North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Lots of things are possible, including what you have mentioned and more, but it will take someone in the NYMR management to recognise them, organise them and advertise/promote them, and that's the ability that seems to be entirely non-existent in those circles. For those of you who think I'm wrong or being harsh, I simply challenge you to provide evidence that I'm wrong!

 

I really hope it isn't too late for the NYMR but when I read comments like that its seems like such a fear culture that's been bred there. The bridge is one problem, but ironically its not the biggest one they have!

 

Have you ever been on a railtour that uses short platforms? Sub optimal is a polite view of the world, plus on a railtour you now have CDL and stewards (previously just stewards) to stop pax walking into fresh air. So unless you are going to steward every door (where will all those stewards come from?) selling it to the highly risk averse ORR would be on a par with mainline Mk1's without CDL I suspect. They were already energised over such things when that guy stepped out on to the ramp at Loughborough. It is also easy to do, I did it myself last year when I could not get a door open and did not realise the one nearer the loco was slightly off the flat part of the platform. I would like to think that stupid as that was I have a bit more knowledge than your average Joe Public.

As was stated there was never a suggestion of some temporary platform at Grosmont either.

 

What suggestions would you propose?

 

That may be a reasonable argument in general, but it raises some really difficult issues at both Levisham and Goathland - they are short platforms, to lengthen which would have a significant impact on the historical settings (and might not even be feasible at Goathland).

 

But a on a normal basis you can probably get away with a PA announcement I suspect, as you would not be having the full train getting off. Once people are backed up in a queue the urge to get off will take over I suspect, as well as in the minds of the thought police (sorry ORR).

 

I've used Goathland, with small children in my charge, and it can be very busy in season - regardless of the proportion getting on or off. It's also not completely straight, and far from level. These are existing risks which already need to be (and presumably are) properly considered.

 

Short trains have been using Goathland and Levisham for years. Normally they have been stopping trains and so there tends to be pressure on people getting on and off, particularly on carriages that are stopped off the platform, but with a train that might stop for 20-30 minutes before departing I think there would be plenty of time to deal with a 5,6 or even 7 coach train. Doors that would be off the platforms at either location could be locked off. It's unlikely to be an issue at Levisham, and there is PA at Pickering to remind people that those doors will be locked. Please don't make up unnecessary arguments!

I don't personally think it would be worthy running to Grosmont, but if that doesn't happen I can't see it really being worth running Whitby shuttles. The railway is going to have to rely on its own charm and attractions to bring people in, and I for one think that will actually be a good thing

 

Nobody has suggested has suggested the TOC default position (and the NYMR is a TOC) RRB's

 

Have you ever been on the Severn Valley Railway?! Every station bar Kidderminster has platforms that are too short for the regular trains they run. They also spent much of this year terminating at Hampton Loade which has very short platforms. The doors aren’t stewarded yet I’m not aware of any issues or pressure to change operating procedures.

 

In normal times, Goathland is not a terminal station. For people wanting to get off there, they are told to travel in the first three/four coaches and this is emphasised when TTI's go through the train to make sure that anyone in the southern part of the train is fully aware that they must move forwards before arriving at the station. These control measures are accepted by the ORR and is normal practice on other short platformed heritage railways. When it comes to terminal stations, it's a different ball game and the ORR will not normally accept long trains arriving at short platforms. I'm sure an Improvement Notice would soon be forthcoming. I'd also suggest that Goathland could not sensibly accept 300 people getting off onto its short platforms with any degree of safety,esecially if there are people wanting to join the departing train. It's all covered in RSP5 and it's common sense, really.

 

Being the Google Maps engineer again, couldnt you just temporarily remove the obstructing siding(s) and temporarily extend the Whitby bound platform with scafolding or one of the propriety platform extension systems with an extra ramp if needed in to the car park? Probably not a short term solution but if you are looking at the bridge being out for a season it doesnt appear to be a massive job.

 

Good idea but what do we do with the signal box that’s at the south end of the platform? It’s shown on Google maps if you look

 

I don’t think that’s a very helpful comment. They have a job to do. When it comes to safety and the general public, you can’t be too careful.

 

We’re digressing from NYMR, but the basic premise of ALARP means that by definition, you can be too careful. Risk management requires a degree of proportionality.

Applied to terminating trains at Goathland, the question is whether mitigations would be appropriate given the need to restrict operations, or whether the residual risk would be considered unreasonable regardless of context.

 

As the NYMR runs with Mk1's which have significant length between doors a suitable stopping point could avoid any doors by the signal box so a platform either side of it would work with the temporary southern platform accessed via the car park as an independent way out avoiding the inevitable congestion of a complete trainload exiting via the north end of the platform. It would mean that only one train at a time could be present but with roughly 30 minutes each way from the crossing point at Levisham and a quick loco change a service comparable to many other lines could be run.

 

So you are suggesting a platform with a gap in the middle and passenger safety ensured by precision stops such that the gap is spanned by a section of carriage with no doors? Good luck with getting that approved!

FWIW on the Bluebell, the platform at Sheffield Park is, between ramps, about 5¾ carriages long (assuming full length Mark 1s) and we have had a recent (last few years) change in operating practice that when operating 6 coach trains, the northern-most door must be locked - and that is for the sake of one door in a six coach train that would otherwise be off the end of the platform. The operating practice with us - and I am sure on other lines - was tightened after the accident at the GCR when a passenger was injured trying to alight from a door that was mid-way down a platform ramp.

Tom

 

Assuming that would be considered a safe and sensible option - I don’t think it is - there’s then the problem of the river bridge getting in the way which would restrict train lengths to six coaches. How long trains will need to be if only running to Goathland is an unknown at the moment.

 

ALARP principles might indicate locking doors at the end of all carriage sets which might not be properly platformed due to early or late stops which I'm sure we've all seen. So perhaps with a 6 coach set only the middle four with opening doors? If currently TTI advice is accepted and stopping accuracy a problem then a fully locked doors carriage and adjacent doors on neighbouring coaches might be needed. A narrow safety platform could be placed by the signal box and we will all have seen yellow boxed limited clearance areas at NR stations with "do not alight here". We are in danger of making the case for all coaches to have CDL if we're not careful whilst the reality is that many more Heritage Line users have been killed and injured during journeys to visit the line than those hurt having arrived.

 

Quite so! But, I was working in dangerous industries some years before the 1974 Act, and I have noticed a slow but steady drift towards more arduous requirements at greater expense. It seems to me that the contemporary assumption is that people in general, unless actively prevented, will contrive to injure or kill themselves or others. I don't believe that this was the intention in 1974, but the culture has changed. Whether for the better is not up to me to decide.