North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I cannot be any more specific than I have been, but from what I've heard you may well be wrong. It's interesting Lineisclear has not denied that there is any truth in the rumours.

..... and that encapsulates the difference between a successful railway with heritage at its heart, and a pseudo commercial but visibly failing one. Enthusiasts will only be appreciated there when they are being asked to dig deep in their pockets to save what the present incompetents have not squandered.

 

And I wouldn't like to claim we were unique in that. The Isle of Wight had the same issue of "how do we protect these unrestored carriages for perhaps many years or decades until such time as we have resource to fix them" and their solution was to either buy or rent (not sure which) a building on an isolated farm remote from the railway and store them there. But the economics are the same: spending thousands to protect vehicles that, at a balance sheet level, are basically worthless but at a heritage level are priceless.

Tom

 

W

Which makes sense if the railway has a prospective use for them. If not using charity funds to protect third party owned items would raise questions about the trustees’ legitimate use of charity funds.

 

Hmmm, I’m very uncomfortable about that interpretation. They are charity trustees, and the objects include historical purposes.

The argument you present would be much more convincing if you were talking about a company, where the P&L is paramount - and even there, profitability is not, legally speaking, the sole object of a company.

 

Which is why I highlighted whether the charity has a prospective use for the third party items in fulfilment of its charitable purposes. If it hasn’t it would be using charity funds to benefit the owner of those items which would be questionable use of charity funds even if the owner is another charity. As a Trustee I’m sure you know that misuse of charity funds leaves the trustees involved liable to reimburse them personally.

 

I do. And I also know that there’s a considerable margin of appreciation on this, especially where there is a collaborative relationship possible. And much also depends on the treatment of costs.

 

At a narrow technical level, you are of course correct. But what I find remarkable from that mini exchange is that a preserved railway in LNER territory with - by repute - huge passenger numbers, can't find an operational niche for a complete train of LNER vehicles.

Are you really saying that Whitby is simultaneously so important and so constraining that nothing can be considered if it can't go to Whitby?

Tom

 

And if I understand correctly the Bluebell has a long term coach strategy which I guess is good practice for demonstrating meeting charitable purposes.


Sent from my SM-A556B using Tapatalk

 

I think that what he is saying is that only Mk 1 stock suits the NYMR's managers, because they don't have the wit to think about promoting the heritage aspects of the NYMR, beyond the use of steam engines - and even there their advertising and publicity material shows a sad lack of comprehension and awareness beyond the "Thomas the Tank Engine" level (and they're not even particularly good at that level).Does the NYMR have a career railwayman (i.e. with a "big railway" background on its SMT nowadays? Lineisclear frequently raises the grisly spectacle of ORRs keeping an eye on going on at the NYMR, doesn't he believe that I may have just identified an enormous , gaping hole in the setup?

 

This is actually a really pertinent point.

As the major ex-LNER line in the region, it would be pretty tragic if there was no opportunity to travel on LNER stock.

Funny. Here’s one of the highest profile heritage railways in the UK, preserving an ex-LNER line through stunning scenery between Pickering and Grosmont but you can’t buy a return ticket between those two stations nor ride in an LNER carriage.

The operation to Whitby is apparently absolutely crucial to survival but most of their motive power (steam and diesel) can’t operate through to Whitby.

I love the NYMR as a railway and as an experience but I am really baffled by the direction the management seem to be taking. It really does feel like it’s turning into a park and ride for the seaside instead of a heritage railway experience.

 

That misses the point. . LNERCA and NYMR agreed that there is the opportunity to use an internal service set of up to eight teak coaches. 60044 will no doubt have the correct figure but my understanding is that there are about 23 teaks in total. LNERCA has established and pays for its own workshop and storage facilities but that still leaves a number of its managed or owned coaches on the railway for which there is no foreseeable use. The suggestion was that undercover storage for those would be sensible. Of course that would be ideal but it would be protecting them for use elsewhere. Facilitating that doesn’t look like proper use of NYMR charity funds.

 

Not sure I follow that.

You have said a fleet of 7, plus a spare nominally "in service".

Realistically that requires a number undergoing maintenance, and some undoubtedly undergoing restoration to ensure that number are in service, not necessarily protecting them for use elsewhere- I'm not a C&W expert, but presumably that means there needs to be another handful kicking about on site at any one time?

Likewise, you have also stated that the LNERCA pay for their workshop and storage- so surely that is bringing revenue to the NYMR?

Whilst a set of teaks is not unique, it's still more unusual and has got to be a selling point, I'll be interested to hear how the ELRs L&Y days go.

The prospect of the Q6, or J27 hauling an LNER appropriate train seems like an appealing prospect.

I hope the NYMR finds a way through, it's still a lovely day out even if it's now getting beyond the budget of my family for a day out.

Chris

 

That argument makes a number of assumptions that aren't really justified. For a start the 8 carriages do not allow much leeway for spares or maintenance, and at least one (the Thomson CL 88339) is unlikely to run in a train of corridor stock, but if/once the H&BR non-corridor stock is restored it could run with those to form a more typical representation o a pre-preservation era train on the NYMR, for occasional use. The LNERCA collection also includes several vintage dining cars - ECJS 189 and NER 945 are well advanced and, with GNR 3087 could form the basis of a high quality vintage dining train that could be used to broaden the NYMR's catering offering - with more vehicles to follow. The possibilities are endless, but of course their use is rooted in heritage offerings, something Lineisclear clearly doesn't appreciate or value, and because of that I fear that as time goes by vehicles, particularly those that get restored at the LNERCA's Kirby Misperton works, will inevitably go to other railways where they are likely to be more appreciated and looked after, neither of which the NYMR not noted for.

 

Reptile would slip and slide without help from rail lubrication .

 

D5032 as the diesel engineer restoring accepted voluntary redundancy last year ?

 

Do the Essex loco society pay the NYMR to store the underframes of S15's 830, 841 and spare tender?

 

No one pays the NYMR for storage despite it being a valuable benefit.
To correct an obvious misunderstanding LNERCA ,to its credit , pays for its own off site storage facility and Kirby Misperton workshop. Under the current agreement it benefits from to free storage on the railway of many of its managed or owned stock as well as free use of the Atkins building workshop with all utility bills paid by the NYMR. There is no payment to the NYMR for use of such facilities.