North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Watch it or you’ll be accused of axe-grinding …..

 

And engineers are not argumentive amongst themselves ?... I've that to see after 60 years in engineering....

 

What is the most risky situation for the railway,
A) a passenger demanding their money back and pursuing a claim in the small claims court/trading standards case.
B) an investigation by HMRC inspectors that jeopardises all the Gift Aid of up to the last four years, resulting in a demand for hundreds of thousands at tribunal?

Both the refund clause in the T and Cs, and Gift Aiding tickets were done with the best of intentions by the NYMR.
If the railway were to abolish refunds and offer, say, free tickets as an ex gratia recompense, I'm sure most passengers would be reasonably content.

 

I go back to my the logic I stated a few pages ago, that a donation is not a donation if conditions are placed on the transaction. This means that the donor has no contract with the railway for entry or carriage. That means that no refund is possible in whole or in part and there is no contract so consumer rights do not apply.

Where there is not a donation but a ticket is purchased for entry or carriage (as the terms might be) then there is a contract and the consumer is protected. The terms and conditions that apply must comply with that duty, but I still do not accept that delay repay is a necessary, essential, desirable or expected methodology to adopt.

In both cases the terms and conditions of using the trains (not sticking one’s head out of the window for example, or not abusing the staff) are separate and can be made to apply equally to anyone regardless of the nature of the commercial transaction (or donation and free travel as a thank you). My only concern there is that for the odd few lines (L and B for example) that have no statutory rights (no LRO or other power to create byelaws) they are perhaps reliant upon their civil rights as landowner/proprietor only. I doubt that is a particularly significant issue though.

 

Oh yes, but hopefully we at least have the same understanding of the fundamentals - and possibly a tendency to view things in B&W

 

Can I point the honourable gentleman to discussions on other threads here for a challenge to that - Tornado, say

More seriously, though I disagree strongly with @Lineisclear for reasons already given, I do think he raises genuinely useful questions that need to be considered - and have been flushed out in this discussion

 

There are a lot of "armchair engineers" on this forum though.....

 

An old Ian Allan Locoshed would soon confirm what ran with a 'TE' badge under the number (sorry, don't do the needlessly complicated number/letter thing). Certainly the last two classes, but 21?

 

Typo, should have been 31.

 

Dear God, if anyone walked into a room with myself and my former colleagues fifteen years ago...!

 

Now on the website

https://www.nymr.co.uk/restoring-th...uzIAIWhSu_bE4HyFrw_aem_JuDXwGAOGS75zg-sJe8z3g

 

Sadly it looks like a second year with no teak set.
https://www.lnerca.org/home/news-updates/

 

Rather sad.

 

Do we know how much the funding gap is for the repairs?

Sent from my SM-S926B using Tapatalk

 

A sad situation that with the Moors rumoured to be short of coaches after last year's rough-shunt, still paying the Teak hire fees, and the LNERCA seemingly offering to help get the Teaks in service , the railway does not feel it can go down this route

Jon

 

As regards the question of refunds, how many requests for refunds did the NYMR have last year? and was it to do with the preserved section of line, or the Whitby section, does the T&C applicable of running on the NR side have an impact on having to possibly have a refund policy? rather than just issuing a free ticket voucher

Having to have compliant stock, and engines for Whitby clearly is an issue, if it compounds on the main service, then at what point does it become uneconomic to operate to Whitby? Has the railway investigated other options, such as a Mainline approved DMU and only operating between Grosmont and Whitby, with passengers having to change for the Pickering service, I would say protecting the main service has to be the first priority, if it's proving to be too big a drain, then axe the Whitby service.

 

The main service is Whitby.

 

Very grim read especially with pro-active approach from LNERCA

 

I'm beginning to fear that we are quite possibly witnessing the end of the teak carriages at the NYMR - I'm sure that there are other railways in the area who would value them far more than the NYMR ever have, or willnow that it is seemingly run by accountants (the price of everything and the value of nothing....) who's only thoughts seem to be of running the park & ride services to Whitby. It just needs to be have an enthusiastic management who will appreciate them more than the NYMR does.

The sad thing for me is that they seem to have completely forgotten that the railway itself should be the main attraction, instead of being a pleasant way to get to Whitby.Until someone realises that and starts to work on developing the railway as an 18mile long destination worthy of a visit in its own right it imho is doomed. How long before the accountants decide that steam engines are not an essential part of the ride either because they are too expensive to run, maintain and overhaul? Not long, I fear.

 

Changing trains at Grosmont is something that rears its head occasionally. It’s not too bad if all that is happening is that passengers get off one train and on to another, as often happens with set swaps but, if you have (say) 300 passengers getting off one train and onto another whilst another 300 are waiting on the platform to go in the opposite direction, it’s a bit of a nightmare scenario.