North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I'm only repeating what others think on the triumvirate issue. I don't know the truth , but I can only say that it seems like a very plausible theory to me.

Your mistake is not coming on here to explain on here what it is that is being attempted to sort out the dreadful financial hole that the NYMR is in, the real mistake is to try to justify the awful decision making that seems likely to most of us to be deepening the hole, and not taking ownership and responsibility for the mess. You trumpet the extra 400K in revenue from Gift Aid, but fail to mention or explain whether that is a nett gain, or whether there were unmentioned costs associated with it - e.g. admin or loss of revenue from from repeat visits. Someone (sitting in the FD's chair, perhaps?) will have done those calculations, and I'm guessing that the outcome is the abandonment of the now abandoned gift aid plan, although I cannot imagine that you would ever admit to that. For another example, you say that (unspecified) measures are being taken to emphasise the attractiveness of the NYMR to the "lay" visitor; why can you not give even a general idea of what they are (since it will be necessary to publicise them to make them have an effect, so they can hardly be "commercial in confidence"!) and also explain why they are only now being thought about? It's now almost too late for this season, as it is for any new special events that require much forward planning.None of this gives an impression of a management with any firm grasp, or even much of a clue, of what to do to improve things. What you should be doing is trying to improve that perception to the world outside Park Street by encouraging - or, even better, leading some positive developments to inspire confidence.

 

It would appear that you recollection is wrong, then. See below:

Gold timetable of years ago used to have the teaks doing 0930/1230/1530 ex Grosmont and 1100/1400/1700 ex Pickering.
All that is left now, is that is used to be 1100/1400 ex Pickering and 1230/1630 ex Grosmont, which reduces further to 1100/1630 on Moorlander days.

 

No, as 47406 identifies use down to one round trip on Gold Moorlander days.

 

The triumverate suggestion is so wide of the mark that I can't even begin to imagine who the other two members of it might be!
60044 confirms "he's been told" all sorts of things and is clearly susceptible to believing them however absurd. I actually share quite a few of his views about the way forward for the NYMR but find the seemingly instinctive desire to knock the railway and its leadership at almost every opportunity profoundly unhelpful. There are many ways to express constructive criticism, and raise questions, such as the forthcoming open forum on the 18th March. However, I suspect they're not so much fun as taking pot shots on here.

 

All of which is fair comment (to a degree) but of course fails (as usual) to address any of the questions I posed. I'll just say that my sources for being told these various things are people who are still close to many long term (some dating back to 1968-9 in terms of their involvement) who share my deep concerns, and I have no reason to disbelieve them Perhaps the "Triumvirate" issue is an exaggeration, but i have been given the "suspected " names of all of them, and I have been told so much more that is profoundly concerning (like the likelihood of the bridge over the Murk Esk at Grosmont being the next to need replacement before long) as well as a series to blunders at the loco sheds that have been kept quiet, just like the story of the "new" CET emptying system at Pickering Pickering - and more besides. Do you really want all the dirty washing hung out? I only take pot shots on here because it is a way of drawing wider attention to the broad picture of poor management that, together, they paint. An internal forum, if I could even get a chance to speak, is not going to be the place to raise these individual issues because, by themselves, they can be brushed off but collectively they really need to be more widely aired.

 

I'm not sure that the first Gold T/T you are referring to is correct, or is pre Whitby.
The 2019 T/T had the internal set (usually the teaks) doing the 11.00 & 14.00 Ex Pickering and 12.30 & 16.30 ex Grosmont on Red and Gold and the DMU doing similar on Blue. On gold the diagram was diesel hauled due to servicing constraints at Pickering. On Diner days this substituted for the 12.30 & 14.00 departures. I can't lay my hands on stock diagrams post covid but reasonably certain that 2023 was similar, as was 2024 without the teaks.

 

And how many days a week does the Moorlander run in the gold timetable? At most 4 out of seven and some of those seem to be on days when the railway is closed!

 

You only have to look at what is happening in other parts of the hospitality sector, including some other heritage railways , to realise that these are financially difficult times. The NYMR has made no secret of that indeed its Finance Directors has observed on mumerous occasions that the traditional business model is broken. There is no quick and painless fix but the trend is clear. As a result of management action the annual operating deficit is reducing year by year. The key as 21B identified in a recent post is to find new sources of profitable income, attracting new paying customers. It's tempting to look back through rose tinted spectacles and assume the answer lies in the past ( which incidentally was financially precarious on a number of occasions) but the railway's leadership is focussed on securing its future. Yes, there are some huge infrastructure cost challenges. The recent HRA conference highlighted the ravages of weather and time on infrastructure as a major threat to viability ( something brought into stark relief by the recent sad collapse at the SVR). It's tough. Unpalatble and unpoular decisions have to be taken such as , dare I suggest, finding the money for infrastructure repairs rather than nice to have teak coaches!

 

How many services operate between Pickering and Grosmont when the Whitby services are out on NR? How many could operate? How many of those could use the teaks, if the necessary repairs were made?

 

Good question that I don't have the immediate answer to but perhaps the question should be how many can operate profitably? Running trains asamany trains as possible and hoping to fill them is a questionable business model which can involve moving a lot of expensive fresh air.

 

These are from 2009-2011 period.

 

I don't think anyone is under any illusions about the financial challenges of running a heritage railway; and clearly there will always be a backlog (of infrastructure, locos and carriages) from which you have to prioritise.

It is nonetheless interesting to consider the teak carriages as a "nice to have". A failed bridge can definitely stop you in your tracks (pun not intended) but so can a lack of carriages: at that point, the cost of the teak carriages relative to, say, Mark 1s is the marginal difference in cost, not the whole cost of maintaining them. Given that they have an active support and fundraising group behind them whereas the Mark 1s don't, it would be interesting to know precisely what the difference in costs to the company were. (People sometimes ask "what is the cheapest loco to operate?" and the answer is often "the one that has the best organised support group behind it". The NYMR seems to be in the fortunate and unusual position of having a support group for some of its carriages, yet is seemingly not capitalising on that benefit).

I appreciate the current difficulties of diagramming stock that can't go to Whitby, but then why spend money on a DMU? Presumably that investment only makes sense because there is a duty in the timetable it can run, so why can't the teaks run the same diagram?

There is a more fundamental question though, which is "why are you involved in this game at all?" There has to be some point that is deeper than just "run a public transport service to Whitby", because if that was all there was to it, you'd follow the BR model, rip up the tracks, sell off the station sites and put on a bus service. For a railway that makes much of its status as an accredited museum, that deeper point surely has to be intimately bound up with showcasing and demonstrating the heritage of the line - which includes, as far as reasonably practical, carriages of a type associated with the line. Mark 1s have become expedient on many heritage lines primarily because there was a 20 year period when they could be bought cheaply while still having considerable residual life, but given the nature of most preserved lines, there are very few where you can genuinely say that a Mark 1 is representative of pre-preservation rolling stock - maybe the GCR and not many others.

And, to bring this back to the finance picture that you remind us is essential: Mark 1s were cheap to operate through the early 2000s. But pretty soon the economies are going to be gone, and you will be in the realms of needing to do a ground up overhaul of probably one carriage per year at a decent six figure sum. Fairly soon, Mark 1s are not going to be the cheap option they have been up to now - and then you are back to your marginal cost of the teaks, which might start to look reasonably favourable.

Tom

 

As an occasional customer/passenger... If diesel between Whitby and Grosmont meant guaranteed steam between Pickering to Grosmont and back (obviously subject to the usual operational caveats), I wouldn't mind. But if you were looking at every Pickering - Whitby train being diesel-hauled throughout, it would put me off.

 

Read my words again! I said " changing to diesel on all trains from Grosmont to Whitby and return"!

 

I think there are many questions to be answered about expectations of steam or diesel, and how they affect perception.

 

Please explain why 60044's preference is a bad thing? By inference, you prefer the BR era, so how is that any different?

The NYMR Trust's charitable objects state "(a) The education of people of all backgrounds through the operation of a living museum demonstrating the impact of the coal-powered steam railway as a catalyst for the rapid expansion of the Industrial Revolution and a foundation of modern societies and economies."
I'm not sure that you could argue that the railway fulfils that object if it is only representing a narrow slice of the railway's history (distinctly post industrial revolution). It would be a bit different if no typical locos/carriages/wagons survived or were available to the railway to demonstrate its history through the decades, but that is obviously not the case.

 

An interesting admission of guilt that those hiring stock or locos to NYMR for use to be wary of ,especially those with use and overhaul (or dump ) contracts .
Happy to use ,but when break and atleast morally if not contractually bound too to repair ,why would they if they don’t own them .
So where would they be without 31128,31466,37264,47077,825,2392,63395,44806 and 92134,2253?
That’s just the locos not owned that might see use in 2025…

 

Although I am of course in agreement with all that you have written, I am not unrealistic. It is obvious that the majority of services on the NYMR will perforce use Mk 1 carriages, and mostly be pulled by locomotives of a similar age. On that basis there would be a good case for all the locos to be painted in BR liveries, then but at least there seems to be some representation of earlier colours, even if the loco and whatever livery it carries are inappropriate for the NYMR! It can give a passable representation of some aspects of LNER operations (the Scenic Specials) and might one day be able to muster a more representative typical day to day train, although sans an appropriate loco (unless the new G5 owners can be persuaded to make their base for it at Grosmont). But, what about all the other charitable objectives? Notably "demonstrating the impact of the coal-powered steam railway as a catalyst for the rapid expansion of the Industrial Revolution and a foundation of modern societies and economies." Does it really do anything to exemplify any of those? No, imho! Other places like Beamish and the Black Country museums do in particular reference to their own locales, so why doesn't the NYMR have any plans, even, to do something similar but appropriate for its own region? I can hear the answer already: "cost," but I have previously outlined possible ways of keeping costs down, and I remain convinced that grant support would be forthcoming for a well thought out and planned scheme. It doesn't have to be turned oud into another Beamish but could still provide a worthwhile attraction.

 

That part of the charitable objectives was written deliberately to address the possibility of measures being proposed to ban the use of bituminous coal. Ridiculous! that'll never happen may well be the cry but who would have thought just a few years ago that mining of the stuff in the UK would be halted ? Possibly a good justification for being able to burn it in steam locos is to provide a live demonstration of how bad (from an environmental and fuel efficiency angle) the steam engine was. So I agree that educating a generation that may never have seen or held a lump of coal may be an important way of protecting the future of live steam.

 

Well worthwhile, but the text at face value requires more than just running steam trains. That impact can be felt in many ways, but ramps up the obligation to provide decent interpretative facilities - not just to run steam trains, however nice they are.