North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Of course you can ignore it, it's very easy to do! - I do so regularly with the Mid Hants Wagon Group reports, written in that awful vernacular style. Why are they even there instead of being in the Heritage Rolling Stock section reports?

 

Firstly, you seem to be arguing from the point of view of an enthusiast, rather than as a "layman", but then doesn't it also depend on what it is that is being portrayed? The NYMR was an NER/LNER/BR branch line that didn't experience a diesel (or Mk 1 carriage) until its final days before closure and then the subsequent demolition trains so really they had no significant part to play in its life, only in its death! As ever, of course, these things are nevel absolute and the when the NYMR was part of BR or its predecessors we would never have seen most of the present day fleet here - the J27 and Standard 4 2-6-4Ts plus (on rare occasions) Black 5s are about it, even the Q6 would not have been allowed south of Grosmont. The only other possible one is surprisingly the S160 as they were rumoured to have tanks on Warwells out of Pickering. Mk 1s of course do have their role, if only because, like most other heritage railways , we were too late and pre-nationalisation stock, apart from a few lucky survivors, had all gone by the time anyone started to think about them.

At one time there was talk of getting the Teak stock passed for Whitby, and I think that it might have been feasible ha their been engineering support from the NYMR, but the head of engineering at that time was frankly useless and doing as little as he could get away with whist still getting paid and the idea withered. The Belmond Pullman has several wooden framed carriages under those metal panels, and they operate routinely under far more challenging conditions - but the fact is the NYMR really don't want the teak coaches and will probably keep coming up with excuses not to keep to their contract with the LNERCA and repair them for another spell in traffic.

 

This is where I take my leave on historical perspective. To focus so exclusively on the history of Pickering-Grosmont misses a wider historical context. All of classes 24, 25, 31, 37 and 47 operated in the NE region (indeed, I think Thornaby had allocations of them all at various times), while dieselisation was well advanced in the area before closure. As an enthusiast, some of my fonder memories of the line are travelling behind various flavours of Sulzer 6LDA powered diesel; as someone with a historical bent, I regard them as being every bit as worthy of celebration as their steam counterparts.

What disappoints is the seeming unwillingness to embrace the LNER stock. This looks fantastic, stands out brilliantly, and is a huge marketing asset - yet seems perpetually in the "too hard" bucket.

Edit: Typo of class 21 corrected to 31

 

I guess the NYMR are trying to keep a core carriage fleet running that can have the ability to operate to Whitby. The teaks cannot go onto NR metals and most days the set that does not go onto Whitby only operates one round trip, so they are very much a nice to have.

 

Have you been on the another thread about a similar route length railway in the west country?! An individual who has a warehouse full of axes to grind! You are right though... very tedious!

I do think the local optician in Grosmont should be getting some visits from NYMR drivers mind, seems to be happening far too often.

 

I don't think anything is cast in stone, and there is definitely a need for diesels, especially if they have steam heating boilers that work and can be used! I can well remember travelling from Birmingham to Newcastle in the 70s behind Class 44/45s, occasionally to London behind Deltics, and I'm sure that at times I must have experienced the off class 40, and I saw plenty of 37s working steel trains on Tyneside, so I do have a liking for diesels with bonnets! Where we probably do differ is in how they are painted - it's down to personal preference, but I really think anything later than the various shades of two tone green is jarringly out of place - but maybe that's just me!

 

I can think of quite a few other incidents on the NYMR over the years but I see little point in listing them on here.

 

When the NYMR first started running to Whitby there was serious comment about the 'teaks' running to there. It obviously hasn't happened but I don't know why so a logical question is 'why are they prohibited?' Has the reason ever been challenged? I would humbly suggest that the 6 miles between Grosmont and Whitby is probably one of the safest bits of railway in the country with a low speed, no steep gradients and virtually no chance of a collision. There are lots of derogations allowing non-compliant vehicles to operate on the big railway so why not the teaks?
With regard to stock rotation it is for a variety of reasons, including emptying of controlled emission toilets, cleaning and FTR's, all of which are preferred to be done at Pickering. The stock rotation allows the Grosmont based set to swap to Pickering every other day.

 

A question, because I don't know the answer but do visitors to the GWSR have any choice than to happily accept Mk.1 standardisation if they want to travel on the railway?

 

Well I certainly don’t have ‘an axe to grind’ with the NYMR, being neither a member or volunteer. It does hold a special place in my heart though, over and above its location in God’s Own Acres, as I spent a memorable holiday in the railway cottages (now demolished) as a kid in the mid 60s just before the Pickering line closed.

Nowadays I always try and fit in a visit if we are holidaying in the area, but as discussed up thread, this has become more difficult of late. I have concerns over the direction/competence of the current management, and would hate to see the line slip into serious difficulties. Unlike yourself I don’t view our movement through permanently rose-tinted spectacles.

ps for me, the chance to travel in the teaks would be a strong draw ….

 

I understand the decision was taken some time to standardise on Mark 1s.

 

Even Mark 1’s operate under a time limited derogation.

 

As does every mk.1 on the network, not to mention all the steam locos and heritage diesels. What I’m asking is what is it that prevents a derogation being applied for (and given) with regard to the teaks?

 

In which context, it may be worth noting the attention that the crossing at Wareham is getting in the national press - I can see a possibility that the political cost of a perma-ratchet of standards may be about to become unpalatable.

 

Steve, you are probably better versed in the regulations than I am but my understanding is that all hinged door stock is banned under the Rail Safety Regulations 1999. Specific exemption has been given for BR Mark 1 stock. The ban is based on crashworthiness and I have no idea how a teak bodied coach compares to a Mark 1 in that respect. Of course the other challenge is that the NYMR does not own the teak set so the capacity of its owners to fund any modifications would be a material issue. I also wonder how tolerant they would be about fitting CET, central door locking , pa systems and possibly drop light restrictors?

 

My recollection was that, a few years ago, a serious proposal was on the table for operation of these vehicles on the section between Grosmont & Whitby. That died a death, with Covid I suspect the final nail in the coffin. I'd imagine that the information required to plan for that would still exist and be able to be considered - though I accept there are more urgent priorities for NYMR right now.

You then mention matters like CET and CDL. CET is of course a way to avoid discharging toilets to track, which is a requirement of Network Rail. CDL is then one means, not necessarily the only one, of ensuring doors are not used inappropriately. The questions for both, for owners, operators, and track owners, would be of will as much as resources.

 

The crash resistance of carriages has to be calibrated against the operating speed of course. The derogation for Mark 1s allows them to be operated at speeds of up to (I believe) 95mph on the mainline. By contrast the line speed to Whitby is I believe 30mph, so I think you could make a compelling argument that the danger from a crash is not significantly different on the mainline than it is on the NYMR-proper at 25mph. I realise the network operator is not the same, but bear in mind the Bluebell's considerably more fragile Metropolitan carriages did several seasons on London Underground in public service, including too / from trips over the Brighton Mainline. Where there's a will there's a way.

Tom

 

Also the NYMR services to Whitby run at 25 (I think anyway).

 

There are things that you have to do and there are things that you want to do unfit, I don’t think running the teaks falls into either as far as the NYMR is concerned.

 

It does.