North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

It was a bookable option last year though, but isn't there on the current options. So is it still in the rake I wonder? And if not, what is the brake? Car 79 still isn't finished as far as I know and isn't bookable either. Could the NYMR be listening and using that MK1 and maybe another for standard seating on the dining service this year?

 

The brake may be the inspection saloon.

 

Probably not a certain person's field of legal expertise!

None of which explains why there's such little interest in potential dining cars with far more historical interest and character - like NER 945 and later on ECJS 189. I can only assume that "quality" is associated in the management's mind with the the way food is served "silver service, with gravy poured out individually by a waiter"!)" rather than either the food itself or the surroundings it is served in. Car 79, when it returns to service, is a 3rd class car, but I think most people would agree it offers a far superior ambiance to the vinyl-coated Met-Camm 1st class ones. 945 and 189 would be far more like 79 in terns of interior finish - but then I suppose that they are better suited to a heritage railway, rather than being a slightly upmarket tourist cafe.

Has my position of despair on most things associated with the current NYMR mis-"management" fully come across yet? Am I unreasonable, or is a consistent picture building up?

 

I don't think your being unreasonable at all. The stuck in a rut offering is a challenge to most of our thinking on here. I understand what they are doing at the minute could be one offering, but why is it the only one? You'd think running Fish and Chip trains to the seaside, or Cream Teas/Afternoon Teas would be leaning on a open door, but its not there. Other railways make those work very well but the NYMR just don't try them. They did try a Curry train last year, said how successful it was, and they might do more, but where is it? The only alternative I can see so far is a Whisky tasting experience. But just one.

As for carriages, if it were me I think I'd be swapping them about, maybe moving the Met Cam ones out as other better quality options are available (examples in quote). Maybe you could then put one Met Cam on each Whitby service and offer a Pullman upgrade with complimentary tea or coffee or soft drink (as seen on the Jacobite though admittedly that carriage is a better Pullman). You don't need to offer food on those but can still earn more than a standard seat. Obviously that would need ratifying with the Network Rail paperwork, but I'd at least look at the options. but that's just me thinking out loud. It will likely never happen.

 

I suspect the Bluebell offering gets close, but that is more than £75.

 

You do like rubbing salt, Tom

The NYMR's response would be that such coaches aren't Mark 1's, have no commonality of spares and require too much upkeep. I think that Car 79 is only progressing due to the enthusiasm of the C&W manager (who I believe would also like to see the Teaks progressed.)

 

Like I said, the management have no idea of what constitutes "quality" and just don't car if it complicates their cosy way of life one iota. Is it happens, what's complicated about them? Nowadays they have MK 1 electrical systems, and with 7 other LNER teak coaches in the background sharing the same vac brake systems and bogies there's commonality there too. It doesn't leave much that's non-standard! Too late now, though: 945 has gone (to Kirkby Stephen) and ECJS 189 will most probably leave too. The opportunity for an observation car - which ought to be popular if properly marketed and sold - has gone with the departure of GN 3087 to Embsay. As far as the NYMR is concerned it's a helter-skelter plunge to the bottom of the barrel.

It was always the LNERCA's thinking that they'd either be swapped into the diner as required, or form the basis of a seond diner - which, if the dining services are as profitable as claimed, would represent another business opportunity to offer more choice. When "Garnet" the M-C Pullman with 1st class seating, was being restored, it was mooted to be allocated to Whitby trains to give a more upmarket service on those trains. How times change, and ideas of service fall.

 

The 60's Pullmans are essentially mk.1's but Car 79 is quite different. it certainly has non-standard brake cylinders (26"?) and bogies and all that goes with them. I know it has spent time out of service in the past awaiting parts being specially made.

 

While I sympathise with much of what you are saying, I can't imagine for one moment that anyone involved with NYMR management has a "cosy way of life". While some of the problems that they are grappling with may be of their own making, trying to run the NYMR at present must be the biggest nightmare in preservation. Nothing cosy there that I can see.

Peter

 

I don't disagree with that statement, Peter but I do think a large part of it is down to the decisions and attitudes of one or two people who are very influential in the decision making. Virtually every heritage railway started life as an unremunerative branch line and only became remunerative due to the tremendous input of free labour from volunteers. Those volunteers will move heaven and earth to help their railway but their whims and desires often have to be satisfied in return. They aren't usually excessive and may not be a priority but it's a price to pay for survival. They also like to know what's going on and why and have a say, however informally, and not be treated like mushrooms and ignored. That last sentence is usually covered by MBWA and not retreating to ivory towers.

 

I agree almost completely - but nowadays it's more than one or two people that are the problem, the organisation has slowly been packed with people who really have no idea what is going on, and has been stripped of those that do. Instead of a new generation of Trust Board members - who are , and represent, the institutional knowledge and wisdom -being developed and brought on a new generation has been parachuted in and the institutional wisdom has been discarded. Again, I say to other organisations taking advice from the individual responsible for the changes at the NYMR, take a close and wider look at how his changes have worked out there, and do more extensive due diligence on the individual concerned.

The NYMR management really need to revive MBWA as a matter of urgent priority! Prove to the rest of the NYMR community that you are hearing, listening and paying attention!

 

One part has commonality with other stock. The wheelsets are standard LNER "heavy" 10" x 5" journals as used on Gresley buffet cars, BGs and Beavertails, amongst other things. When 79 was first being assessed for Whitby running, one of the wheelsets was found to be not the same wheels as the others and failed MPI testing on the axle. Thanks to the generosity of LNERCA and the owners of 641 a wheelset that has been removed from 641 and turned was loaned to the NYMR for more than several years, enabling 79 to run, not just to Whitby but on the NYMR itself.
Maybe some of you will now find my moan about the NYMR's churlishness about retyring a TTO from a few days ago, a little more reasonable and understandable.

Sawdust.

 

no, it’s thinking creatively. If there are restaurants that can run on those overheads, add £50 for your train fare becomes £120. Add a bit more for the novelty, and you have a serious markup that many people would be happy to pay.

Some railway catering is exceptional, but for much of it I wish they would serve it ‘in a dining room without novelty’ to see what the public reaction then is.

 

With one important exception, I don't think NYMR's structure is relevant to their position. I would instinctively see the membership body having authority over an operating company as a good model, and the organisation at NYMR as being well aligned for providing that direction and control. What we see is a demonstration of how structure can only take you so far, and you are ultimately at the mercy of individuals and their judgment.

The exception is itself not really "structural", but about the patterns that go around that structure. That is the way that the Trust has organised itself in a way that has limited the ability of members to hold it accountable, by giving it too many rights to choose the voters. You can read back in this and other threads for discussions I and others have had with @Lineisclear on the subject, and the fundamental differences of view that surround it. What's worthy of comment, though, is how a move 5 years ago to make a bad decision about governance has now evolved into a strong sense of "them and us", with repeated accounts of railway personnel feeling under threat for telling the truth.

I think that's a consequence not of the governance changes, but of a way of thinking that underpinned those changes. It's tempting (and to some extent satisfying) to blame individuals - but I think that's a bit too easy. The question that I don't think NYMR ever really asked was "what should this feel like" - I take comfort from the likes of SVR that culture seems high on the agenda.

 

With respect Martin, it's not really comparable to Mor Brook. That was an exceptional event that saw the whole railway pull together. Regular updates on progress and how the funding was going, assistance from the big railway, a concerted effort to get the line open after an emergency. It was in the news repeatedly, with plenty of social media updates. This is just down to incompetence.

The railway have known for years that the bridge needed work - they've already replaced four between Grosmont and the summit. Yes, the timing of it has probably taken them by surprise, but they should've at least had some sort of plan in place. Nothing was seemingly organised, or at least nothing was communicated publicly. Even now, it's been two months since the line was shut, and no official estimate on cost or how long the job will take. The railway is meant to open in a little over 6 weeks and they're selling tickets for services that almost certainly won't run as advertised. To me, that's bordering on fraud.

They've managed to organise bridge repairs and replacements in the past, and got appeals running well in advance. This should've been started last spring when rumours were already starting to spread about the state of the bridge. Now it's too late, the bridge is shut, and there's no time to get funding and arrangements in place before the line is meant to open for the season.

 

A few points based on a quick catch up of the last 10 pages or so:

- If the statements about the new Civils director are even 70% accurate, there are serious concerns there

- Re the diner, my understanding was that previously it did require a Cl 6 or above to haul it which meant essentially the Q6, 9F or S15 or a smaller engine with a diesel banker so maybe thats why they don't add normal passenger coaches on?

- On the subject of membership, I became a member at Embsay a few years ago after being given a copy of their quarterly YDR News magazine, a brilliantly-produced publication which provided updates on every area of the railway from rolling stock, track, S&T, direct works to finance. That magazine is currenlty on a haitus due to the previous editor taking up a management role at another railway - but such is the connection it created between me (who visits maybe once or twice per year - it's rare I can justify more) and the railway that I will continue my membership for the forseeable future regardless of whether I get a glossy magazine. But my point is - it was the 'glossy magazine' that drew me into membership and I would absolutely love to contribute more in future when life allows. I'm under no illusions that the railway is perfect - but the way it's run impresses me and I want to support it.

- I honestly think the current leadership are completely blind to the damage they're doing.