North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

If @Lineisclear is accurately portraying the management view (and I have no reason to assume he isn't) then I have a sinking feeling that those leading the NYMR don't know the product they have, and don't understand the market they are in.

I really hope they can turn it round, but it is going to be just that: turning things round. More of the same won't work.

Tom

 

It’s there now but wasn’t earlier in the day when I looked before answering LMarsh1987.

 

With regard to diesels and heating, I’m afraid not. There was a plan to fit a steam heat boiler to the cl.37 but there were problems and the job was never completed. I understand that Lucie had been moved to Pickering to provide pre-heat of the coaches but anyone with any sense will tell you that the coaches will be cold by the time the train gets to New Bridge.
The railway does have problems which are beyond its control and I’m very sympathetic with regards to them but many are directly attributable to management decisions and actions.

Edit: The railway did acquire a steam heat van a good number of years ago which solved the problem but as soon as it required significant repairs it was cast aside like everything else going that way.

 

A fair point, but I had a look at the pages on Tripadvisor for various other major railways (Bluebell, SVR, KWVR, WSR, GCR) and the comments are far more positive. The NYMR reviews do not paint a picture of a railway which is getting the important details of customer service right.

Sent from my SM-S926B using Tapatalk

 

I think that we all hope and want it to be turned around. The moors without the railway winding through it would be unthinkable. As each day goes by, though, the closer the unthinkable becomes the thinkable.
You don’t fancy a change of career, do you,Tom? (I’m too old before you ask )

 

Here's the Pickering compound on Friday with the line up for Saturday morning

 

31466 and 47077 (if it had orange boxes refitted ) can heat eth coaches of which NYMR have none .
37264 ,31128 and 25278 can’t heat .
Last NYMR diesel to steam heat was 5061 about 15 years ago…possibly again in around 2045 if we are lucky (it’s on a used and abused contract ..but we’ve read what the SMT think of contracted liabilities ).

 

Was 47 077 converted from a 47/0 to a 47/4 in its past then?

 

Yes. Became 47613. Later 47840 when long range tanks were fitted. So technically now a 47/7?

 

I think you'll find that while the steam heat van solved one problem changed regulations created a much bigger one. I understand it's riddled with the most dangerous type of asbsestos which would cost a fortune to remove.

 

Looks like today's steam will be on the 09.20 ex Pickering to Grosmont (5428), 12.10 ex Pickering to Whitby (45596), 10.40 ex Grosmont (45596) and 16.20 ex Whitby (45596/5428) with 5428 working the Moorlander at lunchtime. The NE Railcar will do two round trips ex Pickering at 10.00 & 13.10 with 31128 on the 13.15 ex Whitby and 15.20 ex Pickering.

 

It did have asbestos on it but that was not impossible to remove. Just the easy option to get rid, as usual and, if it was going to be that expensive, the railway would still have had to pay. No scrapyard is going to take it and then pay a fortune to get rid. They wouldn't be in business long it they did.

 

Agreed, but asbestos is only a problem if disturbed. It 's not so much the easy 0ption as the sensible one. Why would you want to allocate scarce funds to removing asbestos and then scrapping the van ? That generates no benefit for the railway. Of course it's possible to remove asbestos if you can afford to pay specialist contractors but that's where difficult decisions about spending priorities have to be made.

 

If you leave it outside to decay, eventually the weather and degradation will force your hand anyway. So it is not a question of “let’s not pay to remove asbestos if we don’t have to” but rather “we are going to have to do that, should we do it at a time of our choosing or when forced by having no choice?”

Tom

 

Thanks, Steve

So the 16.20 off Whitby starts with Bahamas then swaps to the Five ?

 

Agreed Tom but that's the point at which it rises up the spending priority list. As you suggest the timing of removal is a matter of choice. For the time being the choice is to leave it alone.

 

To allow for repair of the van, resilience in your steam heating capabilities and thereby providing an improved customer experience?

 

I assume that the liability is provided for in the accounts, that it’s declared to the railway’s insurers, and that suitable safety measures are in place to prevent anything untoward happening?

As important, and respecting the very tight cash position, it would be interesting to have an idea of what removal would be expected to cost. Views of what constitutes “a fortune” vary, and emotive language can sometimes overstate the severity of an issue.

 

Nothing seems to make any sense to me. On the one hand, you have a management saying that diesels are cheaper to operate, and may inevitably be the future, with steam a rare or premium offering.

But the diesels can't heat the carriages, and on Tripadvisor you have passengers leaving one-star reviews and saying in no uncertain terms (1) the carriages are cold, and (2) in any case, they came for a steam trip and didn't get it.

Then you have a steam heat van which might at least partially mitigate the heating problem (on one set at least) but it is set aside out of use in the "too difficult" pile. And yet there is a restored Cockerill Tram which can't haul any trains but provides heat before a journey which can't possibly last the three hours or so of a round trip, and has probably largely dissipated through open doors before the train has even left the station.

@21B has made the point about there being a seeming mismatch between what the railway says it is working towards, and what it actually appears to be working towards. Like him, I'm confused. At best, it feels like there is no strategy, but just a series of rushed tactical decisions, each one of which solves an immediate problem but creates a further one down the line.

Tom

 

You missed off an essential part on my question which was why would you spend a lot of money removing asbestos in order to send the van away for scrap? Removing it in order to invest in a steam heating capability would have the advantges you suggest but it's a judgement call about spending priorities. e.g to state the obvious if a defective bridge or worn out track can stop you running altogether surely they should take priority?