North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Unless the owner of the locomotive is prepared to write off much of its value at the end of the contract entering into a "run and repair" arrangement is an act of folly. A daily hire charge at least brings in an income but of course then raises question of tax liabilities to the owner. Helston have just ended their hire agreement for the Peckett that's run their services for a couple of years due to the daily cost exceeding the takings on many days. If there had been a "run and repair" contract what chance would the owner have had in recovering repair costs?

 

A good question - which is why I am grounding my view in the idea that these are bad contracts, for both owner and operator.

That does not alter the reality that, where a railway has had the benefit of the use of the locomotive, there is an obligation to be fulfilled.

 

When does the auto car get its coach back, was full and standing for those on thr 1450 yesterday, hardly ideal, as 80136 sits idle.

 

If you were looking for an engineering best value heat solution to the NYMRs "commercial" Mk1 fleet. I would suggest it would be something along the lines of removing the steam heat equipment and installing commercial electrical convector heators along with a mid train modern containerised diesel generator along with shore supply connections to pre-heat the stock on cheap rate power overnight.
Traditional BR steam heat plant is very difficult (expensive) to maintain now and the 1950s safety equipment was probably marginal then and the plant still represents a single point of failure.

 

Or you could just stick a steam engine on the front and kill two birds with one stone - give the punters what they clearly want, and keep them warm at the same time!

Tom

 

That's the important bit. Railways should be ring fencing that money to pay for the overhaul. Treat it like any other loco that you pay hire fees to - put the equivalent in a pot to pay for the overhaul at the end of the 10 years. Obviously it rarely happens and then you end up in the situation where a loco that was overhauled from a Barry wreck in 15 years in someone's spare time at work now takes two decades with paid staff and full facilities available.

 

I suspect, given the cashflow constraints in the sector, the answer would be to put a price on withdrawal from the agreement, by either party, bounded carefully with time limits. If not restoring a locomotive in a timely manner would result in a claim for £250k, payable in cash, I suspect that would usefully concentrate a number of minds. Likewise, a reciprocal obligation on the owner to reimburse the railway for the costs of the overhaul if the loco were removed early would mitigate the risks the other way.

That doesn't fix all of the possible issues - in particular what might happen if relationships broke down - but might go some way towards fixing some of the issues.

 

No problem for the BLS 70th birthday bash on the 1030, plenty of room for all.

 

70th birthday? I find it hard to believe that the Bahamas Locomotive Society was formed in 1955.

 

I think the BLS referred to is the Branch line Society.

 

Never appeared in their fixtures list …

 

80136 stopped with holes in ashpan (after two days of fire starting ).
5428 and 45596 only available steam ..

 

As has been pointed out, the question of how to pay for locomotive overhauls is not an exclusive problem for the NYMR and exposes an uncomfortable fact for those who, similarly to Lineisclear, believe heritage railways to have entered the realms of "big businesses" now. It is a problem across the industry with, as far as I can see one exception (The Dartmouth Steam Railway). The fact is the majority of railways have not and probably never will, fully paid their way solely on fare and related revenue. But that is not the norm for "big businesses". How many businesses of any size are set up to be dependent on the goodwill of their supporters and rant awarding bodies? Yet, to return to the NYMR, Lineisclear seems to vilify those who provide locos and rolling stock free of charge to the railway and suggests that they are not fully supporting it and should be doing more for the privilege of supporting the "big business" staff and infrastructure that has sprung up around it. I, for one, have a different vision of the future - cut the staff to the minimum level needed to run a much less intensely operated heritage railway with a far more heritage feel to it, where the volunteers are in charge and provide a far greater proportion of the operating staff (of which far lower numbers would be needed because of the lower level of service. Concentrate on quality, not quantity - one train being teak carriages and the other Mk 1s until more teak coaches can be added to replace it A two train service as a norm, perhaps supplemented by a DMU. No Whitby services! Two engines in steam on a peak day, instead of four, two sets of carriages in daily use, not four (with commensurately less wear on the infrastructure). In other words a dramatic scale back to match achievability to reality and start thinking and behaving like a business that is probably always going to be a step away from dire straits.

 

Indeed senior member reached the mark with a dinner party on the Pullman.

 

The Middleton Railway is at the opposite end of the heritage railway spectrum to the NYMR but we have privately owned locos in our core collection. We don't pay a hire fee to use them and quite happily fund maintenance and overhauls of them. It's never been a problem and the longest of these has been on the railway since 1965. In fact we have locos where the owners give us money to look after them. We also consider privately owned locos to be an asset, even when out of use, and certainly would never consider charging them rental on the space they take up.
Lifes so much easier when you don't antagonise those that endeavour to help you.

 

When will the auto car get its coach back from repair?

 

I think the problem with ring fencing money in that way is that its value is eroded away before you get to spend it. In essence, you end up saving at today's prices for an overhaul you might not carry out for another 10 years or more.

There's another messiness in "run and restore" agreements in that "restore" can mean different things depending on what future use you see for a loco. As an example: suppose on withdrawal the loco has tyres you estimate are good for another three years. If you restore expecting the loco to remain on your line, you'd probably change them. If you expect it to go away, you probably wouldn't - the owner gets an operational loco but is faced with the awkward dilemma of limiting the mileage, or having to withdraw it part way into the ticket for it to be lifted and the wheels sent away for new tyres. (Of course, the new line may not wear them out so quick For "tyres" read "tender tank", "cylinders", "main frames" or any number of components that have long lives but do from time to time need replacing.

Quite often these discussions are held in really binary terms, but in practice most loco restorations are a continual series of decisions about whether to replace a particular component, or leave it as is, and hope it lasts the next period in traffic. Making such decisions in a sensible fashion depends on having confidence in what the long-term future of a loco is.

Ultimately, it comes down to trust and mutual respect between loco owners and railways. The relationship works both ways: railways get a loco at a price that is almost always less than it costs to overhaul; loco owners get access to a railway, carriages and operational staff without bearing any of the costs of providing them - in an ideal world, the flow of value each way balances out. But it is a long-term relationship, and any such relationship is based on trust as much as on an intricately worded contract.

Tom

 

I don't recall reading anything to that effect. Can you quote?

 

A video posted earlier today by the NYMR showed Lucie shunting the coach around Pickering. Hopefully a promising sign... https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1CUGYtRGTu/