where the health and safety risks have been found to be quite low. However, in both cases it's hard to justify why those working on heritage railways should be any less deserving of health and safety protection than their main line counterparts.

 

There are two arguments in play here - the first being whether to fit CET equipment without it being compulsory; if it does become compulsory the rule would surely be applicable to all railways. If, however, it does become compulsory, then something of a minefield will emerge over whether they are necessary on all lines. The NYMR should be able to fit CETs for use on their own stretch of line without affecting to a case for making it compulsory for everyone else as it carries relatively high numbers of passengers for relatively long periods, with a large part of its run through SSIs in a National Park and really should be avoiding polluting that ground, but for most other lines it must be far less of a consideration. I'm not saying it is unique, but it is rarely matched by other lines. The real question would be whether the management and its legal advisor - for whom the shade of grey seems to be unrecognisable, to only options being black or white - could make a convincing case. I somehow think they'd rather sacrifice the teak carriages.

 

It is hardly beyond the realms of feasibility that with all the often very valid hype around sewage spills, pollution etc by water companies and farmers, that someone in some form of government or legislative body would stick their head above the parapet and decide dumping even a small amount of human effluent direct on the tracks is unacceptable in the second quarter of the 21st century. That would be something management of long Heritage Lines must have nightmares about, because there are only two options, lock out toilets totally, or fit CET and meet all the associated infrastructure and costs to go with it.

 

No I got the point entirely. We have to be careful that the very different risk profiles of different railways don’t lead to a one size fits all response from the regulator. How “industry leaders” behave can have a marked effect on that. Just as it would be entirely disproportionate to insist that everyone had TPWS or even AWS, even though for good internal reasons at least one heritage railway does have the latter throughout.

 

It isn’t, and thus we should be wary of how we deal with this issue. Risk and proportional response.

 

When I was working I was always told that I should never agree to do something by the Mines Inspectorate unless it was enshrined in legislation. Quite often they would say such and such a pit was doing this and don't you think it is a good idea. The answer was always to say 'We'll consider it' and nothing more. If you said yes to anything they would be quick to remind you if you then didn't do it. It was referred to as back door legislation and is a tool often used by inspectors.

 

Before they get around to legislating on human waste they need to legislate on dog waste. The advent of dog waste bags was a good idea and has led to some reduction but the current trend to simply pick it up and then simply dump the bag is little better than doing nothing. The bushes alongside footpaths are full of bags of dog waste that people seem to think is a good idea to hang on branches.
Rant over.

 

Well, there is a third option which is to run with stock that doesn't have toilets fitted!

Reading some of this, one wonders how those lines that routinely run with non-corridor stock manage? It's fairly rare on most heritage lines that you are more than 15 minutes from a station. So I suspect that were legislation introduced to prohibit dumping of waste direct onto the track, for the vast majority of lines the options would simply be to run without toilets (either not in the carriages, or locked out of use), and in most cases it would make comparatively little practical difference. If it became a real issue, you could look at easing timetables and letting passengers know that trains would stop at each station for long enough for a toilet stop; in many cases they do anyway to allow for crossing moves.

There seems to be a feeling that the only way to mitigate certain issues is with technical controls, but that is far from inevitably the only option.

Tom

 

Well that is true Tom, but the general opinion on here when the issue came up regarding the autocar was that was unacceptable.
Maybe a modified GUV or PMV with a portaloo attached to each train fits the bill

 

That's fine for railways that have non-corridor carriages without lavatories, but it's rare for most lines to have such stock! Unless everyone is going to start using DMUs as loco-hauled stock, most carriages in use will be BR Mk 1 gangwayed stock. Having toilets locked out of use is likely to cause ill-feeling, the best thing to do would be to remove them and use the space vacated for other purposes, push as pushchair parks. Personally, I see it as a non-issue that could be overcome without too many problems, were it to happen!, in most cases.

 

Now then, please stop bringing common sense into the discussion.

 

My point wasn't so much to wish that every railway in the country could somehow magic up some non-corridor stock! Rather, it was to make the point that in most cases you could probably do away with toilets on trains altogether and cause relatively little impact. Quite likely that many visitors, including those with small children, will have driven much longer in a car getting to the railway than they will then spend on a toilet-less train between stations!

Tom

 

We are a family that have toilet needs but rarely use the on train as we plan
More important to us is to have enough toilets at a station to enable us to go there, for example at Bluebell leaving from SP we need to use the facilities at EG in the turn round time. Similarly on SVR we will need to use the facilities at the other end during stop over time. Ditto for WSR.

Sent from my SM-A556B using Tapatalk