North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I think that he would be a bit annoyed if you said that to him or anyone else who might have to use it.

 

It’s been many years since Bo’ness had a 31 (327).
31128 went south to move a convoy to Swanage for their diesel gala .

 

Well he may like to watch the NYMR video of him showing another chap around in the shed where he says he had a a heavy hand in the design!

 

There is a video of him and another chap in rhe shed here Kieron says he had a heavy hand in the design.

 

Not wanting to stir anything Steve but Mr Murray does mention he had a hand in things like pit design on this video with Tim Dunn here about 5:30 mins in he says he wanted the ‘perfect pit’ and had a hand in the design, how can someone be annoyed with that when it’s up on the internet for all to see?

 

I’ve not seen the video but having a perfect pit is one little success. I doubt he is going to make any negative comment in such a video just like I’m not going to list what’s wrong with it.

 

Having a hand in the operational parts of the shed, such as the pit, water and power points, storage etc doesn't mean you've had any input into either the exterior of the building or the actual location.

 

Pity about the unfortunate gradient wrong way fall within the shed ?

 

So why was such a sub standard design allowed to be passed and built ?

 

I think it's more to do with a few last bits to tidy up and then fitting what's needed to make it able to run to Whitby (which was the whole idea of hiring it in).

Incidentally, does anyone know why, if the NYMR are happy to invest in main line certification for a loco on loan that (as it stands) they'll get less than 2 years' use from, they haven't certified their own 37? I would have thought it would make more sense to put the long term investment into the resident and just use the 47 internally?

 

I'm intrigued... what is so substandard about it?

 

37264 is privately owned as far as I know.

 

Significant concerns have been raised about the open sides, while there are also suggestions that the quality of work is less than it might be.

 

I did think the open sides were an odd choice.

 

The thing is the so called architects, were most insistent that they ran a "consultation", who with they wouldn't say. IMO it was the "Lego" Department of the local Pre-School Play Group.......!​

 

Possibly an urban myth but I seem to remember that the local council had a preference for an agricultural type building as opposed to an industrial unit because of the location.

 

It's still possible to make an agricultural type building with walls on the side...

 

Most agricultural buildings do have walls, though. Arguably, there were two conflicting requirements - for the building to be secure (at the time, the vandalisation of the teak train was fresh in people's minds)and to be condensation-free It was felt that having no walls would be cheaper and would solve the condensation problem and that the security issue could be solved by suitable alarms. In fact, I've been told that condensation is still a problem and no-one seems to know if the security systems were ever installed! For my part, I remember the Carnforth Romney shed used for carriage storage and I don't recall condensation being a problem in it as the wallss did not extend to the ground but finished at around solebar level. At the early planning meetings I suggested the the Pickering shed should have solid wooden walls down to solebar and then weldmesh below to keep unwanted visitors out. but the architects weren't interested in listening.

 

Certainly air circulation is mentioned for the Swanage shed in the link below, although I also believe that limited clearance with the running line means it allows a refuge as well.
https://www.swanagerailwaytrust.org/carriage-shed-appeal

 

Aaagh - you've probably woken him from Canada up!