Whitby Engine Shed. Could NYMR acquire it ?

For crying out loud. Perhaps instead of safeguarding historic carriages, rebuilding bridges without which a line built by George Stephenson would close, or training apprentices in skills vital to the future of our movement, the HLF ought to be supporting your crackbrained scheme to build a replica of one of NBL's Pilot Scheme dog's eggs starting from nothing but an old speedo cable or whatever it is you've found on ebay?

 

He's right though. If the NYMR disposed of all of its locos and stock it wouldn't need sheds to keep them in or bridges to run them over. If only they'd thought of that.

It's genius, is what it is.

 

Agreed.

However, when spending time walking around the station area when looking at the movements for the tour of the B1 and 8F to Whitby, I did notice that the engine shed was again up for sale. Looking at it, the shed has been convered into a two level car park (being ground and first floor) internally. Theres a roller door on the north wall that takes you out onto the road. Houses elsewhere that have been built have no doubt been part of the plan to maximise the space. The prices for storing your cars there by locals or regular visitors look very expensive and as a result I expect the project failed. Could it be that the houses were really what the company was after? Maybe, but its seems at least that the one attempting to run the shed as a car park has gone under.

So, the academic question of what the NYMR could do with the shed is asked. It could be possible to skew a track from Platform 1 into the shed, if you did want to stable a unit or engine here into one road, but the question is why would you want to? For the NYMR most passenger traffic starts at Pickering, hence the need to build the carriage shed there, with a small shed at New Bridge. The main shed for works is at Grosmont, but most passengers from the north would join here to then go south or Whitby, rather than park at Whitby and board there. With Whitby, the draw is the destination, so people park at stations down the line and then journey in with the train being chosen over car and parking fees.

It means that any engine stabling in the shed, with stock held overnight in platform 2, or Bog Hall sidings, is essentially at the wrong end of the line for the start of its working roster. You then have the costs of taking out and refitting the shed for purpose, the track alterations to platform 1 and the fact that then there would be three areas for operation, at Pickering, Grosmont and Whitby, when Grosmont actually is the better place to start turns that can go to Pickering or Whitby as required and when it is practicable.

Like I said, its an academic question, but clearly would be expensive and thus not reasonable when you could spend the money building better facilities at Pickering which would be far more useful, efficient and strategic for the railways long term future.

 

There has been a great deal of debate about Whitby shed within NYMR circles - one possibility to circumvent the housing problem, for example might be to shorten P1 and run a spur southwards into the shed. It would still be fairly useless as a running shed but perhaps could become the NYMR's "engine house" for demic locos and carriages currently stored in the open - but at the moment it's not what the NYMR needs most of all and until resources aren't constantly being called upon for the other big projects that the railway desperately needs nothing will happen - but the building will still be there when its turn comes.

 

I do like the idea of using it as a museum, but thinking it over there's a bit of a problem in that it's at the opposite end of the station to the main exit, and when the train gets to Whitby that's where everybody heads. It wouldn't be much use to NYMR passengers waiting for trains either unless a footbridge was built close to it.

 

That might be the case, but wouldn't it be easier to build a shed of fabricated steel, like the deviation shed alongside the latter on the empty ground that is to the east of the shed space at the moment at Grosmont. I understand that there other mentions of projects like a storage shed, building for crew and volunteer facilities (such as accommodation), but these might go there too. I just think for the money you'd spend on Whitby shed, using it for storage of demics really would not be cost effective.

 

Besides which, assuming that he was referring to the three NYMR owned engines which are neither in traffic nor undergoing overhaul, they are not 'realisable'. 73672 was donated on the condition that it could not be sold; if the NYMR wants rid of it, it has to donate it to another heritage railway charity. 4806 and 75029 were purchased for the railway by a benefactor who presumably would not look kindly upon them being flogged off.

 

That's good to hear. I think what I meant to say was a railway raising money for essential repair and hlf shouldnt buy a big expensive shed whilst struggling. If trolls dont want to see D6332 back, well, don't.

 

I've often thought that the obvious thing for Whitby shed is to take over the EVL from Network Rail and purchase the adjacent holiday flats, convert them into volunteer accommodation,tear up the gardens to enable track to be laid into the building and bring it back into use as a loco shed.
Then I wake up.

 

If you had an extra half hour's lie in you could reopen the Beck Hole branch and extend the line to Thornton-le-Dale while you're at it.

 

I would have thought someone with your name would have suggested reopening the incline near Battersby...