North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

They're stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place, and thus desperately trying to find a way to have their cake, and eat it too. The right answer would have been to not go there to begin with, but they are probably close enough to the edge that they felt they had no choice.

One almost has to feel sorry for them. I mean, I very much doubt they stepped in to their current situation get rich, or anything like that; undoubtedly their main goal is the same as that of a lot of other people here: save the NYMR. And now they are here... Alas, they were out of their depth - and that goal, if reachable at all, might have needed more radical changes than they were willing/able to undertake. And spending a lot of money by hiring quite a few extra people was very ill-advised.

Noel

 

No, what I'm pointing out is that the relationship is different and that alters the potential financial liability to one class of customer. In turn that affects the risk/reward decision as to whether to run the celebrity loco. I agree the vast majority of customers want steam but it's normal and acceptable to reserve the right to substitute diesel traction. When what you're selling is an experience of travel behind a celebrity locomotive that's not a realistic alternative. It's like selling tickets to a pop concert by a high profile star who fails to appear on stage. A substitute might play music but customers who booked to hear the star would rightly expect a refund and consumer law is on their side. That's why selling such an experience is different from tickets to travel on a normal timetabled service. It's not that one set of customers matter any more than others but that one set would be entitled to a full refund while the others would not. That's bound to affec the decision as to whether the celebrity loco operates.

 

Quite - traction is only part of the total cost of running a service. Substitute steam for diesel and everything else - C&W, p/way, S&T and general business costs remain the same. My own feeling is that substituting steam with diesel has only a marginal impact on total operational costs, and probably hits you hard in sales (especially future sales )

Tom

 

I said earlier that I was really uncomfortable with this view. Your expansion crystallises why.

Firstly, this is a decision about fire risk. That is a safety decision, but you are introducing a commercial dimension where the safety decision will be explicitly linked to the commercial consequences. That has two significant consequences. The first is that it threatens to undermine the authority of those who make safety decisions to do so on safety grounds. The second is that it undermines, for both NYMR and by extension other railways, the credibility of any such decision.

At a commercial level, it is also perverse. It places special authority on one class of advertising (the "experience") and ignores the wider nature of the railway's advertising, which heavily emphasises steam. Under consumer legislation, the same provisions you assert apply to an "experience" also apply to factors that a customer considers material to the offer, undermining the ability to use T&Cs to limit liability.

As a general argument, this simply doesn't work. If you replace Tornado with, say, Furness Railway No. 20*, you would have to consider the precise circumstances in which operation would take place - regardless of the specific terms of the tickets sold.

I've seen it noted that the MHR used "Canadian Pacific" as a general steam ban approached because it was able to be worked so lightly that it mitigated the risk. That's a reasonable approach which served the MHR tolerably well, and I'd respect a safety based argument that applied that logic together with limiting the number of passes. But that's not what you've argued - and I suspect that's because there never was a steam ban.

As I said earlier, the formal risk assessment would be very interesting to read.

* - no I don't think it would cope with the NYMR either!

 

My memory may be at fault here but recollection says FR 20 has worked on the NYMR several years back. I'm sure I helped in coaling it.

 

From Grosmont to Pickering?

 

Memory says Levisham - Pickering shuttles but possibly on other sections. My records from the last century are in the loft but I think only 2 or 3 coaches.

 

I'm accused of ignoring significant facts. The habit must be catching because Kirk Oswald not only ignores the effect of climate change but the fact that the law has moved on as well. Just to confirm SSSI's don't just exist alongside the line, they include substantial sections of it. What's changed is that Natural England now has much wider powers to restrict operation of the railway. It's not without dispute but its interpretion of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (which post dates all those mentioned to by Kirk Oswald) is that its consent is required for any operations that may affect an SSSI (including sections of the trackbed). That includes running trains, particularly steam trains at times of high fire risk. It's encouraging that Kirk Oswald recognises the importance of SSSI's because whatever the availability of steam traction NE's assent to it operating is critical.

 

A lot of repeat custom will be lost if people turn up expecting steam and get diesel haulage. During a hot, dry summer that will be forgiven but at other times of year not. Especially when it's badly or not at all communicated. Even last week there was a random midweek all-diesel day. The average family is not checking the roster at 9am to be sure that the railway actually has steam out. They'll arrive expecting steam and probably won't be back or won't be telling friends to pay a visit if they don't get it. It's super short-sighted to operate more diesel if it's just a cost saving measure.

 

Part of my non railway life is working on local wildlife conservation, including two SSSIs unconnected to railways and one the only site in England where a specific orchid can be found.

Second I've worked (admittedly not regularly) with volunteer lineside clearance operations on the NYMR and am well acquainted with those SSSIs that exist trackside.

Once again you depart from answering direct, clear, pertinent questions put to you by numerous forum members. Once again you go down the legal/regulatory blind alleys that you seem to delight in deploying to obfuscate the issues. Have Natural England EVER taken any formal action preventing the NYMR running trains. SSSIs and the railway not only co-exist, they do so successfully.SSSIs of the type that are lineside on the NYMR are essentially there because of the nature of the location, of which nature the railway is an intrinsic part. If you had any interest at all in the plantlife found along Britain's railways you would know that decades of rail traffic have brought biological diversity to cuttings and embankments which otherwise wouldn't exist in those geographical locations.

Forgive me but if I'm looking for lessons on flora and fauna I'll look elsewhere than your ramblings. Assuming you have spare time on your hands perhaps you might consider teaching your grandmother how to suck eggs.

 

Whilst any supply of spare parts for power unit or electronics (where fitted) remains available, I suspect that even allowing for overhauls diesel haulage is less costly, but the gap is closing and will continue to do so, and in time as components cease to be available which are not possible to manufacture with the current capabilities of heritage railways it may be true that steam traction is ultimately easier to keep going. Right now though, I suspect that IF the Moors Management were looking at cost it would be only near term cashflow, and on that diesel traction would remain a very clear winner no matter how short term that might be so.

 

Was it a plan, all along, to minimise steam traction as much as possible to save cash?

 

Following the incident where a large section of SSSI was damaged by fire Natural England emphasised in a letter to the NYMR its view that all operations having a potential impact on an SSSI require their assent and that includes running trains. That's not a regulatory blind alley. It's fundamental to the railway's ability to operate. Kirk Oswald is right about the value of the railway to biological diversity which is why I am proud of having taken a leading role in extension of the NYMR's charitable purposes to include a commitment to environmental conservation.

 

Here it is at Levisham, 7/10/2000 on a wet Gala Saturday. Fortunately the sun shone when I was on it the following day doing shuttles from Pickering

Peter

 

Lineside habitat doesn't remain static, without vegetation management associated with running a railway as my stroll along the Nidderdale Greenway, fifty years after exploring it as a disused railway proves. Without concerted effort everything gets taken over by trees and ironically increased co2 makes them grow faster. Periodic burning is part and parcel of preventing tree growth.
Natural England either accepts a viable railway or kisses those habitats goodbye.

Sawdust.

 

Whenever I see the words "it's interpretation is that it's consent is required...", I just think that an ill-interpreted "here's another bit of legal mumbo jumbo being used to justify the prohibition what should have been done " is coming..

Perhaps you would like to inform us where the railway actually forms part of a SSSI, rather than being adjacent to one? I can think of one, but I don't want to spoil your fun. For the most part I would think the areas bounded on the outside by the cess and lying within the cess are not, and actually that area is at least risk of fire damage.

I used to own a railway that ran (mostly) through a SSSI and ironically we were barred from dumping ash at the location we used within t, because a very rare yellow horned poppy grew and thrived there. It has now disappeared from there, because it seems to have been the sulphur in the ash that caused it to grow and flourish there!

 

Much as I also disagree with much of what @Lineisclear says*, I think it's perhaps disingenuous to suggest - hypothetically or not - that there 'never was' a steam ban. We all saw what happened elsewhere in the country this summer. Not only do I live nearly 50 miles from the wildfire near Aviemore and could see, smell and taste the smoke outside my front door, but I also did the walk from Newtondale halt to Levisham on my annual NYMR visit and certainly wouldn't have fancied a spark from a loco landing anywhere near that coniferous woodland in the dry conditions of this summer.

If there wasn't an 'official' steam ban due to fire risk, it was absolutely right to have at least a voluntary one. But that ban should have applied to everything. No ifs, no buts, no exceptions for the premium bums on seats behind Tornado. If nobody had the wit to include a disclaimer (due to fire risk, etc) in the sales blurb for that event, that's the NYMR's commercial department which has messed up.

The question of transparency is not whether a steam ban due to fire risk was actually in place or not (as above, it absolutely should have been, given the conditions), but whether that ban was also used as a convenient public excuse to hide the fact that there wasn't actually any steam to run.

Also, please let's not get too hung up on the red herring of SSSIs. Fire risk should not be given different levels of importance simply because of designation. Hundreds of thousands of birds, mammals, amphibians, insects and more perished in the Aviemore fire. It will take many, many years for that biodiversity to recover.

Any part of any railway lineside is as important as any other when it comes to mitigating fire risk, irrespective of whether Joe Public and enthusiasts get upset at the lack of a chuff-chuff on the front of their train or not.

* I'm getting a real politician/local councillor vibe.

 

For clarity, I would have had no issue had the railway declared a moratorium on steam operations and the lack of one (certainly south of Goathland) surprised me / brought the cynic out in me due to the visitors (delete as applicable).

But it didn’t, and when there was steam to operate, continued to do so. Indeed, if I were thinking about the possibility of regulatory intervention (and I regard that as a legitimate concern given Natural England’s approach to regulation elsewhere), the failure to stop operating steam earlier if anything amplifies the risk.

The more I contemplate this, the more interested I am in the documented risk assessment which must surely exist.

 

Peat moorland damaged by fire in the NYMNP, the fires of 1976, still haven't fully recovered. So the risk is genuine, but it is no less genuine for more expensive steam trains. If it was too risky to run normal steam trains then it was too risky to run more expensive steam trains. Cancellation and full refunds should have been the order of the day.
In some regards this isn't the NYMR's fault it is all part of the British disease that results in bat tunnels and fish disco's.
Sawdust.