North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

You’re absolutely right of course. Ideally the railway would have built up funds during the free use period to cover the overhaul cost but as we know there are usually 101 other demands on available cash so the bill tends to get deferred. I don’t think anyone is suggesting it’s unfair to expect the railway to fund the overhaul but finding a large slug of money to rebuild something that might leave the railway once the work is done is pretty unattractive. That’s especially so if those funds could secure the return to service of one of the railway’s own locos. If the “use then pay” contract specifies a timescale for completion then my interpretation is that would be contingent liability disclosable in the accounts which would create a strong incentive to get the work done. In practice many such contracts do not specify a timescale so the railway is able to delay or do nothing. That’s not fair on the owner which is why I believe use of such contracts is best avoided.

 

The problem would seem to me, NYMR management point of view, looking at it from an that when the loco was first returned to operable condition it was a the GCR, and the loco ran there for a couple of years before moving to the NYMR, and I don't think it ran for a full 10 years once it got there; thus, from the NYMR management POV it needs to be available for at least another 2-3 years, effectively f.o.c. to recover that gap This is where a little negotiation, and a little understanding and recognition of the inexact nature of financial boundaries would probably pay off, but everything we have seen in Lineisclear's posts on here show that these qualities are unlikely to find favour with him and his apparently rigid adherence to the "Price of everything and the value of nothing" principles. What is needed to resolve the problem is someone with a better grasp of the principles of how heritage railways and their supporting charities ought to operate.

 

8ib

It’s tempting to assume the problems inherent in such contracts are unique to the NYMR. At least one other major heritage railway would almost certainly be insolvent if its accumulated loco overhaul liabilities were to be honoured. Coming to a sensible arrangement with the owner is the way to handle things but even better is not to enter such contracts in the first place.

 

Jubilee coupled wheelbase appears to be 15’4”

 

Had the loco been overhauled and back in service 20 years ago then it’s value then might have been lower than now ,and the owner alive to enjoy it .
Alternatively post Covid the number of likely potential new owners may have reduced and the value therefore fallen …if only Messrs Wonga or Best wanted to invest in yet another loco for NYMR for a decade ….

 

If only your knowledge and opinions had been available to NYMR in 1973 ..they might have had the foresight to not dispose of the AC rail bus ..to avoid having to hire one in 2025 to maintain a one carriage service…..
Then they would have not wasted money on a steam fleet in case coal burning was banned within the next 100 years …diesels ..no don’t want them they could be banned in 80 years ..we could have had decades of the APT gas turbine crawling around the NYMR curves as the solution to all potential ,perceived ,guessed issues of the future …..
All crewed by paid staff as volunteers would have been seen as less reliable and not worth investing in …

 

That line in Shropshire that protects all its out of ticket locos within NHLF funded buildings at Highley and Kidderminster to prevent their deterioration whilst awaiting overhaul?
…compare and contrast with 2253 in the past ,DVL ,D5032,D5061 etc …

 

The original 47/7’s were for use on the Scotrail push pull services. Edinburgh/Glasgow to start with then later on down to Aberdeen?

The later batch of 47/7s (from 47721?) onwards were converted in the mid 1990’s for use for use with the converted EMU trailers for mail/rail use it was basically so they could be used to propel parcels/mail stock into certain sites.

As someone who had 47077/840 when it was a long range Scud from Reading to New Street 25 years ago on January the 4th it had did have this lovely thing called ETH at the time that made the train nice and toasty for the journey home.

 

Just curious which curves?

 

Some footage from trains at the NYMR today.

https://youtu.be/pyOOQHQeF_k

 

Mainly Larpool curves to Bog Hall Jcn (10mph) but also between bridges 46-49 (20mph) & Br 51 (15mph).

 

Regarding the run + overhaul agreement situation, the almost exact same issue occurred last year when the Tanfield Railway overh

I misread that last one as 51mph and immediately thought "Oooh that would be worth a trip" before realising!

 

Do you have data on the radii of those curves?

 

Afraid not but the Larpool curves are checkrailed so going to be 10 chains or less. I do have something in the back of my mind that the Whitby & Pickering railway was originally laid out with 10 chain minimum curves, though.

 

I checked the line profiles of the North Cornwall (to Padstow) and North Devon (to Ilfracombe) lines. The sharpest curve I could find was the sweeping S-curve between Barnstaple Junction and Barnstaple Town (across the bridge) which was 7 chains radius in both sweeps of the curve. There was a 15mph restriction between the two stations, but Bulleid light pacifics were of course in daily use on that section.

Apart from that, curves of 15 chains radius seems to be the minimum on either line.

Tom

 

I'm reminded of events in somerset as they relate to a certain S&D loco. Reflecting, what strikes me is both that unilateral action by the railway caused a reaction that reduced the value gained by the change, and that the end deal crystallised a number of liabilities that might have been preferred to remain off the balance sheet. In doing so, it left a legacy of distrust that has yet to clear, and where a reasonable risk of default exists.

I'm not speaking in favour of a bad design of contract, but have real ethical problems with what appears to be a conscious decision not only to defer work (in itself not unreasonable), but to do so because honouring the cost of a contract for which the railway has already had the value is now "a bad deal" for fear that the owner will remove the locomotive from the railway. This feels uncomfortably close to being a form of blackmail, leaving the owners with an invidious choice between staying, and potentially not getting the value from their asset, and leaving with both the costs of removal and of repair to meet.

I'm also not convinced that it's a great deal for the railway. As stated, it undermines trust. If softened with cash, that is likely to crystallise the cost of paying a 3rd party for an overhaul rather than using in-house labour, meaning that cash has to go out of the door at not just the cost of labour, but a commercial rate.

 

As things stand the NYMR apparently hasn't paid for use of the loco at all, the intention being that it would do so by paying for the overhaul at the end of the running period. Whether or not a liability is declared in the accounts, a liability surely does exist. There is room for negotiation about the possibility of two or three years' further use after the overhaul before a move elsewhere becomes possible.

 

There was a less high-profile instance recently where the Tanfield Railway overhauled Hudswell Clarke 0-6-0ST Renishaw Ironworks No.6 following 10 years of use, under a similar agreement. Following the conclusion of the overhaul, the owners decided that they didn't want to see it through another whole 10 year ticket so put it up for sale, which saw it move to the Aln Valley Railway. I got the impression at the time that the Tanfield management had really wanted to see it stay - though in fairness, with the fleet they have now I'm not sure they have missed it.

 

And that is why I also think that use and repair agreements are high risk - my point about ethics applies to both sides of the ledger.