North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

It's unclear whether there's perception bias at work, or NYMR does genuinely have more incidents.

 

That reflects a consistent personal view and preference for what is considered heritage. Trouble is heritage is a movable feast. Today’s modernity is tomorrow’s heritage. The definition of that term will be determined to a large degree by what future visitors will identify with and want to pay to experience which may well be anathema to old hands. Providing the customer with what they want, not what you think they ought to want, is a fairly sound business principle.

 

You don't have to read it, though. I will admit that I have an axe to grind, and I'm quite happy to make my case because I think there are good grounds for it, but I try to do it in a constructive way.

 

The current operation meets the purposes, but the museum aspects are IMHO poorly developed - as is the case on many other railways.

I think the railway is missing an opportunity with the teak stock, but hesitate to conclude that the use of diesels or Mk1s is in anyway a question of false pretences.

That leads to the dual questions of how the Trust, as a charity, meets its objectives and how it does so with a level of financial security.

That principle is also one that needs to be balanced against charitable objectives. My experience of heritage railways is that most people do want steam, and that they are impressed by pre-nationalisation rolling stock, well presented.

 

There are two statements in there that independently are both true, but which I don't think necessarily sit together the way you might be inferring.

"Today’s modernity is tomorrow’s heritage" is clearly true. For a genuine museum, such as the NRM, it is clear that in order to deliver their mission of portraying the history of railways, from time to time they must add "modern" items of rolling stock and other artefacts. It is also true that, if they also have limited capacity to store and display their entire collection, they must from time to time deaccession items - even if that is (on a personal level I suspect for many) galling when they deaccession a unique Victorian steam loco so as to make space to preserve a modern diesel.

"Providing the customer with what they want, not what you think they ought to want, is a fairly sound business principle" is also clearly true for any commercial business, not least a heritage railway.

Where I think they don't sit together is the subtle elision that "what the customer wants is today's modernity". (Or rather, in more prosaic terms, "what they remember from their youth"). I've seen it stated many times that heritage is about recreating what people remember from their youth. While there is a place for that, it is far from the complete story: otherwise, we wouldn't have any Medieval castles or Georgian Stately homes as visitor attractions, but would have brown road signs pointing to recreated call centres and 1960s concrete shopping centres. The point is, while there are many people who are nostalgic about the past, that doesn't inherently mean their past. Some periods of history are more popular than others. Discussions about costs and fuel availability aside, I can see that 50 years from now steam locomotives will still be popular while the railway using a Class 66 for haulage pulling a train of Mark 3 carriages will be a fringe player. It isn't age alone that turns a heritage item into a popular one.

In the context of a heritage railway, then to me it means deciding on the period (or periods) you wish to display and being as far as possible consistent to that model. It doesn't mean that you must always be modernising so as to stay a fixed n years in the past. In that regard, the Teak LNER carriages - even though they are now more or less beyond the memory of anyone alive - will always have more wow factor than a railway using Mark 2 or Mark 3 carriages, even though such carriages in concept are now 60 and 50 years old respectively, and genuine heritage items.

Tom

 

I agree. There are railways that will tell you that what passengers ride in can be more important than what’s pulling the set. Equally there are others like the GWSR where passengers happily accept its Mark 1 standardization. The point about a moving interpretation of heritage applies. For increasing numbers of visitors the Mark 1’s are historic. They have no experience of slam door stock.
The teak set has huge heritage significance but because it can’t run to Whitby has limited operational value. I don’t profess to understand the operational effects of timetabling but my recollection is that on the peak timetable it was only possible for the teak set to do one return journey. They cost substantially more to maintain than Mark 1’ s so may be best suited to premium services.

 

If you’ve not visited Crossness, I recommend it. It articulates your point well… a fascinating insight into historical technology and infrastructure, where subsequent technological iterations are unlikely* to have quite the same impact or historical value…

Simon

* edit corrected ‘likely’ to ‘unlikely’ because it was an obvious typo.

 

Au contraire, I believe it is your type of thinking that has led the NYMR into its current near death paralysis. It's true that heritage begins a second or go, but like most things it has its attractive and interesting parts, and much that is mundae and uninteresting. Not everyone will see the same things the same way though, so it is counterproductive to try to dictate what they will want to see or reexperience, and some of what may interest them most are things they haven't previously seen or experienced. For my part, I assume that visitors come because they want a train ride, pulled by a steam engine, but whatever is on offer to embellish or enhance that is a bonus for them - but they have to have the opportunity o be told about what they are seeing and why; you cannot expect the average visitor from, say Somerset, to know much about industry of the Esk Valley in terms of why the blast furnace was at Grosmont, why there was a whinstone mine at Goathland, a timber siding in Newtondale a quarry at New Bridge etc., and how they (and other businesses) interacted with the railway. Probably most of them don't even realise that those businesses existed, but knowing that they did arouses curiosity and the desire to find out more. Educating people about those sorts of things, together with the greater economy in terms of lives and jobs, that they supported, should really be what the NYMR's charitable objective should be. Heritage can't be forced on people, but if they were willing to pay to travel on a steam train in the first place it should be taken as a willingness to learn and experience more, and that's when other railway stuff comes into place - pre-Mk 1 coaches, maybe shorter local (non-corridor) trains and so on - stuff that really could be advertised as a heritage experience. Taking people for a day out in Whitby and have fish and chips is not, imho, a particularly culturally enriching experience and is certainly not a particularly charitable objective!

 

Again, there is an elision there which I think needs proper discussion rather than to be taken as read.

It is true that the teaks are harder to schedule, and that the ability to work them to Whitby is more constrained, and I'll accept the assertion that they are more expensive to maintain. It may also be true that "local" workings are less remunerative in themselves. However, to go from those observations to suggest that the teaks should be charged for at a premium is far from cause and effect - and I note that other railways with similar fleet combinations do not generally go down that road.

That then leads into the wider question of how travellers are nudged to take an interest in the history of the railway and area. I agree with the suggestions made by @60044, but also feel his specific interests make him too reductive - the same principles could be applied to both diesels and Mk1s.

 

I see this, which some seem to think is "just having a go at the NYMR" as a very similar discussion as to ones that have been held on here about other lines in the past.
Trouble is I do not think there is a "one size fits all" for Heritage Lines.
Nearly all the "original" ones were set up with a purpose that has evolved, by design or osmosis in to what they are now. That in turn may be way away from the start point.
So for example there are those that continue to talk about Swanage being a commuter railway after the connection back to the mainline. Or how lines such as the MHR could somehow be extended to Winchester. These may have once been fine long term objectives but today they are unrealistic, in these two cases either because a trial was held and it proved it was not viable, or the trackbed, like many has been built on.
No Heritage Line is like the NRM which is lots of looked after locos and rolling stock under cover that does not move, ergo a museum. If you want to see a Van Gough you need to go to a static museum, you cannot see one wandering around the lanes of Sussex on the side of a bus.
So yes you can try to tell the history of the area and the line, and there will be many who will find it interesting, although I would not be at all surprised to find that there are far more who just want a ride somewhere behind a steam loco. I also here the "museum" argument on other lines, and some have very interesting exhibits if you err on the side towards "rivet counting" but whereas I would say look at a wall of totems and be impressed, most will just glance and say they are basically all the same.
So we have railways that go to the seaside Swanage, WSR and of course the NYMR where the destination may be as important as the ride.
Now I agree that in the case of the NYMR the teaks, or at the Bluebell the Mets or the Bulleids will be an attraction to people when they are at the railway, but to me it is a hard sell to say (if they were allowed to Whitby) we have these old coaches, but £49.50 is actually £59.50 on those trains for the historical benefit.
If you are filling trains to Whitby, or Minehead or Swanage that is because that is where people want to go, like it or not. And if you have a long line, like the WSR or the NYMR the fare is likely to be high in difficult economic times. Unfortunately that is the way things are in 2025 and railways have to change away from the old model, and into some stuff non railway & in that context I see the Bluebell and perhaps the Spa Valley as clear leaders.

 

I think an underlying point in my arguments is one of quality There are those enthusiasts who will tell you that the general public couldn't tell whether they are travelling in a 1950s Mk 1 or a pre-war teak carriage, and most probably don't care; in my experience they definitely do and do - some of them are even willing to pay extra, but actually I don't advocate charging more, I just wish that the NYMR would look after them better (which hopefully (now it is too late and they're not using them!) they are doing. One point about Mk 1s and diesels, though, is that they are not sufficiently far removed from everyday experience and contact from the general public to have the allure that steam powered road or rail vehicles have - rarity plays an important part in making heritage more attractive and Mk 1 coaches are plentiful all around the country.

 

You miss my point. I agree with all that you say about both the ubiquitous Mk1 and the lack of distance from today for diesels (though, as a mere 50 year old, please note that I have never known "real" steam operation).

My point is that these are themselves historical artefacts. Both Mk1s and NYMR diesels have their own niches in history, and it is as relevant to encourage visitors to be aware of those histories as of their predecessors. Indeed, given that diesels can provoke complaints, I'd almost suggest that it's more important to draw attention to their historical value. If Dr Beeching had wielded his axe 20 years earlier, it is likely that the teaks might have been dismissed as boring and ubiquitous.

If the railway is to be a museum in line with its stated purposes, that period (at least) deserves acknowledgement and respect - and not just treating vehicles of that era as "plant", to be regarded as disposable.

 

I'm much more of an advocate for use of pre war heritage stock and heritage experiences than you might assume but we have to live in the real world. It's not that the working the teak set and other pre war stock to Whitby is "more constrained"............it's prohibited. The operational need to rotate coach sets severely restricts service set use of such stock in a way that would not apply on lines that don't rely for part of their operations on the national network. They are precious heritage artefacts and probably deserving of more than being treated as routine passenger carrying vehicles. That raises the whole question of what is heritage preservation whether its coaches, locomotives and pretty much everything else used to operate a railway. If items are being used they are also being worn out. Parts may be replaced but the end result is Trigger's broom like Flying Scotsman. Certainly such items have got to earn their keep so isn't it better that they should do so as "special heritage services" attracting a premium on otherwise uneconomic operation?

 

But your "you don't have to read it" argument is rubbish. Maybe the half dozen of you should set up your own thread which the majority of us can ignore?

Other members of the forum want to read about NYMR operational matters, and not just the whining of a small handful of members who just seem to want to have a go using whatever comes to mind.

I'm not sure what position @Lineisclear has at the NYMR but s/he deserves a medal for trying to respond to these constant jibes and complaints. It's just a shame that no one bothers to respond in any positive way when they read the railway's response. They just find something else to bang on about ...

 

One size doesn't fit all, but the KWVR manages to bring out some of the historical rolling stock on gala days with special timetables. Is that one way to square the circle?

 

Teaks runaway into the bridge at Grosmont ..

 

It might. But there's a magic in turning up at a railway and the interesting stuff being there because it's being used as part of the normal fleet. That point applies to locomotives as well as carriages, and I'd be very cautious about restricting historic stock to high days and holidays. The Bluebell and SVR do this especially well; it disappoints me to see NYMR not seize the opportunity.

That then comes back to whether you measure the costs of parts of the fleet separately, and try to attribute revenue to them, or you treat the cost of the fleet in the round and look to earn from it. My own opinion is that the teak set used to serve a very valuable purpose in attracting people away from the busy Whitby trains and therefore, though not necessarily adding to revenue, helped maintain loadings on the "internal" workings.

 

There was also the incidents on the Esk Valley At Grosmont when a Road Railer demolished the Brickworks bridge,but that was a Railtrack worksite.
Also at Sleights when the track relaying gantries fell off the rails. Again a Network incident not NYMR

 

I'm not sure I agree with the position on Mark 1s or diesels. I am 41 years old and have never travelled in a Mark 1 carriage in normal railway service, or been pulled by a modernisation-era diesel except when specifically seeking them out. And Mark 1s might be available on a number of heritage railways, but for most of the public a visit to a heritage railway is a very rare event so travelling in such a vehicle is not a commonly occurring event.

I do think that the public can appreciate pre-nationalisation carriages more in general, and certainly my wife has a strong preference for such things despite not being an enthusiast, and if the teaks were running on the NYMR then I would definitely seek them out. But more modern traction and carriages have their role.

Sent from my SM-S926B using Tapatalk

 

Lineisclear didn’t say that the statement was incorrect but that it was speculation. There is nothing wrong with any speculation provided it is obvious it is just that and not fact.

So your comment is equally nonsense.