North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I'm sure some will simply catch the train straight back again.

Arriving at a station in the middle of nowhere with comparatively few facilities doesn't seem very different from when the Bluebell ran to Kingscote, ran round and came back. There was a little cabin where you could get tea and coffee, and the station had its attractions, but for many people, it was arrive - see the engine run round, maybe get a photo or visit the footplate, and then go back. It seemed to work as a model.

How much does the NYMR rely on coach party traffic, especially mid week? I'm sure most of those people would have the ride but wouldn't aim to get a later train back. Likewise if you are doing anything like the Fox & Edwards trips.

Not everyone necessarily wants to do something else when they get to the half-way point. Many I'm sure would take the train up, and then catch it straight back again, and provided they got their photo and the "loos, brews and views" were up to scratch, consider they had had a good day.

Tom

 

Does Goathland have sufficient toilet facilities for an influx of terminating passengers?
Pat

 

Goathland has toilet facilities but 'sufficient' is subjective I suppose! Realistically, it's probably similar to the provision at Grosmont, and much better than Whitby station which has none at all. There are also public toilets in Goathland village, plus of course those on the train (all CET now).

 

The up platfo0rm can't be use

The up platform can't be use for arrivals as there is a set of catch points at the north end. These are there to protect against any runaways that there might be. It may be that this is an unlikely scenario but I'm aware of it happening twice in my 40+ years of involvement so it can't be ruled out and it would be a brave person who said takd out the catch point. It can't be moved further south due to the existing crossover. When an existing 7 coach up train arrives at Goathland the loco is stood on the bridge and the rear coach about 100 feet from the catch points. If the up platform were to be used for terminating trains I don't think anyone would agree to a train going any nearer to those catch points than that 100 ft so an extended platform would limit train lengths to 6 coaches as the north end of the existing platform would be taken up with a loco. The only time I've known the up platform be used for a train from Pickering terminating at Goathland was when the 3 car DMU was in use a good while ago.

 

Why

Why should people get off the train at Goatland?

 

Would the catch point not be closed and the loop point a set to correspond through that platform until the train had come to a stand? You have protect Grosmont yard by lifting the track. If you’re happy to arrive into the other platform and trust that the train will stop there why wouldn’t you consider even clamping the catch point oos? You’re not detaching the locos

 

Some thoughtful comment there, Ben. The only point that I'd disagree on would be the suggested 09.00 start. Heritage railways generally start their services around 10.00, often later. (There are exceptions!) I think the NYMR gets away with an 09.20 because it is the only service that will get to to Whitby in time for lunch. With T & T I'd look to reducing the standing time at Goathland to 15 minutes but retain 25-30 minutes at Pickering to give the two halves of the railway equal times. A 75 minute peak frequency would be doable. 10.00, 11.15, 12.30, 14.00, 15.15 & 16.30 departures from Pickering and 75 minutes later from Goathland would also allow for a PNB for crews.
I'm sure that Goathland 'box could be closed and the token instruments used by the loco crews on most days. It's a common practice on other railways. It might require some special regulations because of the existing signalling arrangements, though. i.e. the Goathland home signals left clear and the train crew obtaining permission to pass the stop board and advanced started from the Levisham signalman. If the box has to be manned. it would be a boring day for the bobby.

 

If it was me making the decision I'd be inclined to agree to the idea of the catch points being clipped and scotched for each arrival but I wouldn't want to see it on a permanent basis. It is not worked from the box.

 

Hopefully somewhere in the NYMR organisation there is a person in charge who has the vision/ability/drive to recognise all the problems/difficulties which might arise if access to Grosmont is not possible during 2026 (or longer), and can see through the fog towards the opportunities that this situation provides, and then make them happen.

If running shorter trains is not financially viable then running no trains at all is even less financially viable, any train that covers its direct costs and provides a contribution towards the fixed overheads is worth running. The alternative to not running trains is winding up the company, so management has to start to earn its pay.

1. Many heritage railways make 4/5 coach trains pay their way, the NYMR may just have to learn how to do it.
2. 4 mk1's have a nominal capacity of 230 odd seats, at average £20 per seat per round trip £4k per train is possible. Two sets at two round trips each is £16k, the direct operating costs of 3 locomotives and 8 carriages will not come to half of this.
3. Running to Goathland without top and tailing is possible, it just requires an additional locomotive to be waiting in the loop to drop onto the rear of the set to take it back to Pickering leaving the incoming locomotive behind to repeat the process for the next train. (I assume the signalling/track work allows for this).
4. Without having to use the 1:49 section to Grosmont coal consumption will fall considerably per train mile.
5. What is there to do at Goathland between trains? A good marketing person would jump at the chance to have a regular supply of people at their door with nothing to do for an hour. Clear a space in the sidings and erect a marquee for the year in which a range of food/retail/activities can be arrange to increase secondary spend.
6. If a temporary platform extension on the up(?) (eastern) platform is possible then 5 or 6 mk1's makes the situation even more viable.

A positive how do we make this work is needed here.

Andy.

 

I'm quite glad you broadly concur Steve - to be honest I had initially considered 15 minutes turnaround at Goathland, giving the 75 minute frequency you suggest, but decided to be a bit more cautious in the end! Agreed also on your 10:00 start, and as you indicate, still giving up to six round trips per day. The last one could potentially be dropped for off-peak days.

My thought on operating Goathland without a signalman is even more simple: (all subject to an approved special method of work, of course) a train leaves Levisham with a token, which acts as a 'one train working' staff, accompanied by written authorisation to pass the Goathland home signals at danger (unless they can simply be left cleared) and also the stop board and section signal for the return trip. At Goathland, the 'staff' is transferred to the other loco without going through the instrument. Train returns to Levisham where the signalman puts it through his instrument there (to give release for his down section signal) and gives it to the next train. I imagine something along these lines could potentially be approved, it's broadly along the lines of working to/from a mid-section point of obstruction.

 

Categorically not

 

Can Goathland Signalbox be switched out? Does it have a closing switch?

 

This is pretty much what I would do in with the the Bridge 42 out for the season assumption. 2 engines from New Bridge and 1 from Grosmont. Engine swaps at Goathland so the coaches are never left without an engine attached. An engine also at Goathland between trains for footplate visits and water replenishment without having to rush. Then double head or more likely top and tail the last Goathland bound to get an engine back to Grosmont. This way you can rotate the engines easily for servicing etc without having to run full length light engines.

I agree with the opportunity factor. Both to get people more focused on the 'internal' section, but also to get back to being a steam railway. Less Class 4 min requirement, lower mileage, no mainline sign off required, should mean a lot more engines become usable on all services.

 

All of this is very interesting but in the meantime what is going to happen to Grosmont's shops and cafés and pub? With the possible exception of the Co-op (which has already announced on Facebook that it expects to struggle this year) every single one of them is dependant upon the railway and they have probably just lost a year's business through the incompetence of the NYMR management. How many of them will survive, and how many of them will sue?

 

No , not in the sense that you are thinking of. There is no suggestion that Levisham - Grosmont becomes one long section by switching out Goathland because that cannot be done. The suggestion is that Goathland box becomes unmanned as it is in effect a terminal station and the section from Levisham is worked using a one train staff method of working. It just requires a suitable operating procedure to be agreed.

Peter

 

Sue for what exactly? Being dependant of footfall being generated by a third party? It's not like any of them have contracted the NYMR to provide a service to deliver customers to their door.

 

It is not completely on all fours but businesses can sue for loss of business caused by roadworks, building work etc if they can demonstrate that the loss of business arose from negligence. It could be argued that the railway has been negligent here.

 

You win the most ridiculous suggestion of the day award!
Roadworks are a completely different kettle of fish to a third party business having to temporarily close part of its business.

What if the Co-Op removed its sweets and chocolate because the roof was leaking? Could @Steve sue them because he couldn't buy his Mars Bars?

 

I note with interest the complete lack of concern shown here for a village whose economy is likely to be wiped out.

But carry on with your silly argument. Grosmont businesses are being interrupted by building work. If it can be demonstrated that this is the result of negligence then they will have a cause of action. These are facts. Still, never mind, eh? I'm sure they'll all be far too skint to take legal action.

 

Andy.[/QUOTE]