North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

There was always a degree of "flogging the log" with this return as with one railway that I was closely involved, when I reviewed the returns from previous years it was obvious that the compiler had been rather enthusiastic shall we say. A good example from the past was the West Somerset that convinced itself that over 200,000 passengers were being carried and additional track capacity would be required. Following an audit it became apparent that the internal reporting was suspect and the actual figure was rather less. There was no more talk of rebuilding the loop at Kentsford.

To add to complication some railways reported in the same manner as the "big " railway ie one return ticket is counted as two journeys. Now this makes sense for NR but most heritage railways only sell return tickets and they are interested in the number of passengers/visitors , not the number of journeys. But...you can quote as many passenger figures as you like. The requirement is still to make a profit.

 

I was trying to understand why either number-of-visitors or passenger-miles (for which number-of-passenger-trips is a reasonably good simulacrum) would necessarily be a good prediction of accident rates - which is presumably what ORR cares about - when I realized that ORR may just use historical data to decide what the best predictive number is. I.e. take whatever number one is trying to minimize (e.g. total-accidents, or serious-injuries), and compare that to whatever historical data one has (number-of-passenger-trips, age of drivers, etc), and pick the one with the best correlation. I wonder if they actually did that, or just made a guess at which number to use?

Noel

 

I've never understood why they make the statement about 'limited capacity'. You'd think it would be blindingly obvious that the Autocar is only two coaches in length therefore more limited than a rake of MK1's. In a similar vein for most of the last two or more years they have had the internal set listed as 'limited capacity' despite it being four coaches with rarely enough passengers for two of them. Surely a part of any railway is to run the amount of coaches needed for that service. If you can't shunt you run the highest amount that rake will need during that day/week until you hit your max. The only time you should ever put 'limited capacity' is when you are admitting you can't increase by enough for the amount of passengers you expect, thus admitting failure.

 

https://www.facebook.com/share/1DBV4EdkdQ/

Work is currently under way on Bridge 42 at Grosmont on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway, the structure that carries trains over the River Murk Esk.

The bridge is being temporarily supported to allow trains to run while a longer term repair plan is developed. The railway has said the structure needs significant work to its stone and brick arch masonry, and a full programme of repairs is expected to take place in the winter of 2026 to 2027.

The official position from the railway was that the line would reopen in late April, with work continuing through April to make that possible.

However, a source on site has indicated that this may now have shifted, with late May being discussed internally as a more realistic timeframe.

As ever, that is not an official update, but reflects what is being said by people directly involved in the work.

Bridge 42 is a critical part of the line. Without it, through services cannot operate as normal, and that has had a clear impact on Grosmont, where local businesses rely heavily on visitors arriving by train.

The railway has also launched a public appeal to help fund both the temporary works and the long term repair, with a target of around £800,000.

Donations have already begun to come in, but the full cost of securing the bridge for the future is significant.

For now, the focus is on getting trains running safely again, with a longer term solution to follow once the season is underway.

 

Well, a vintage rail line is a business (although I will continue to argue that that's not the most important thing almost all are). So, does it cost more for a loco to haul (say) 6 carriages, than 2? I would think it would have to, but I'm not an expert on that. (We'll also ignore carriage wear and tear.)

I saw your comment about 'shunting', which it took to mean 'able to add or remove carriages from the consist', but if a line does have the ability to add or remove carriages from the consist, then depending on that day's demand, and bearing in mind my query above about costs, wouldn't it be better to run the number needed for any particular service, not just "the highest amount that rake will need during that day"? Maybe the cost differential is so small it's not worth removing, say, 2 carriages from a poorly sold run, though?

Noel

 

I think just in fuel terms, shunting is more costly than you might think. (That's a subjective view based on having done lots). Essentially, stopping and starting is more costly than running at an even speed.

You also have to think about what precisely the shunt is - which obviously depends on station layout. For example, imagine a six coach morning train arrives at Grosmont, but returns as a three coach service due to low passenger numbers. What do you do with the remaining three coaches? You could leave them in the platform, but that creates platform occupancy problems for the next arrival. Or the shunt loco puts them away in some siding, but that is additional start / stop moves, all of which cost coal and take time. Or you steam (or fire up, in the car of diesel) a second loco for the shunt, which is another crew and duty cycle.

So I think in practical terms, shunting during the day to remove carriages probably generates more cost than it saves.

All of that is predicated on doing a planned shunting move, i.e. one that has been allowed sufficient time in the timetable to occur. If you try to do an ad-hoc move on the day because of a there-and-then assessment of loadings, you have all the disadvantages of a planned move, but are now doing it against the clock which adds risk and at the very least is probably a recipe for late running.

There is also a consideration of which carriages do you remove? In a typical rake, not all carriages are equal.

For example, suppose you have a six-coach set that is something like Brake 3rd + RMB + wheelchair-accessible saloon + 1st / 3rd composite + All 3rd + All 3rd. You can't remove the brake or the wheelchair-accessible saloon; and you almost certainly don't want to knock off the RMB or the 1st / 3rd composite (in case case any 1st passengers turn up). So you are left with knocking off the two all 3rds, but you turn a 6 coach set into a four coach set with very limited capacity.

All in all, shunting during the day is probably more hassle than it is worth. Planning shorter sets at periods of the year when demand is historically low (which does have the benefit of reducing wear and tear on the carriages not in use) is worth it. But for most railways, the solution to low demand, such as midweek, is, sadly, "run fewer trains of original length" rather than "run the same number of trains, but shorter".

Tom

 

Following on from the Bob Lund fatality a few years ago, shunting on the NYMR is a non-preferred activity, only done when it has to be done. It's not something I totally agree with but I can well understand why this is the case. You also need somewhere to stable the unwanted coaches and that isn't a convenient siding in the case of Pickering. The carriage stable is a good half mile away and doesn't have run round facilities so the train loco can't accomplish any shunting, which would have to be done by another loco after the rest of the train has left. Making it back up again later in the day would be nigh on impossible. Everything required for the longer train would have to be shunted back into the carriage stable and made up there.

Try cutting out some card to represent locos and coaches and work out the movements required to do it.

 

Thanks for taking the time to write that expansive, educational reply!

Makes sense.

Noel