North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

It's fair criticism that the NYMR has struggled in the past to maintain a realistic locomotive strategy. One result of that was the distress purchase of 76079. It was bought with only three years on its boiler ticket because without it there would have been nothing to haul the timetabled steam services. It's measure of how far the NYMR has improved that these days steam haulage is almost taken for granted. There is a carefully thought out strategy that takes account of the haulage capacity that Steve explains and the complication that not all locos are owned by the NYMR.

 

Thank you for that, and joining some of the dots. I presume that the policy is kept under review - I note @Steve’s comment querying the haulage capacities as set out in that document, and suspect that art as well as science are required.

 

A couple of things come to mind.

It seems to me that the haulage requirements are somewhat reduced these days. Last season,5 or 6 coaches was the norm which mostly seemed to suffice.
Obviously the summer holidays are a different matter,this is when the 9f and standard tanks really earn their keep. Repton does seem to be a potential liability under certain conditions and thought needs to be given to when and how it is used.

The line's dmu is a sorry saga. Some members were contributing for years into a dmu fund with nothing to show for it. The amount in the fund,whilst modest,would easily pay for a couple of tarpaulins which would have offered some protection. I realise that this is not the perfect solution but it would give the impression of care being given to the unit.
When all's said and done,a MetCamm dmu is probably the most representative item of stock for the line above all others.
We have card readers on the platform asking for donations to help preserve the Railway for future generations and then invite the same people to take a ride past a dmu in deplorable condition.

On the plus side,the lineside group is doing tremendous work,so hats off to them. It's looking better than it has for years.

 

The lineside group is indeed a success under the leadership of Kerry and I applaud her and her team. It takes some doing to maintain some 36 miles of lineside, fence and wall. It is one of the few bright spots on the railway. The DMU, on the other hand, is a prime example of the railway running things until they require money spending then just dumping them.

 

I'd like to add a few words about the lineside group - yes it is doing a wonderful job and should be proud of its work, but perhaps not in the way it does! Heritage railways at one time had well-tended linesides and it is good to see those returning, with the benefits to wildlife, but the latter should be seen as a benefit to the process ; perhaps a greater benefit is the reduction in fire risk at difficult dry spells. I'm not sure why they are the justification for the grants that have been awarded though - will they frighten the awarding bodies and cause them to stop their support due to them being a "non-auditable " outcome?!

 

I am aware of xxx railway where quite a few senior (as in time served staff) only do what they want and when they do it. They will only help out with extra stuff only if they want to. A number of staff on the ops department wait until the roster is published so that they pick and choose what they want to rather than making themselves available before hand. Quite a few members are tired of banging their heads against a brick wall with frustration and have given up and now work on the railway for themselves rather than for the railway.

 

I'm not sure that your version of 76079's acquisition is correct. Suffice to say that besides 76079 we had the services of 825, 926, 6619, 45212, 49395, 53809, 60007, 63395 & 75029 plus visitors during 2009 (when we purchased it) and, although we lost 6619 & 60007 in 2010, we gained the services of 45428 and 92214 so we weren't short of locos. If we had that many in 2024, we would be sitting pretty. Our GM at the time went to great pains in Moors Line to explain that we had bought it to increase our stock of railway owned locos. I'm fairly certain that this isn't the full story behind the purchase but I'm not going to go there.
Having mentioned Moors Line, looking back at 2009 there was an awful lot of interesting information contained in it, then, compared with the junk we get today. I also note that we were celebrating reaching 10,000 members and even having to run additional trains to cope with demand. Happier days.

 

As @Steve has said, PW Volunteer working at weekends has finished.
This is mainly down to the age profile getting older, but there a regular hard core of bodies who come in mid week providing 3 - 4 each day assisting the permanent staff PW Gang, mainly track patrolling and dealing with track faults.
Other than that a regular gang of 3-4 work on the Civils fleet of wagons and Track machines. Usually on Tuesdays. This under the supervision of a Permanent Staff fitter. We did have 4 others who worked on the Machines at weekends, but the supervisory cover was not available ,even though they held National Rail standard certification and worked on OTP as part of their day to day jobs and in some cases wrote the manuals in use and carried out the training.

As for York Area Group, we are not very impressed with recent events on the NYMR going back 2 - 3 years were we used to be a major fund raiser for the NYMR in particular for the PW Dept as evidenced by the provision of the 45m Shed at Newbridge and approx 35 items of rolling stock for the Dept.
We now are very reluctant to continue funding anything to do with the NYMR, but not saying we are finished yet.
Dialogue with Park St needs to improve with both sides ready to talk.

 

Steve, It's quite a long time ago and your recollection may be better than mine but I believe it was towards the back end of the operating season when the NYMR was experiencing a steam loco availability crisis. I can't recall which locos were out of traffic or why but I do remember that there was pressure to acquire whatever was available in order to provide steam traction. You allude to another story behind the purchase which is fascinating but I believe that urgency may have led to us paying over the odds.

 

My recollection of locos in traffic and the official reason for the purchase was simply by reference to the Autumn 2009 Moors Line. There was a different version from certain people who should know and I've just recently had it repeated to me by a poster not associated with the NYMR but in a position to know.

 

I disagree with the comment about steam being taken for granted due to improved availability. Steam availability hasn't been at the levels required in 2023 and 2024.

Diesel substitution has been frequent and going into 2024 season with 1 Whitby steam locomotive -which increased to 2 in mid September -isnt a recipe for success. When 825 failed in early summer 2023 it was clear another Whitby capable locomotive was going to required (in addition to Repton). For a successful summer season you need 4 Whitby capable steam locomotives.

It is no surprise that a key reason for customer dissatisfaction in 2024 was that the expected steam locomotive was submitted with a diesel.

Sent from my M2003J15SC using Tapatalk

 

Just to make sure I’m understanding correctly that the railway has 3-4 pway volunteers daily during the week doing track work? If so that’s pretty impressive.

Also personally seems self sabotaging not letting ‘industry qualified’ people come in and use equipment to benefit the railway as long as it was done with the knowledge of the RO and inline with the rule book or interfering with the service.

 

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king

 

2 questions based on recent posts:
1. Is it correct that the Railway cannot sell Repton? If so, what is supposed to happen to it in the event that the Traction and Rolling stock director determines it isn’t really suitable for the NYMR? This wouldn’t be without precedent - the KWVR sold 34092 in part because as a large pacific express loco it wasn’t really suited to a stopping service on a 5-mile branch line with 5 stations. [EDIT] 34092 was never owned by KWVR and was sold by its owners.

2. The railway increasingly seems to have a lot of locos that either cannot go to Whitby or wont be fitted out to because they aren’t suited to it - the 9F, Omaha, I’m told Hartland won’t, 29, P3, Q6, 3672… and I’ve seen it said before that the Std 4 tanks aren’t ideal as their water capacity is more limited. Which more or less leaves the 2 Black 5s, the Std 4 tanks, Repton and 825, plus 75029 when it returns (though presumably that too is not really suited to the NYMR if it’s 2-6-0 sibling supposedly isnt?!) is 80136 certified for Whitby?

With 825 apparently out for a while, 75029 & 80135 still under overhaul and Repton is… well, Repton, that doesn’t leave a deep pool of Whitby locos either now or for the long term, which makes the decision to push 76079 out even more odd in my book*. Have I missed something here? It seems to me like rather than bringing more heavy freight locos in (9F and Omaha have returned and 3672 is on its way), they need to find more medium-sized engines suitable for Whitby services?


*Just to be clear, I’m just trying to understand the logic. I realise it may look from my recent posts like 76079 is a personal favourite and I’m taking offence at its planned disposal - not at all (I don’t really like BR Standards except 9Fs!) but I do feel it doesn’t really add up.

 

Did the KWVR ever own 34092? Thought it was owned by Jock Adam’s and friends until they sold it to the ELR. Sorry for going off topic.

 

I’ve just checked and you’re absolutely right! Will edit my post

 

As I understand it Repton isn’t technically owned by the Railway but is in Trust to the Railway, as is 3672. No idea who the trustees are though.
In an ideal world the Railway needs four Whitby locos in service each year with two in steam each day. It can run with less but it is operationally inconvenient.
76079 is an ideal loco for the Railway. It generally clocked up a lot of miles each year and has been the highest mileage loco at least once in that time and that was in the years when 7 &8 coaches were the norm has passenger numbers were high. That wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t suitable. Its biggest problem is its firebox condition. It has always suffered from leaking tubes requiring regular attention. Indeed, when it arrived on the Railway prior to its purchase it required the attention of the boilersmiths before it was accepted. IMHO the real reason for selling it is the Railway needs the cash but they have tried to put spin on it by saying it’s not suitable and isn’t in the 10 year overhaul programme.

 

What's it worth then? £800k to fix it so rock bottom price?

 

Was Repton one of Jos de Crau's purchases in the 1980s?

 

IMHO Steve's last post (No. 3417) is spot on, and it doesn't do Lineisclear and the other members of the PLC Board any credit whatsoever to try to spin their preferred yarn, but it's the sort of behaviour that characterises his posts. IIRC, 76079 was bought to provide additional Whitby-capable motive power at the time (as was 44806, which they later sold on to Peter Best). Given that they intend to persevere with Whitby till it bankrupts the railway it seems to me that it should figure in future plans as more useful than Repton, much as I love the latter. At one time they were trumpeting how the rebuilds of the boilers on 75029 and 80135 was providing a source for making more standard 4 boiler components such as firebox flanging plates. I'm not sure if that was ever really true, though, but I'm sure that 76079 would be easier to work on than 926, with no inside motion to deal with, and eventually they will run 926 till it drops and be faced with similar repairs. They will not be free to sell that loco so it too will end up "somewhere up the headshunt".