North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I would think most of us have some sympathy for the other businesses that get caught up in this. Much as there was sympathy for Pickering businesses with less running days last year. But I doubt very much there is a case for suing them. And even if there were what benefit would there be? The railway has been on the brink for a while now so any big successful claim would likely just tip them over. If these other businesses are so reliant on the NYMR where would they be if its gone bust altogether?

 

[/QUOTE]

Clwearly there will be an effect on Grosmont shops etc., but it is a small village and will probably be sustained to a degree by local users, as actually there aren't many shops there - A quick look on Google has revealed just two, the Coop and an art gallery ~plus the Station Tavern and the Crossing Club ( I'm not sure if the CC is actually open to the public). In truth, therefore, it would seem to be less of a concern than might be first imagined!

 

Concern for local business is one thing, but in the absence of a contractual relationship, I can't see how you could ever make some form of compensation for consequential loss of the NYMR not running stick. If I set up a B&B in the village, I might be well aware that a significant part of my trade comes from people visiting the railway - but it doesn't mean the railway owes me a living, any more than than the fact that in better times the railway could demand "half your trade only arises because of us, so how about paying us a percentage of your takings?" You say that local businesses are being interrupted by building work, but it isn't as if access to shop fronts is blocked because a utility company is digging up a road. The impact on those businesses isn't a consequence of whatever building work takes place, but because the railway will have to scale back its operations.

As for negligence - businesses make decisions all the time, sometimes good ones, sometimes poor ones. You can probably say that the immediate closure of the bridge is a consequence of many years of decisions about repairs being deferred. But does that make those decisions to defer maintenance negligent? I don't think you can go that far, because it is the nature of a business like a heritage railway that every spending decision is tough, and every one comes with opportunity costs elsewhere. Had money been put into the bridge 5 years ago, perhaps we would now be bemoaning the fact that a section of line that hadn't been relaid was now no longer fit for traffic. I think you can level many charges at the management of the railway, but I have no doubt that on a day-by-day and year-by-year basis, they are making decisions about priorities in good faith on the basis of what they see at the time.

Knowing the condition of the bridge, had the railway allowed trains to continue running and an accident had occurred due to an infrastructure failure - that would be negligent. But pro-actively shutting it to allow repairs, even though doing so has a massive impact on your business is not negligent: it is the only course of action available in a safety-critical environment.

Tom

 

I am not advocating legal action. I am saying that it is possible. I would also point out that whereas Pickering has sufficient attractions of its own and is a reasonably thriving town Grosmont only has the railway. Other than being on the Coast to Coast walk there is no reason for visitors to go there. And if I owned a cafe or gallery or what have you in Grosmont and I had been put out of business by the railway - and if it happens that is how they are going to see it - then I doubt I would have much compunction about taking it down with me.

 

They would also have to demonstrate that the railway owed them a duty - which is rather different to the responsibilities of a highway authority.

At the moment, the details of what is wrong with the bridge are unclear - and that means the appropriate consequences are also unclear. Negligence would imply that the railway had ignored evolving defects until the last possible moment, and/or was handling the issue in a negligent manner now that it is aware of them.

The more serious point, which you are making very poorly, is to do with the relationship between the railway and the community it forms part of. Those communities are unlikely to get what they want if they take such an offensively aggressive approach to the railway.

 

This has appeared on another forum ...

"P.S. as well I once asked a guard on the N.Y.M.R. who I've known 10 years or more who has been a worker there from the beginning of the preservation N.Y.M.R. society how big were steam locos on the N.Y.M.R. line when trains ran from York and he said big locos like A4 60007 4.6.2 Pacifics were not allowed and A1 A2 and A3 pacifics due to the weight restrictions seen as though the north eastern railway had a small engine policy anyhow. And the biggest locos in British rail days and L.N.E.R. former days he remembered going to whitby locomotives on the Rillington jct to Whitby line were B16 and B1 locomotives. So possibly running large locos over bridge 42 could have been the straw that broke the camels back."

 

Clwearly there will be an effect on Grosmont shops etc., but it is a small village and will probably be sustained to a degree by local users, as actually there aren't many shops there - A quick look on Google has revealed just two, the Coop and an art gallery ~plus the Station Tavern and the Crossing Club ( I'm not sure if the CC is actually open to the public). In truth, therefore, it would seem to be less of a concern than might be first imagined![/QUOTE]

Plus off the top of my head another tea room, the coffee shop in the old school, the book shop and the model railway shop. And I would point out that the Co-op has already announced that it expects to struggle without the railway.

 

I'd suggest you might not have much chance, and any responsible lawyer would tell you to minimise the damage. Meanwhile you need to stop assuming that the railway has "done" anything to those businesses - at the very least, you'd need to prove that closure would not otherwise have been required.

The brutal reality is that if you are repairing the structure of a bridge, there are many circumstances in which it will be not be possible to use the bridge during those works.

 

A post that extrapolates from a general restriction on a minor route where it wasn't worth clearing big locos for routine use, to a specific failure after 50 years of preserved running.

 

Which it arguably did and has. That bridge has had a hole in it covered over by a bread crate for about fifteen years. The repair appeal was launched a month after closure when it should have been launched months ago. And why was civil engineering under the control, during this critical period, of a man who is not a civil engineer?

Ta.

I'll repeat: why should a person who has been driven out of business by the negligence of another business care what happens to it? This is not a question of aggressiveness - offensive or otherwise - but of people who are likely to have an honest grievance.

Mismanagement is part of the reason why the railway is as you say on the brink. Too many managers on fat salaries. The costly rebranding of Moors Line. Long serving engineering staff laid off and volunteers banished, necessitating expenditure on such things as diesel loco hire. It is therefore reasonable to expect others to hold the management accountable.

 

As others have stated, there is no positive duty of care to other businesses to supply custom. Unless you can show they relied on an express undertaking from NYMR.

When was the last time you saw a utility company succesfully claimed against for much greater scales of this sort of thing?

 

"Arguably did" doesn't mean "did"

If they (you?) have suffered commercially because of a 3rd party, that's an obvious reaction. Whether it's an "honest grievance" might be more of a question - that would rely on proving first that the duty existed, then that the breach of that duty had caused the harm alleged. If the business is marginal, then that might be difficult - and really rather unpleasant.

If you are representing the case for the village, then the point about working with rather than fighting stands. If it's about a specific business, then it's a bad look.

 

@Jenno
I’m only a very occasional visitor to the railway, but Grosmont holds a special place in my heart as we had a family holiday there in the early 60s, staying in the old railway cottages (no electricity or gas, earth closet across the yard, my Dad knew how to spoil us).
Anyway, much as I love the place and playing Devil’s advocate here, I fail to see how the businesses are owed a living by the NYMR.
They are profiting from being in close proximity to the station but as far as I can see they do little to nothing to attract customers to travel on the railway, unlike the converse.
So it’s more than a bit churlish to bite the hand that feeds you, kicking the man when he’s down, no?

 

As @torgomaig says, Goathland has to be manned in order to operate normal train services. The suggestion at the moment is that, if trains are T&T there is no need to operate any points and as it i effectively 'one engine in steam' with no level crossings or other reasons to have them, the signals become unnecessary so the box wouldn be needed.
As a slight diversion from Goathland, it used to be possible to switch Levisaham 'box out when it was staff and ticket working. Since going over to Token working, this has not been possible.

 

I would suggest that, judging by the number of complaints received by the railway from Grosmont residents about noise, smoke and the level crossing gates being closed, a straw poll of villagers would show great relief at the fact that village life has returned to normal.

 

I remember reading a complaint to Peterborough Council regarding the Nene Valley Railway from a resident who's garden backed on to the line. The complaint was about the noise and smell but also about the soot that got on to washing etc. The council sent a very polite letter back pointing out that the railway had been there since approx 1847, long before she moved in, or even before her house was built, and perhaps better due diligence on her part before moving there would have been a help to her.

 

I'm basically just repeating what has already been said by others in the last couple of hours, but nevertheless...

You keep using the word ‘negligence’ but the reality is you would have a near impossible task proving that in court. ‘Negligence’, legally, is a very specific definition to describe a breach in a duty of care one party owes to another. As has already been pointed out, ‘negligence’ would be continuing to use the bridge. If someone riding a NYMR train was injured because the bridge wasn’t closed despite it being known to be flawed, that would be negligence. The fact that unassociated businesses in proximity might suffer due to lower footfall by closing the bridge is not reasonable justification to neglect that genuine duty of care to the rider.

What negligence isn’t is the fact that an individual might be disgruntled by the knock-ons of a particular business’ internal decision. The businesses in Grosmont may have less footfall because of the bridge repairs, but the NYMR has not blocked access to those businesses. Those businesses have been built for one reason or another in that location. The business may derive a benefit from proximity to Grosmont station, but it does not constitute a contract or an expectation to the NYMR to deliver that benefit. You might prefer that the order of spending on various maintenance tasks was different, but it is not negligent to the businesses of Grosmont for the NYMR to close the bridge to maintain it (as they would have to inevitably do at some point), they do not owe any of the businesses a duty of care to guarantee that trains can cross it.

What’s the footfall from trains in Grosmont compared to Whitby? The NYMR delivers many passengers to Whitby over the course of a running season. Why shouldn’t the businesses of Whitby also be joining in this imaginary trial?

 

You are basically arguing for consequential loss. That is going to be a very high bar to clear as those business' have not input into the NYMR timetable. If the NYMR went bust they would not be a creditor.
If you think of the NR shambles in Oxford payments are only on a good will basis and then for something that has been ongoing since 2023.

Some more details here if you are not familiar with it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79q4egy1vyo

 

I'm sure everyone on Nat-Pres has sympathy with other businesses affected by the NYMR issues, that doesn't mean that the NYMR is liable for any of their losses.

It's not a silly argument. If we take your viewpoint then I'm assuming you can prove to us all how these businesses have substantially contributed to NYMR appeals over the years, to repair bridges, restore locos, carriages, build the carriage shed etc etc.

No? Thought not.