North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

It seems that there is too much of if your face fits you stay in a job at the NYMR, it seems clear that the Engineering Director doesnt have a firm handle on motive power requirements or how to manage them yet is deemed as a role model for preservation. A little less time filming for the TV and You Tube may help!

 

I'm fast reaching the stage, which I did on another forum, of deciding there's no point in posting when minds are closed to the truth. Being accused publicly of lying is the last straw. I was at the meeting about the future of 76079. Neither 60044 nor Steve were there. I confirmed in a previous post that the reason for deciding to sell it was NOT raising cash. But no matter, those who were not involved know better! What really does no credit whatsoever is un-informed opinon being represented as fact despite those posting it already having been given evidence that's it's untrue.

 

The problem is that the £800k bill to overhaul 76079 remains as a liability for whoever owns it if they wish it to run, and that was part of the decision - both the recommendation to sell outright, and the decision to sell it but encourage retention on the Moors.

Personally, I find it surprising that there is such fury at an allegation that I had to think hard to find buried in the post, but no response at all to the suggestion that the NYMR is thrashing locomotives till they collapse.

 

That's missing the point! If it was just a case of selling to raise cash its scrap value would be attractive! There were categoric public statements about the Trustees's motives. They are untrue but seemingly no apology.
The engineering advice confirmed what you suggest, and which Steve seems to accept. The condition of 76079's boiler meant it was severely over stretched by what it was asked to do. A major boiler/firebox overhaul is required and. as already explained. finance and resources mean that if the NYMR held on to the loco would not happen for at least ten years and quite probably longer.

 

There's a trend continuing here, already exhibited by the Author on the NYMR Unofficial Forum, and seemingly on Facebook, of flouncing off in a hissy fit if challenged, regardless of how cogent a challenge may be made. I'm not challenging what may or may not have been said, or accusing him of telling lies, but I do feel his memories may be rather coloured by his personal views, and I am inclined to think that a rather biased argument was put forward at that meeting. The reason given that 76079 was unsuitable for NYMR services seems to me to be wholly untrue; I have ridden on the footplate as it climbed steadily at line speed from Grosmont to Goathland hauling an 8-coach train, and with the regulator half open. I can't remember where the reverser was, but I'm fairly certain it was well notched up and the loco wasn't being "thrashed". What more could be asked of it? And where did the subject of being able to finance the overhaul come from? The same source that tells us that another £150,000 is needed to complete the overhaul of 75029 after years of work having gone into it? I also don't think that the NYMR's engineering management have really thought through their loco policy. Although the NYMR looks reasonably well supplied for motive power, a great deal of it could evaporate quickly if circumstances changed. 44806, 828, 2292, 2239, 2252, 34101, 92134, 5 and 29 are all owned by private individuals or separate groups. It's unlikely they would all vanish at once but I'm sure that other railways would welcome them if they were on offer. Any sensible motive power plan must surely have recognised that via a SWOT analysis, but did it? And that's quite apart from unexpected failures - e.g. what happened to 2238 and 825, both of them with quite long boiler tickets still to run. Call that a competent approach? 'Cause I don't! - and we have seen the consequences with the extremely tight motive power situation for the last couple of seasons. Complete disaster has been avoided, but I think its also true that some high individual mileages have been run and it probably will not be long before another loco ends up in the same state as 76079.

It's a very, very crude straw poll, but you might want to have a look at how many "likes" your posts have ganered on yhere, compared to mine and other of your critics!

 

But that begs the question - if finance is not the motive for disposal, but overhaul is unlikely in the medium term, were options explored to find an alternative home for display? There are alternative storage solutions out there that don't mean "abandoned down the end of a siding": I can think of a GWR Manor that spent a good number of years looking shiny in a shopping centre in Swindon, meaning warm and dry storage while it waits its turn in the overhaul queue ...

When all is said and done, major overhauls are going to have to be faced. Residual life locos had when withdrawn by BR is largely used up, and frame replacement, cylinder replacement, new tenders and fundamental boiler overhauls are going to become more and more routine. If 76079 is deemed too expensive to overhaul - what is going to happen when all your available locos are in a similar state?

Tom

 

Unsurprisingly, I don't really think that's true! Steve has already outlined that (and I've heard it elsewhere) the boiler on 76079 was "well-used" before it ever arrived on the NYMR, and certainly its exploits on the Cambrian Coast services probably stressed it as much a the NYMR. Steve has already said that the NYMR had already started restricting its loads. That does not mean that that it had been overloaded at the NYMR, and if spending 800K (or more!) on 80135 and 75029 is justified, surely it should be justifiable on 76079? All loco boilers wear out eventually!

 

Where is the evidence that it is untrue? And please don't simply say that you were there and others weren't. There is certainly ample evidence that the loco is suitable for use on the NYMR as I have mentioned.

 

If lomg term undercover storage/display was available no doubt the NYMR would look at that as an option. I'm sure you'd accept that long term open air storage adds considerably to the eventual overhaul cost. Yes major overhaul costs have to be faced and that's what's happening. The NYMR has a ten year plan for its locomotive fleet both owned, hired and held in trust so all the locomotives being in a similar state doesn't happen. 76079 is too expensive to overhaul in addition to funding all the other locomotives overhaul work that is planned over that timeframe. If it has to lanquish outside ( and I take your point about possible display) there's obviously the risk that after ten years the £800k figure has increased to the point where other locomotives may be a better financial overhaul option.

 

Steve I recognise your view about the suitability of 76079. That's fair comment. What is not is stating as a fact that the Trustees's decision was to generate cash from the sale. Those who were at the meeting know the truth.
By the way I don't post on here to seek popularity. I just try to put the facts straight.

 

I've a lot of time for Paul Middleton and think that he generally does a very good job in what can be trying circumstances. I like to think that it was me who persuaded him to take the job (as it originally was) but I was probably one of many. It can be something of a poisoned chalice given the restraints imposed on him. Personally, I don't think he gets the support he needs at all levels.

 

I think that it would be hard to argue that the NYMR wasn't sold a basket case when it was bought. It arrived at the Railway directly after spending five weeks on the Cambrian and was suffering from leaking flue tubes when it arrived. According to Moors Line it took several attempts to get them to take up and seal before it was acceptable to the Railway. it wasn't long before the condition of the firebox lap joints became apparent requiring more significant boiler work. One of the cylinders was in a poor way and eventually had to be replaced. That problem did go back to the original BR casting and I believe that it had had a liner in it from new. Unfortunately, the problems with the flue tubes have continued to persist throughout its operational life and was a reason for restricting it to 6 coaches (and less) in recent times although I think this was a desperate move, which didn't work.

 

I don't accept that its boiler condition meant that it was overstretched by what it was asked to do. Reducing the load would not solve the problem, as has been proved in practice. That will only be overcome by major boiler work but that is something that will eventually be the case with all locos. Boilers don't last forever.

 

That's not the rose tinted view of 76079 that we 've seen expressed elsewhere! I described it as a distress purchase some posts ago and this balanced assessement bears that out.

 

I have to differ there! I don't think it was a distress purchase, rather an opportunistic one as the NYMR needed another loco ready for working to Whitby - and how often do they come on the market. I'd argue that really it should be kept as a long term strategic reserve, and arguments that suggest it couldn't be lent out to somewhere like Barrow Hill are really nonsensical- and I doubt if this approach has even been tried (or considered!) yet.

 

As usual, Tom, you are spot on. Loco overhauls frequently follow a cheap then expensive then cheap pattern as major boiler work usually lasts 20 years. However, like everything, the longer you use it, the more expensive it becomes to maintain. Unfortunately, the NYMR has a history of running away from those expensive overhauls, as witnessed by 5, 3672, 80135, 44806, 2253 and 45428. All except No.5 have needed others to come to their rescue

 

..... and, as yet, nothing much has happened with No. 5! (Although the LLT might in due course)

 

I don't think anyone has given rose tinted view of the locos condition and it is accepted that it will need major work to sort it out but, as Tom has said, these need to be accepted as routine. You can't simply keep on taking the easy option of doing up the loco that can be done the cheapest as, eventually, you get to the point where there are no cheap options.

It is perhaps worthwhile quoting why the Railway took the decision to buy the loco, as related by Philip Benham in Moors Line: "In order to deliver the timetable NYMR needs a large number of working engines available - at least eight, preferably more. Of course we already have some of our own, but we also hire a number of locomotives, many on a long term basis. The use of hired locomotives is an essential element of the NYMR, to ensure locomotive availability, commercial appeal, and recognition of our NER and LNER heritage. These are a fundamental element of our operations, and I cannot envisage a time when we will not have hired engines. For the Railways long term financial viability, however, we need more of out train mileage worked by our own engines - and this means having more available for traffic. 76079 is immediately available to work all our trains, including through trains to Whitby, is well liked by crews and has eight years still to go on its boiler ticket making it a particularly attractive proposition. The total cost of buying the loco is similar to the full cost of a thorough overhaul of one of the stored engines but the big attraction is that it is available now. Thus the business case for 76079 was very much changing the balance so that more mileage is done by locomotives owned by the Railway." The same Moors Line informed us that the Board had decided to get rid of 2253 because of the arrival of 76079 and there was little chance of 2253 being overhauled in the future due to the cost. It's perhaps ironic that the decision to get rid of 76079 coincided with the arrival of 2253.

 

Perhaps in 15 years time we'll see 76079's new owners, having spent years and many hundreds of thousands of pounds restoring it, return to the operational fleet at the same time as another NYMR loco is deemed uneconomical to repair and put up for sale...

 

Didn't it manage just around three years before being stripped back to its frames? Its Moors Line description doesn't seem consistent with your "basket case" analysis!