North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

You do not (and nor, seemingly, do the Trust and PLC Boards!) seem to grasp the simplest of principles, namely that keeping the volunteers happy is not a charitable function! It may not be written into the charitable objectives, but it is certainly implicit! To say that if the volunteers were kept happier HLF grants would be under threat is certainly untrue, I believe - I think that providing volunteer opportunities is an important criterion for them - and implicit i that is that those volunteers should be well treated and happy in what they do. I'd f the NYMR is to survive it needs volunteers, and they need to be happy doing whatever motivates them. I have said before that I really don't think your views deserve a place on the Trust or PLC Boards, as you don't seem to display any understanding of what motivates the volunteer workforce - but now that you have re-engineered the Trust Board with its selection committee, and you don't seem to have any capacity for showing any form of remorse, I don't suppose we'll get rid of your influence for some time to come, and I really think that will result in long term damage to the NYMR.

 

It is true to say that I have a gripe regarding the treatment of the LNER Carriages, but from the time that I joined the NYMR back in (I think it was) 1972 in have been a supporter of as a heritage railway, and it is the increasingly rapid erosion of those views and aims that I have looked to support. Quality of - well just about everything - is slowly being eroded at the NYMR and I would certainly want to see it stopped and then reversed. I can't see that happening with the current set of incompetents that are running it.

 

Without trying to imply anything, can I ask if these issues, which I've seen discussed at length on other forums too, began with or around the time of the departure of Chris Price, or prior to that?

On the note of the sale of 76079, I think it's clear that the unspoken reason is the railway needs more cash.
I understand from a thread elsewhere that the Standard 4 tender engines are the locos within the current core fleet which have the least in reserve when hauling heavier trains over the summit on the NYMR, but if that's the case then firstly why continue with the overhaul of 75029? And why say that they hope someone will buy it and base it on the NYMR if it's not really suitable?

And on the fleet front, I could understand that with Hartland on its way back at some point (though I'm fairly sure it was meant to be a few weeks away back in 2019), Omaha returning, 44806 coming back into service last year and others underway, that there may need to be departures. That's business and fair enough, and I have no particular attachment to 76079. But if there simply isn't space for it in the fleet, I think everyone would respect them far more for simply saying so: 'There's a large and varied fleet at the NYMR and we don't anticipate 76079 being in line for overhaul for at least a decade. Rather than store it outside where it will deteriorate we'd prefer to sell it to someone who will restore and run it' or similar.

Finally, if we're talking about locos not really suited to the line, shall I be controversial and suggest Repton?! Seems to be an incredibly marmite loco and does seem to struggle more than others on the bank.

 

Steve will supply chapter and verse on the suitability of 76079 for the NYMR, but I think his conclusion will be that the BR class 4 locos are well suited to the NYMR, possibly more so than the LMS Class 5s. The reason for the sale of 76079 is twofold, I think: the cash its se would bring in, and the cost of the work needed to overhaul if someone were to meet those ccc criteria I suspect that we would suddenly see it being proclaimed an ideal engine for the railway! As for Repton, it seems to have most of its problems when being used in conditions where a sensible management would have rostered something else, or at least provided banking assistance

 

Having been at that meeting when the future of 76079 was decided I can conform categorically that raising money from its sale was absolutely NOT a factor in the decision. It was based on adoption of a viable ten year locomotive overhaul strategy with the benefit of professional engineering advice. Alexi 102's suggestion follows very closely the information provided to members in the Spring 2024 issue of Moors Line magazine as follows;
"We have a well thoughtbout and affordable plan to ensure we can provide steam haulage for our timetable plans over the next ten years. That doesen't include the estimated £800k plus cost of overhauling 76079. Responsible preservation doesn't include parking it up to rust away so you may already know that loco is up for sale to anyone who can fund its early return to service. We intend to include incentives to encourage it remaining on the NYMR"
As with other examples quoted by Steve the problem isn't lack of explanation and justification but that some just don't like the Trust Board's decisions. That's fair enough. You can never please all of the people all of the time but that doesn't mean that its sometimes tough and upalatable dercisons are wrong.

 

My outsiders perception of that communication is this:

“We’ve found that 76079 is going to be very expensive to overhaul and therefore is a low priority. We would really like someone else to pay for the overhaul.”

The rest is window dressing, because saying this is about responsible stewardship, because you don’t want it rusting away up the head shunt, whilst I am sure true, wasn’t in fact the driving force of the decision.

If responsible stewardship were the driving force then fundraising for covered accommodation or the overhaul might be more logical strategies so far as a volunteer or member were concerned. I can imagine that the management and board may well have thought that too, but concluded that they couldn’t do either right now (for lots of good reasons). Thus putting it up for sale made sense. Except that this is clearly half hearted (incentives for it to stay). Many will conclude that absent some sugar fairy the loco will actually spend a long time on the headshunt anyway, but the board will be able to claim that the deteriorating condition isn’t really their responsibility. The problem is the comms don’t explain the whole of the thinking, leaving it to the reader to interpret.

The above represents how I suspect quite a few people would interpret the communication. The problem is I think that the comms don’t look at it from the perspective of the volunteer/member. You simply conclude that you cannot please everyone. Which is true, but leads inexorably towards behaviour which will increasingly seem arrogant.

Tom used the word “trust”. It’s a good one. The volunteers and members have to trust that the leadership has the best interests of the railway at heart. Whether @Lineisclear is right that all we see here is the disaffected rump or not I don’t know, but I do think there is a problem with comms, and that I have seen these issues before elsewhere and it leads to lower morale which is hard to recover from. Boards have to explain all the story.

I will say one more word, because it helps build trust, humility. A word I always tried to remember as a director (others will have to judge if I managed or not).

 

Welll said. And, bluntly, I’d have found a message of “we can’t afford the overhaul so we’re parking 76079 at the back of the line, but are open to offers” significantly more credible.

 

More good and sensible comment from Tom. Get the volunteers on your side and they will shift heaven and earth to help out. Alienate them and they will simply do what they want to do and little else. that alienation is often due to individuals or decisions made by them or the board.
On the NYMR, on the engineering side they have never been really keen on volunteers helping out. In recent times I have sat in meetings when this has been discussed and two senior members of staff are on record as saying that we welcome volunteers with appropriate skills but we don't want them at weekends as the duty fitter then has to supervise them and he can't get on with his jobs. It doesn't take a genius to realise that most people of working age are only available at weekends so there's no encouragement for them to volunteer. However, this is not new and when I first started volunteering in 1977 I soon realised that the only people on shed at weekends during the winter were NELPG working on their locos and there was no NYMR staff presence with all the tools and equipment locked away so, unless it was for footplate work, there was no point in offering my services as I was working Mon-Fri. The majority of volunteers these days are in operating and such as platform staff and station groups although there are some outside these areas. I don't think PW has many now whereas once upon a time there was a regular Sunday working party organised by the York Area. No doubt @Ploughman can give more detail and perhaps even correct me.

 

The initial recommendation to the Trust Board was that 76079 should simply be sold. Any ten year locomotive strategy is not just about affordability. crtical though that is, but about overhaul capacity. As the brief to members said there is such a plan and 76079 doesn't figure on it. With respect to 35B I suggest that the credible message he suggests is what was said....we can't afford the overhaul for at least ten years and we are open to offers for its purchase. The comment about responsible preservation is not window dressing. It's acceptance that parking the loco at the back of the line would involve considerable deterioration of a heritage asset that could be avoided by sale to a new owner. The Trust Board recognised that there is substantial sentimental attachment to the loco so did not accept the recommendation. It added the expressed preference for a buyer, even if the sale price was not the highest offer, who would keep a much loved loco on the railway.

 

If someone (or perhaps a group) comes forward who is willing to purchase the loco and pay for its overhaul, that's great for the NYMR. But what's in it for that purchaser?

 

There are other options between “rot in siding” and “sell”. We have around thirty locos on the Bluebell of which around half are under cover, some of them in a museum / display context. Most of those don’t have a place in an overhaul queue within a ten year time frame. Of those thirty, two are on loan to other organisations for display: one in Margate and one in Aberystwyth. (And we are seeking offers for a third).

We are actively looking for more storage, a long-term objective that has already seen us find storage for all our wooden carriages, both operational and to-be restored.

If the desire was not about money, were those options explored?

Tom

 

This raises an interesting point - would the NYMR benefit from building an Oxenhope-style exhibition and storage shed? Something that can be used to store both out-of-service stock and active locos and coaches when not in use.

 

If you look at the tractive effort of a Black 5 or the Std Cl.4's you will find that they are all about 25,000lbf and, indeed 76079 is the weakest of the lot at 24,170lbf. However, compared with a Black 5, it is a lighter loco so less of the T.E. is required to move itself. In fact, 76079 has slightly more in hand for hauling a train than the Black 5's, even though the latter's T.E. is 25,455lbf.
As for Repton, it has a similar T.E. at 25,100lbf. However, it has two disadvantages. The major one is its adhesive weight which is only 44 tons, giving an adhesive ratio of 3.74. this compares with 50.35 tons and 4.67 for 76079. It's second disadvantage is the lack of effective sanding in reverse as it only has tender sandboxes and these are nearly always clogged up, even when cleared at the start of the day. It disgraced itself this week and had to be rescued when running tender first with a standard load of 7 Mk.1's. It is the shed pet, though, for reasons I can't understand. Very few crews like it and it would be my choice if a loco had to be got rid of.

 

You're right, that was the message - but it was buried and coded, not explicit. That's where trust comes in - when I see that style of writing, my nasty suspicious mind always leaps to "what are they hiding"! In this case, I suspect the board may have been insufficiently cold-blooded - not a charge that is generally levelled at it!

Accepting that today's board are not that of 15-odd years ago, I also note another problem of credibility - that 76079 was purchased as part of a strategy of self-sufficiency. I'm making no comment on whether either the initial purchase or subsequent decision to sell were right or wrong (and also have in mind Keynes' aphorism that "when the facts change, I change my mind"), but the impression given is that the NYMR struggles to maintain a consistent strategy.

 

Except I don't think they can't get rid of Repton, under the terms of its bequest. And for a line that supposedly values its historical antecedents, 76079 ought to be a priority to maintain, as it is the closest thing to the Std 3 tender engines that were once a mainstay of the line. Perhaps if its boiler is so clapped out it could be made more attractive by spending not much more on a new class 3 boiler? I don't think, either, that it is totally realistic to describe it "rusting away at the end of the headshunt" as the last I seem to remember is that it is in the carriage stable at Pickering - although the NYMR does have form for careless storage of locos - think Dame Vera Lyn.....

 

It seemingly has one now - the Pickering carriage stable! Though it isn't nearly big enough to accommodate all the locos and carriages they can't afford to maintain any more.

 

I suspect that all that happened before the Trust Board "selection committee" managed to continue its process of appointing those with the PLC Board "the price of everything but the value of nothing" mindset.

 

I have seen the loco overhaul strategy and am of the opinion that it won't happen. Unfortunately I can't lay my hands on it at the moment so can't add more detail to that opinion. I do have a copy of the locomotive policy, though, and the policy rates each loco with a figure which is related to the number of coaches it can sensibly haul. As both a chartered mechanical engineer and locomotive driver, I would take issue with the load capacity of several of these (926, 44806, 45428, 76079, and 80135/6) based on their adhesive weight, tractive effort and boiler capacity. 76079 has been rated by the MPD as load 6 but this was initially done in an attempt to minimise the problems that were being had with the firebox tubeplate, not on its actual haulage capacity. And, if it's of no use to the railway why does Moors Line say we want to encourage someone to overhaul it and keep it on the railway?
With regard to responsible preservation, and not parking things up to rust away, what happened to 3672, 30830, the cl.101 DMU and D5061, then? Admittedly 30830 and D5061 are privately owned but by allowing the latter to stay on the railway for years when out of use it isn't exactly following that policy.

 

As I expect 60044 is aware NLHF grants have auditable outcomes. Quite reasonably it and other grant funders want to see that the purpose for which their grants were given are being achieved. In the case of the carriage stable there's a hint in the title! The grant was given specifically for the undercover protection of carriages and particulalry with the objective of extending the service life of Mark 1 stock between major overhauls. The NYMR could be called on to show that it's being used for the purposes for which the funds were given. 76079 has been protected there for some time but it can't expect to stay indefinitely
As is so often the case 60044's suspicions are unfounded. The decision was made by the current Trust Board who are all volunteers. A majority of them also volunteered in other roles on the railway.

 

IMHO this reply is , as has been noted before, a typical lawyer's response - i.e. meaningless words! The carriage stable has a capacity of 50 vehicles and I for one cannot see that the sacrifice of one to a loco is likely to cause the HLF to show any interest, let alone let it affect future funding even if it were to remain there indefinitely.. I can cite two other examples, the SVR carriage shed at Kidderminster was funded by HLF, I believe, and has had locos stored in it long term without affecting their support. Moreover, closer to home, Pickering Station roof was funded by HLF with part of the justification being that it would be used to provide undercover storage, in particular for the teak carriages, during the winter months, and how often has that happened?

Trying to justify crass decisions through abjectly risible arguments does your credibility no favours!