North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Out of interest, what work is outstanding to do to 34101 for it to be operational?

Wheelsets, axleboxes, frames, motion, running gear
Boiler
Tender

34101 has been under overhaul for a very long time, I guess personal preferences of directors, GMs MPD Managers, boilersmiths, etc over the years may have found reasons to drop it down the queue.
Which is a shame for NYMR because rebuilt West Country locos are actually very good. Being a class 7, they have ample power and don’t wear out as quickly as class 5s doing the same work.
They even used to go round sharp bends in North Cornwall….

 

I made mention of the H & BR carriage because it is currently stored inside what to you appears to be a "Mk 1 only" facility. If it is there to extend the life of service vehicles it should then be full of them (including the teak carriages) but of course now the NYMR has declared these to be non-operable due to the wheel tyres - so why bother protecting the bodywork on them? I feel am left arguing with a particularly runny jelly. Tbh I never really believed that the teak carriages would get much shelter from the Station roof, but that was one of the arguments advanced in its favour but quietly forgotten about as soon as it was built, and no-one seemed to be bothered by the fact. Reneging on the commitment didn't seem to hinder the subsequent HLF application, and for that reason I don't think putting 5061 into the new shed would affect any future applications.

 

Inevitably I'm aware of the effort being expended to develop a programme of events and attractions which, if the financial projections are anything like reality, will improve substantially the financial outturn for 2025 and 2026 restoring a healthy operating surplus. The marketing team have the opportunity to save the day and are working flat out to do that. They deserve support and encouragement.

 

All very laudable if that's the case, but there's an enormous way to go to replace the events that have been lost with events of comparable potential, and why have we yet to hear of them? - the season is about to start and just about all other heritage railways have announced much of, if not all of, their programmes for this year. It doesn't help to dispel the fear that your words are rather empty as yet.

 

I don't think its personal preference which if anything would be in favour of the loc0 returning to service. The problem is the "free use then pay to overhaul" contract other examples of which have caused so much pain and grief elsewhere. At least some work is being done on Hartland athough it's taking far too long. That's more than can be said for a number of other locomotives elsewhere on such contracts that lanquish without any realistic prospect of a funded overhaul. The inherent defect of such contracts is that if the railway spends money on a third party owned locomotive and, as a result transforms its market value, there's little effective means of ensuring that it stays on the railway justifying allocation of funds . Pay as you go, whether by mileage charges or steaming fees, is a far better way of encouraging timely overhauls.

 

How does the driving wheelbase of a West Country compare to that of a Jubilee? I’ve seen it said more than once that Hartland will not be going to Whitby so maybe it’s just not a priority?

 

Or you could try writing a legally enforcible contract that protects the railway's financial investment in it? Let's not forget that it was restored elsewhere at the owner's expense and then ran for several years at the NYMR. The trouble is that your alternative puts the onus on the owner to do the work to overhaul it the second time around, and pay for it, in the face of the railway paying inadequate hire or steaming fees. When locos have owning groups (e.g. NELPG) those groups can help by fundraising to help meet any deficits, but that's much less the case for loco owners.

 

What you are suggesting sounds suspiciously like" trading the way out of the problem, something I seem to recall you writing was not really feasible. I happen to disagree with that point of view, but I do think that the NYMR has actually traded its way into the problem with nits chaotic flirtations with different fare structures. We shall watch in hope to see what happens.

 

I'll leave others to demolish this part of the argument: "The element that’s often ignored is the financial value of having somewhere to keep the locomotive or stock." which to me shows the accountant-like thinking of the price of everything and the value of nothing, which imho is totally inapplicable to heritage railways.

What I will address is the question of effective and enforcible contracts. It really shouldn't be too difficult. Most "individual" owners would be happy, having paid for the restoration to running order to hand to loco to the railway for them to assume its maintenance whilst in use, and overhaul when it falls due. Clifford Brown did that with "Repton", for example, so did Jos de Crau with 80135; I think Clifford Brown did so with 3672, but then he died and the NYMR had an escape route to stick it out of use in a siding till the supporters group raised some money and created some impetus to get going on it but normally, the agreement specifies that the overhaul should take place in a reasonable timeframe of being withdrawn. If, at some point, the owner wishes to sell it ought to be possible to include a clause that allows the railway first right to purchase if it wishes to defend its investment or receive a proportion of the sale proceeds if it doesn't In reality, I think that's more or less what was agreed with the owner of 34101 and the railway expected to get another boiler-life's worth of service out of it on overhaul, I think the overhaul is proceeding slowly because the NYMR feels that the now deceased owner's family wishes to sell, and it doesn't have the protective clauses in place, but I can't help thinking that there could be some negotiation on this to clear the air and find an equitable solution. What I don't think would be very successful is the approach of essentially "you should just let us run it into the ground and return it to you clapped out" to a family who don't necessarily share their predecessors enthusiasm.

 

There's a lot more to it than that but it's not something I'm going to go into on here.

 

Coupled wheelbase of a WC is 14’9”
Driving wheels 6’2” diameter.
WC minimum curve = 5.3 chains.

Jubilee driving wheels 6’9”. I don’t have any LMS loco data drawings showing coupled wheelbase. With bigger wheels than a WC, I can’t see the coupled wheelbase of a Jubilee, being less than a WC.
I’ve heard of a legend that 60007 went to Whitby once, and its Cartazzi truck didn’t like “the curves” as the reason 34101 can’t do Whitby.
Well Bulleids have a Bissell truck, not Cartazzi; so it’s like comparing apples with pears.

 

People seem to forget the fact that it is privately owned and I believe that there is no guarantee about its future on the railway. Until that is assured there seems little point in progressing the overhaul.

Peter

 

That funding presumably resulted from a bid submitted by the railway. Why did that bid request funding to protect Mk Is in particular rather than any and all of the rolling stock with priority for that of greatest heritage value?

 

45596 is going to continue going to Whitby whilst at the NYMR but it has been agreed that it will be subject to speed restrictions on certain curves. It’s on the Grosmont steam turn tomorrow with 5428 and 80136 covering the Pickering turns. All steam apart from the cl.31 doing two trips between Grosmont and Whitby.

 

That depends on the precise nature of the contract.

I am with you that these contracts are undesirable and have caused issues before ( I have unwound more than one myself ), but to be fair to the owners in this situation they lent their locomotive for free. The railway knew that it was effectively paying at the end of the contract. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the cry that it’s unfair to have to overhaul and then watch the loco depart. That’s what the agreement meant.

 

If the overhaul had been timely and honoured the agreement I’m pretty sure the loco would have stayed at the NYMR. Now, I’m rather doubtful.

 

That’s a ridiculous argument.
What has the future value of the loco got to do with anything?

The railway receives a fully overhauled loco and uses it for X years. It is then obliged to return it to the owner in a fully overhauled condition. Obviously the definition of “fully overhauled” would be detailed in the agreement. The future value of the loco is entirely irrelevant. The railway is simply paying for the use of the loco over the past X number of years via the cost of the overhaul.

I’m astounded at how you keep trying to justify the unjustifiable.

 

I was being general, but that does not surprise me at all. There is usually a way, but a sense of fairness is required.

 

I think what was being alluded to was that the company pays to overhaul, the loco becomes more valuable in the process and might well be sold and leave the railway. But, as I say, that’s what the agreement entailed. As with other similar situations the line got years of service for free.