North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Bearing in mind that previous conversations about maintenance budgets for this railway the obvious question is how many of those failures were because of cuts to that budget, and how many were extended because of waiting for parts where those parts would have previously been stored ready for use.
Whilst the Q6 is unfortunate, the P3 was extended at Embsay after Leaky Finders were already finding more issues. There was a opportunity there to request it back that wasn't taken and I suspect it will go there again next year no matter the NYMR fleet availability though that's just opinion. Whilst not as big as some of the other engines that would at least cover the internals.
For 926, winter maintenance always goes longer than planned on the NYMR. Every year at least one or two engines are in bits for longer than estimated. Whether that's because of lack of labour or parts or some unforeseen issue, the delay is the predictable bit. Its just which engine(s) it will be that isn't.
I've seen nothing about the Lambton tank here. That engine could have covered the internals but wasn't used much for the vast majority of the summer except for Driver Ex's. A missed opportunity?

But going right back to the start of the season, the railway knowingly went into it with a lack of engines. From memory in March all that was available was 44806, Lucie and 29. If it hadn't been for the lower amount of trains running early on due to Bridge 42, it would of been a much bigger issue. I certainly remember all diesel days before Grosmont was reopened.

 

I suspect that you are unlikely to get an answer to this from our "management insider" unless it is completely wrapped up in spin!

 

There wasn’t a steam loco shortage ,it was down to good SMT management re the weather and the unfortunate location of the railway near SSSIs,but everyone’s ignoring what he’s saying !

His comments just highlight why NYMR is in its current situation .

 

Just spending a pleasant morning volunteering as a German Spy for the GWSR schools war time experience. Sorry to disappoint but despite my new found ability to unearth secrets I’m no longer by any description a management insider.

 

As Tom suggested even if Steam had been available it would have been wrong to use it in times of extreme fire risk although other posters have acknowledged that the NYMR was still able to run some steam when other railways were diesel only. Just for clarification it’s not just that the railway is near SSSI’s but substantial parts of its trackbed and lineside are designated SSSI’s in their own right.

 

Even if some of us find some of your arguments unconvincing, I for one am grateful that you are back here presenting them. A bit more transparency from those who remain on the management team would be extremely welcome but seems extremely unlikely.

 

Regardless of SSSI designations, I agree in principle with this. What I find harder to follow is how that position reconciles with the railway's use of steam, especially Tornado, before the weather changed. The impression left, fairly or otherwise, is that weather was being used as an excuse for not operating steam in late summer, unless steam was actually available.

There is unlikely to be agreement on the ultimate truth on this thread. However, what it does demonstrate - again - is the importance of clear and consistent communications in conjunction with a realistic plan.

 

With services advertised to be hauled by a celebrity guest locomotive there’s a different commercial dynamic in play. For “ordinary” steam hauled services it’s possible to substitute diesel especially where the option to do that is made clear beforehand. For services behind a locomotive like Tornado passengers are booking for a specific experience not just a train ride. If that can’t be delivered the right to a refund enshrined in Consumer Rights legislation is much stronger. Exclusion clauses in terms and conditions are likely to be ineffective if challenged. Consequently there’s a much greater financial incentive to use whatever risk mitigation is available ( such as lineside fire patrols) so the railway can supply the experience customers have paid for.

 

So normal trains can't run because of the SSSI, but if a celeb loco turns up then all the nice words about responsibility and the SSSI go out the window?

If it's possible to run Tornado by using mitigation measures then why couldn't normal trains run using this method?

Something doesn't make sense here...

 

If I'm honest, that's not a very comforting answer. It suggests, slightly to my surprise, that absolute safety decisions are actually subjective, relative, and determined by revenue. It also omits the minor issues that a) diesel substitution is known to reduce custom and b) that the impact of no-shows (as distinct from demands for refunds) is also significant.

I would be VERY interested to see the formal risk assessment done before running in the summer, and how the local authorities, remembering the wildfires last year, might have considered it.

Personally, I find the alternative "we have no working steam" far more convincing.