North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

All valid questions, but ones that perhaps should be asked properly, rather than negative answers assumed. Especially where the derogation is a short stretch of isolated single line, at low speed.

 

So like the Jacobite saga! The ORR think that has the same risk as a 125mph 4-track railway sadly.

 

I think that it is necessary to think on a case by case basis before making too many comparisons - the Jacobite is restricted to45mph, not 25mph, and runs on a much longer branch line approx 42m rather than 7m Grosmont-Whitby.

 

I think the other different between the Teaks and other vintage carriages is in the name: teak, which is a rather expensive wood to acquire. I was fortunate to receive a tour of the LNERCA works a few years back and they were making trim repairs by salvaging wood from split body panels.

The difference between bluebell and NYMR is, in my eyes, the vintage fleet at the former are a core part of the operations and an established part of the offered product. The Moors, being in a more tourist-centric region and market, angles on the trains to the coast. If in daily use then they'll obviously need increased maintenance, both mechanically and cosmetically. One of those will be easier/cheaper than the other, so surely it makes sense to hold the Teaks back until you're confident of getting the best "customer value" out of them, be that a premium style train (e.g. the Talyllyn's slate trail) or doing what the NNR do with their QuadArts and having them out for high days and holidays?

All this still boils down to the fact of money: if it isn't there, or your track needs repairs first, then these conversations are moot.

 

I would genuinely welcome that, but I'd want to see action, not just words!

 

The 1999 regulations are singularly silent on the need for crash pillars. The NYMR exemption from reg 4 does, however, make reference to crash pillars. I quote:
The Company must ensure that the Rolling Stock:
(i) have buckeye couplers fitted with shelf brackets (except when coupled to a locomotive not fitted with buckeye couplers);
(ii) have crash pillars of an equivalent or greater strength than the original British Rail design; and
(iii) have unique identifying numbers.
My emphasis. That, to me, is not a difficult thing to do. The exemption is not asking for anything that wasn't part of the original design.
The exemption also lists Pullman car 79, built in 1928.

 

I think that your last sentence is prime in the matter. The NYMR has a track record of not spending money on locomotives and rolling stock and running those it has into the ground. We have already discussed and come to the conclusion that a 30 year overhaul of a Mk.1 is going to cost £200-300K, including labour. I suspect that the NYMR has never reached the point of undertaking that on an ongoing basis. I also suspect that. when it comes down to it, the LNERCA teaks would probably be a cheaper option in actual cash terms, having a reasonable volunteer pool.

 

One of the first myths the LNERCA dispelled in its early days was that teak was an expensive wood, although it has become more so since then, and a decent stock of both heavy structural timber from the either side of the heart wood from logs cut up to produce panels, and also a large amount of smaller offcuts, nevertheless useful for repairs, was acquired. I'm not convinced that some of it was used wisely but afaik there is still so much left that it poses a storage problem. What has come to pass is the the really big logs needed to produce thin and wide body panels can no longer be found, and the recycling of unrepairable body panels was a case of making the best possible use of wat was available with minimal wastage. Newer generations of glue have made more advanced repairs to cracked panels much previously thought to be irreparable more feasible now.

In terms of use, I feel that the NYMR continues to shoot itself in the foot The CEO has talked of premium services, but as the LNERCA has offered it examples of carriages that could form the nucleus of premium facilities it has turned them away, and forced the Association to base them elsewhere. The Thompson RB and now the GN saloon have moved to Embsay, the Gresley BTK and soon the NER TO are at Kirkby Stephen, and will probably be followed by the ECJS Diner once it is finished, with little or no attempt to make use of them. Collectively that represents around 0.5M of investment in materials alone that was intended for the NYMR but others are now benefitting from, and more will follow. I doubt if the Thompson CL will run at the NYMR again, and it will not be the last to leave.

It is hard to think of another railway that is so dismissive of the restored rolling stock, funded by others, that it prefers to get rid of it for others to benefit from. The WSR, perhaps is one, but it certainly isn't a common phenomenon, and that, to me at least, really emphasises that the NYMR needs a new management with more of an appreciation of what a heritage railway should be trying to offer.

It may seem that I'm arguing on a teak-carriage-centric basis here, but I'm trying not to. As others have suggested, the NYMR has locos that cannot run to Whitby; that being the case once little 29's boiler certificate runs out it must surely be parked out in the rain to rust away, and will No. 5 ever run again? How long before the Q6 and P3 "encouraged" to find new home? These are all symptoms of a management who seem to think that running a heritage railway doe not differ much from running a supermarket.

 

The vestibuled Gresleys (and that's what we really are talking about in terms of running to Whitby) have very thick and wide collision pillars either side of the gangway.

 

Is the NER open 3rd staying?

 

I would love to know whether longer-term points such as these receive any attention at operating company board meetings, or if they are all focused on shorter-term operational questions, such as 'what kind of events can we do, and focus our marketing on (i.e. a fairly standard kind of business thinking), in order to bring in the cash we need to continue operations'; or even the larger-scope 'do we want to be a fairly standard business [market area left unstated], or do we need to be a somewhat different sort of organization, with other goals'.

Noel

 

I thought I'd seen in the LNERCA Newsletter that it will be moving to Kirby Stephen.

 

Sitting in Newbridge yard this morning waiting for a move, no idea when but in a chain of moves.

 

Yes I saw it there today - another very sad loss

Peter

 

Been at the end of the line up waiting for the move for months, beautiful restoration deserves use, there are several former NER heritage lines which will give opportunity to showcase the quality as NYMR cannot.

 

As NYMR will not.

Noel

 

Being a Southern Softy I have no idea what a teak is but do they have toilets with retention tanks like those on the Whitby MK1s that network rail paid for?

 

No, and there would be no possibility of Network Rail picking up the bill for the conversion even assuming the coaches owners' were prepared to accept the modifications required if exemption from the Reg. 5 prohibtion on their use could be secured. I believe they have spent considearble time and money getting the original toilets to work properly so it seems unlikely they would want to compromise the coaches' heritage authenticity. If exemption was possible the toilets would have to be locked out of use between Grosmont and Whitby.

 

I don't believe that the LNERCA has ever turned down the fitting of retention tanks to the teak coaches, and I don't believe they are against in principle - unless you know otherwise? A lot of work went into getting the toilets in the teak coaches to work because there was a lot of criticism that not all were operable, even though it turned out that around 50% or more of those on the Mk 1 sets were similarly locked out of use. It was not a question of not being willing to compromise on authenticity - I find it hard to believe the same porcelain components etc. couldn't have been made to work with the CET equipment. Similarly, I don't believe they have been unwilling to consider any other modifications - including CDL - that might be needed, provided that they can be achieved in sensible and sensitive way - but, I ask again, have they ever ben asked ?

 

Unless and until CET becomes mandatory for heritage lines what the owners would or would not accept, and be willing to pay for , is academic. Although they are deemed to be Mark1,s for the purposes of the 1999 regulations the teaks have not been exempted under Regulation 5 for use on Network Rail so did not qualify for the time limited NR support with conversion costs. Asking the owners what their attitude to modification might be is pointless unless there is a realistic prospect of exemption under Regulation 5 or continued use on heritage lines would depend on agreement to them.