North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I think this may be your answer: https://www.thompsonb1.org/2022/07/1264-moving-to-the-nottingham-heritage-railway/

 

It does make sense, having read the article - good luck to them.

 

A security system for the parts store may be a good idea after what happened down the road

 

Chris Price, the NYMR’s CEO commented that, “We wish the Trust well with the funding of the next overhaul and the Locomotive’s early return to service”. Perhaps this comment should be considered against the various posts on NYMR sustainability as it implies the railway has had use of the engine on the cheap leaving the B1 Trust to fund raise to return it to service. Whilst there are obvious arguments about the degree to which items like a new inner firebox should be amortised over more then a single operating period it does rather highlight how railways would not be sustainable without the considerable financial input from loco owning groups.

 

I don't think that's a fair comment.
You will struggle to find a loco that can cover its overhaul costs from its most recent period of operation. My reading is simply that Mr Price was wishing them well with fundraising for any shortfall.
Not everything has hidden meaning

 

Absolute rubbish. The 'running fees' between operating railways and loco owning groups will have been mutually agreed, signed and delivered. You are completely incorrect that railways wouldn't be sustainable without the considerable financial input from loco owning groups. The statement from Mr Price is nothing more than would be expected where a loco has left a railway under no fall-out circumstances.

 

Even it was expected to cover overhaul costs from the most recent period of operation, the added expense of a new firebox inner will create a shortfall before thinking about any loss of running days although it was withdrawn pre panini so thats a moot thought exercise.

 

I think it is more nuanced than is being portrayed above, on either side.

It is demonstrably true that loco-owning groups raise funds independently of hire fees, which they plough back into their locos. Therefore, it stands to reason that the hire fees alone don’t cover the overhaul costs, i.e. a loco owning group does in essence subsidise the host railway’s costs, essentially by the amount they raise over and above the hire fee. (If hire fees paid all the maintenance and overhaul costs, owning groups wouldn’t bother to fund raise…)

There is a flip side though, which is that the railway provides - a railway. That means carriages, operational support (for example, crews), maintenance of the infrastructure and the whole business costs of attracting passengers and extracting their money. All of that has a cost, and a direct benefit to the loco owning group - in stark terms, no railway = no opportunity for hire fees.

So in practice, it cuts both ways: loco owning groups certainly subsidise their host railway in cash terms, but get back an opportunity to run (which is both important in revenue opportunity snd, less tangibly, in allowing the members of the owning group to achieve what they are in it for, that is, a running loco) which would otherwise be unavailable to them.

Tom

 

A lot will depend on how much the owning group depends on income from its sales stand and donations from the passing public. Its opportunities to benefit in those ways are almost certainly going to be a lot lower at Ruddington than they at Grosmont. There's no mention in the PR of whether there are strings attached to the move to Ruddington, but that surely be a lesson that organisations will have learned if they are not to experience a "so long, and thanks for all the fish!" moment when the overhaul is complete. A great shame, as the B1 really ought to be synonymous with the NYMR, but I can't see it going back.

 

Sorry, but the statement that 'loco owning groups certainly subsidise their host railway in cash terms is simply not correct'. The cash that changes hands is a negotiated & agreed sum, not an amount that involves any form of subsidy to the host railway, you do not run steam locos to make money! Let alone cash, there are other sides of the financials that need to be taken into account.
The politics involved in railway preservation are legendary, and the politics involved where there is a locomotive owning group are even worse. The best solution is a mix of home-owned or based locomotives over which the host railway has control both in terms of usage and cost, and then a number of 'hired-in' locos to supplement. If a loco has a single owner, its much, much better, only 1 person to clarify/clear up matters with.
The host railway can be faced with all sorts of demands from loco owning groups who generally only see the picture from the view of their own loco, and do not see the big, big picture - particularly in cash terms. 'Free' tickets for members when 'their ' loco is in use, to strong 'requests' for rides on the footplate etc etc, work taking place on locos that is unsupervised/not controlled, particularly in these far more controlled h & s times. Opening an entire loco shed with all the utilities costs involved etc at times when there is no-one else on site costs.........

 

Spare a thought for carriage owners too. Railways need them to run a service, but many do not appreciate the time and costs involved in restoring said carriages, then when urgent repairs are needed (due to vandalism for example...) the railways suddenly decide that the carriage is no longer welcome on the site, despite not paying a basic hire cost or running repairs.

 

Agree, but some (enlightened?) railways own all their stock used for passengers, if not all the freight stock.

 

Then you run the risk that they will use the cheapest high capacity stock and ignore other, more historic or interesting stuff. I can think of only one standard gauge line that puts money into increasing its non-BR fleet from its commercial resources.

 

Isle of Wight Steam Railway? But then none of its rolling stock is BR design or even of grouping design.

 

Absolutely, and just as well or temptation would be there!

 

The PW fleet on the NYMR is a mix of NYMR owned and York Area group owned.
Maintenance being carried out on all the fleet by both Permanent staff and volunteers.
YAG also tend to fund the replacement of items such as timber decking on some of the Lowmac's and plate wagons it owns or steelwork on the Hoppers.

 

Locomotives (and other rollingstock) in use on heritage railways essentially fall into two categories. On the one hand there are those bought by a railway to run its services; on the other hand there are those bought by individuals or groups of people because they want to see it preserved, for whatever reason. The Thompson B1 Locomotive Trust falls into that latter category, as does NELPG, SLL and a lot of other groups. Having once bought and restored their loco they could simply stuff and mount it but that's generally not what they want. They want to see it in operation and to do that, they need a host railway or railways and agreement needs to be reached between the different parties. I know of very few groups who agree to the use of their loco without some sort of agreement to secure its future. It may be a hire fee based on days in steam or mileage or it may be what is generally termed a service agreement where the agreement is long term and the railway pays for future overhauls. All three forms of agreement exist in the heritage railway movement and all have their place. Unless a loco is on a service agreement an owning group will be expecting to fund the cost of the next overhaul and will generally try to raise funds for that through a variety of methods.

 

Gutted that it’s leaving… I liked the B1. I guess Hartland will replace it in the running fleet as it’s nearly back from overhaul?

Presumably too the B1 will be a useful performer on the reunified GCR when that happens.

 

I doubt if 34101 will replace 61264 in the Whitby-registered fleet, that's more likely to be 44806. And whatever you may want to say about 34101, (personally really like the rebuilt light pacifics) it'll never look as right on the NYMR as the B1 did.

 

Ah no, you're right - I read somewhere that 34101 won't be Whitby registered. If I understood correctly, it was something to do with the wheelbase of the driving wheels meaning excessive wear on the curve into Whitby - if I understood correctly. 44806 makes more sense.