North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

If the teaks are such a problem for the NYMR, then perhaps they should be offered to another line that could use them regularly?

 

I think the most useful stock to run to Whitby would be the diner set.
A more pragmatic approach, by NR/ORR etc,to running older stock to Whitby would be very helpful.
After all, vintage buses run in far more dangerous circumstances. Last year a modern bus plunged into a river near Grosmont.
Political lobbying might be effective.

Meanwhile, amidst talk of steam, it was a Sulzer loco that was described as 'the loco that saved the NYMR'

 

The diner stock used to be plated to run to Whitby. I’ve taken it there once a long time ago. I don’t know if it still is.
D5032 was the loco that saved the NYMR, back in 1976.

 

I think the phrase "where there's a will there's a way" is telling here - I don't think the NYMR management really wants the teak coaches under any circumstances and, sadly, imho they will drift away to other, more enlightened railways in the coming years. The LNERCA needs the income and it's hard to see the NYMR coughing up - they've used up all the residual life in their tyres, effectively for free, and don't want to pay for the wear they've used up. It has been a very "give and take" relationship till now - the LNERCA has given and the NYMR have taken, but they don't want to give back.

 

That rather implies we ever ran anything other than Mk1s! We were just that bit later starting which meant Mk1s were the only option right from the get go really. We did have a few GWR coaches arrive on the railway, but they were all chicken shed type affairs that gradually disappeared - 2 of them ended up in the WSRHT's collection eventually I think, still in the same condition (plus 30 years' more rot!) The only real 'choice' we ever had (other than a brief proposal to get some Mk2s) was to try and pick the coaches with the early wooden panelled interiors rather than the Formica. We do still have a mix of the two but it's noticeable that people do go for the wooden panelled interiors over the Formica.

 

It appears that the teak coaches could have run to Whitby, had the will and finance been there. I have been informed that:

"The Teaks had a Regulation 4 and Regulation 5 derogation (hinged doors) granted on 24th June 2015 which expired on 23rd March 2023.
They were passed for the Esk Valley line at 25mph. Would have to be fitted with buckeyes with lower shelf brackets.

They would also be required to have door stewards."

Presumably they would ater on been required to either have CE toilets, or had the toilets locked out of use between Grosmont and Whitby - and presumably had they been running on the EVL when the CET rules were brought in NR would have paid for the equipment. Not so now, though, but where there's a will there's a way and I'm sure that the LNERCA could have applied for grant funding to equip them.

 

Sadly it’s not just the NYMR. It’s the same on the WSR thread.

 

It has indeed been a symbiotic "give and take" relarionship with LNERCA benefitting from free storage of its collection of possible future project vehicles, free use of the carriage restoration shed and payment of substantial hire fees for the teak service set stored under cover and which NYMR continues to pay hire fees for even though it's not using them.

 

To be fair, it is a discussion forum! The discussion about the Teak carriages is directly relevant to the NYMR (a set of nominally operational carriages not being used is surely of direct interest - and if there are two sides to the argument, then let's hear both sides, as indeed we have). The discussion about Gift Aid, Consumer Rights and Governance in general has a wider relevance, given that several railways are considering their governance arrangements, and the "Apex charity" model with ability to claim Gift Aid on fares is frequently and vociferously put forward as a good model. So I think it is important at a sector-wide level to understand if that model is in fact suited to heritage railways, and what the potential pitfalls might be.

I'd characterise the debate here as robust, but I don't think it has ever strayed over into rudeness, or gone too far from exploring what the actual issues are.

There is an alternative for supporters of heritage railways to debating the issues - which is to put blind trust in the directors and nod through the annual accounts, board nominations and not raise a squeak about any commercial decision. But in which case if "your" railway collapses financially, you have a degree of culpability in allowing it to happen. And, equally, if the management pull things back from the brink but at the expense of painting your favourite loco pink with yellow spots due to an unexpected resurgence in the popularity of Mr Blobby, then you can also have no complaint.

Tom

 

If that is the view of the Trust &PLC boards, I can see why the railway is in a mess.

 

I think I must have missed hearing about that.

 

I think the whole Jacobite CDL issue goes to show the ORR are not willing to take pragmatic approaches. Even the Mk1s the NYMR operate need to be CDL fitted eventually (by 2028?).

 

The ORR accepted WCRC's use of door stewards on the Jacobite as a substitute for CDL until they learnt that WCRC were not following their own procedure.

 

Where does it say that? The current exemption expires in 2028 but that is because the exemption only runs for 5 years. , which is fairly normal with such things. They are not open ended.

 

I don't think that the WCR's operation on the West Highland route are really comparable to the NYMR's to Whitby, in terms of risk the journey into Whitby is far shorter and carried out at lower speeds for a start. I'm sure that a workable compromise could have been found if the will had been there. The Mks were the same, but I think that the NYMR management chose to cave in rather than try to challenge and negotiate.

 

I'm sure it has been stated somewhere the NYMR have to plan for such things. May have been in a magazine, on here, I cannot recall.

 

It has been discussed on here; views have differed on how NYMR need to anticipate changes from ORR and how far they reach into the requirements for operation of the heritage railway.

 

Jacobite was CDL mk2s last year from memory

 

Mk 1s mixed in to provide dynamo power for the Mk 2s and CDL, but not seats. A peculiar workaround that will have reduced the takings.

 

As far as I can tell, the NYMR rarely has plans for anything much, it's not the way they work - and if they do have them they don't last long in practice! What they do have, in some areas, is the vision of their long term managers - like Nigel Trotter in PWay -who keep them to theirselves and try to see them through regardless!