North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I don't think they are compelled to post them anywhere - so they don't. D they even report them to HRA or ORR - but if they do, are they available to public scrutiny from either?

 

I'm not saying it's economically viable, what I'm saying is dismissing ideas as not physically possible is a little silly. FTR and minor repairs are done in the open air by mobile units across the country.
Are you saying that there are no vehicle loading points on the Scarborough branch or at York where a low loader could move multiple vehicles from Pickering in a shift?

 

I think the logistics of running a steam service for anything more than the odd day in a station area without a pit are more or less impossible. How would you propose coaling the loco? How would you dispose of ash? Without a pit, how could you carry out an adequate inspection of things between the frames like springs, brake gear etc? What happens when you need to do a washout? I suspect the romance of steam would quickly pall.

Even with a diesel, I suspect fuelling would be very problematic - if for no other reason than the environment agency wanting to take a close look at such operations not carried out in adequately bunded areas. Having a fuel spill which could run down to the river would be a significant issue.

If you had a minor infrastructure issue that cut off Grosmont from the shed, but which you thought could be resolved in say 48 hours, you'd probably pile as much coal on the tender of a loco as you could, run it into the station and make do for a couple of days. But this situation could last for months or longer, and I can't see you could run a service cut off from your shed for that long.

Tom

 

I've been giving more thought to this. In over forty years I've never seen a loco hauled train terminate at Goathland and the loco run round its train. I've always understood that it wasn't allowed because of the gradient and I know that HMRI/ORR have a dislike of trains terminating at stations on gradients less than 1 in 500*, which is definitely the case at Goathland at 1 in 138. However, the loop to the south of the station is on the same gradient so, why isn't it OK to do so in the station? Ignoring the gradient argument, one obvious answer is that the station isn't signalled to allow it. It may be possible to terminate a train in the platforms in an emergency but to do so on a regular basis would require the signalling to be upgraded and for the ORR to agree to it, as outlined in RSP 5. As far as the gradient in the loop is concerned, the outlet is protected by trap points so any runaway would be derailed. I'm also unaware of any restrictions on gradients in sidings so, as long as it is safe to use them, there should be no problem. There's also the fact that passengers have all been detrained before the train runs into the loop so there is much less concern.

* RSP 5 states that:- "Stations should be constructed with straight platforms and on the level or on a gradient not steeper than 1 in 500. Minor stations at which trains do not terminate or reverse may be constructed on steeper gradients where suitable arrangements can be made to ensure safety, subject to the agreement of HMRI."

 

In winter running I've been on the 24 and terminated at Goathland. We set back and the loco ran round in the loop to the south. The dolly by the box applies to main and siding.

It's a well designed layout.

 

Goathland is signalled to allow movements into the loop and for running round using that facility but not for running round using the platforms.

 

Furnace sidings at Blaenavon must be on a gradient greater than 1 in 500 and trains terminate there. It’s also a new station so presumably was built in accordance with the rules or has the necessary dispensation. I can’t comment on the signalling arrangements though so not sure how they work.

 

I don't think trains ever terminated and were run round at Goathland prior to NYMR days, and afaik in NYMR times they were never terminated and run round in the platforms. So, I don't think that's an option.

 

Three days a week in the summer time the WHR trains run round at Beddgelert. The gradient through most of the platform is about the same as the bank approaching Goathland.

 

That may be so but our Sectional Appendix says it must not be done at Goathland. It is there for a reason, and has been ever since the railway reopened over 50 years ago. I don't think there is any inclination by the operating department to change this. If needs be it can't be too difficult to restore the connection to the proper run round loop.

Peter

 

There is a single/double slip at Levisham into the sidings. Would it not be sensible to o move this to Goathland to reinstate the loop. It may not have the correct geography to fit but if it did it would get the loop working again.

 

I’m merely curious about that reason. I agree running round there might not be the preferred method, and I would also agree that finding a point would be better if Bridge 42 is going to be gone for a while. I would be interested to know how the prohibition came about given the many other places where such run rounds occur.

 

I'm not sure that I can satisify your curiosity but here goes. In BR days and earlier it wasn't an issue as you could not run round anything anyway. There was a double line through the station and the only main to main connection was the single slip just south of the station (under Cow Arth bridge) - the one that finally wore out last year. Prior to reopening in May 1973 the station loop was created as it is today with a sand drag protecting a down line runaway and a spring catch point serving a similar purpose on the up line. So you can see that the risk of a runaway was taken very seriously and a method of station working was produced to reflect this. I suspect that it was probably incorporated into the application for a Light Railway Order or whatever it was called back then and has stayed in place ever since.

In the early days loco hauled trains from Grosmont regularly terminated and shunted at Goathland as only the DMU service went forward to Pickering. I have never heard anyone on the railway question the method of working as it works well and is completely safe. You probably could apply to the relevant regulatory authorities to change this but I really don't see the need - and I doubt they will see it either.

And yes I have heard of the set of coached that landed up in the sand drag many years ago but I have no idea about the circumstances surrounding this.

Peter

 

I can remember seeing the coaches in the sand drag all those years ago - they were there for several weeks before being dragged out, I think. I seem to remember that they may have been left without scotches in place, or incorrectly placed - but that's by the by. Until the extent of the repairs needed to Bridge 42, and the proposed method of addressing them, are known everything is up in the air - and things still may be even after that point, if a decision is made (if indeed it is possible!) to apply for grant aid with the costs. IMHO it would be foolish to do a cheap, short-term stopgap repair, so I suspect the bridge will remain closed for this year and services will be limited to Pickering-Goathland, with a temporary layout that allows access to the runround loop the reinstated using points "borrowed" from elsewhere, and the slewed access to Grosmont shed retained for the year. If any good is to come from this, I hope provides an opportunity to slim down the paid staff quite drastically, and that it gives the marketing department (assuming any of them survive to slimming regime!) incentive to advertise the railway as a heritage line that provides unrivalled access to the national park.

 

As would Pickering to Goathland. The challenge is convincing the market that’s used to Whitby as the core destination that excluding Whitby is right.

 

It's quite a sea-change in attitudes required, both by customers and the a marketing department A full-blooded change of perception from "here's what you can catch a glimpse of on your way to Whitby" to "this is the National Park in all its glory, and the NYMR is a great way of seeing and exploring it". Ideally, the should get together with other local businesses to offer additional ways of doing so, and realise that these could run on on even once the bridge reopens. Sometimes a crisis can open eyes to other opportunities.

 

To go along with the sea-change needed from top management.

And also to hard truths.

Noel

 

Quite so. I think it will take a long time to put some of the disastrous changes to the Trust Board that have been brought about at the behest of a former chairman, who seemingly no longer posts on here but looks to be giving other railways is ill-advice. I just hope that the NYMR's fortunes can be turned around and that others watch carefully before repeating the same mistakes. Heritage railways have been built by their members and should not be seduced into thinking they are big businesses; lose the membership involvement, representation and interest and you risk their survival.