North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

The link to the original question was in my last post, but I'm glad you found it now.

I will push you on this though - your original statement said "That leaves dependence on new profitable activities and enhanced fundraising. However, expecting the latter to cover operating deficits rather than development/enhancement projects is a huge ask."

The items you have referred to are neither development nor enhancement, but effectively the enhanced fundraising that you appear to dismiss. They could be viewed as temporary grants (the Arts funding will run out in 4 years time and the gov could decide to kill off/change the rules of gift aid at any time).

So what are the development/enhancement projects that the SMT have implemented over the last 5 years that are going to substantially contribute to turning around the NYMRs finances? Is it just running more trains to Whitby using MK1s?

 

Given all the negativity about using the Teaks, I find it surprising that the NYMR are offering an ex-GWR saloon coach for hire for whatever purpose. The coach comes complete with chocolate and cream livery.

 

All very commendable, if they translate to reality, (and the cynic in me feels that the additional gift aid and Arts Council money have done little or nothing more than stop the annual losses getting greater!) but any reader with a questioning frame of mind will no doubt wonder how "transforming the railway's financial performance" will go to improve its delivery of its charitable objectives - and that calls into question once more what its charitable objectives really are, and how well they are being delivered. As I see it, the primary objective (and I have no quibble with other objectives such a trackside conservation, but we have to see them as secondary considerations) is to run the NYMR as a heritage railway. Does that mean just keeping the line open using steam engines where possible, or does it really mean more than that? It cannot be about "showing the development of railways" because the NRM is not far away and does a far better job of doing that in its entirety. In other words, as I've said before, the NYMR's strengths should lie in allowing visitors to experience travel on the line in a manner closer to the way it was in earlier years, when steam haulage was the norm and non-corridor carriages were the norm - (that is normally going to be impossible, but at least it should be trying (and it should be formalised policy, issued by the Trust Board to the PLC) to at least least offer pre-BR Mk 1 carriages as far as possible because, with the best will in the world calling MK 1s heritage stock is really devaluing the concept of "heritage") and also provide context into how the line served the countryside it ran through. The latter is abominably done, imho, despite the wealth of possibilities available, but it is that local context which sets it apart from the NRM.

 

Whatever your (understandable) preference for pre-BR era stock, you cannot argue that British Rail Mark 1 coaches are not 'heritage' as you have a couple of times. They are the same age as the BR Standard class locos and only a few years younger for example than the Thompson stock. They may not be of LNER heritage, but they are a valid part of British railway heritage, did work with the same classes of steam loco that currently run on the moors and do offer passengers an experience of historic rail travel.

I agree that I would love to see a greater focus on pre-1950 stock, especially those lovely Teaks, but you can't simply write off the Mk1s as being 'not heritage'.

 

No appreciable rain forecast for the foreseeable future.
How are those oil burners coming along?

 

Sorry. Double post by mistake

 

ng fairly regularly on the National network
I can, and I will! For me, "heritage" implies a degree of rarity, and with around 1000 Mk 1s preserved all around the country they fail that test, and they can still be seen running on the national network carrying fare-paying passengers. They were not, afaik, seen much (if at all) on the W&P line before the closing day, so are not really appropriate, and doubly so as the NYMR have never made any effort to keep them in anything resembling their "heritage" condition.

 

Perhaps, next, someone could teach you how to reply to posts without embedding your reply in the quoted post!

I can see that the National Portfolio Organisation Scheme is not a grant in your eyes, but I think most of us ould find it hard to see why it is not a grant with specific objectives. My own, perhaps jaundiced, feeling is that it is going to fail to meet most of those objectives if they rely on the "marketing team", who don't seem to me to be capable of selling sweets to small children - and don't quote the SNG or Autocar visits - they are fairly specialist rail attraction on a railway (and in the case of SNG an already known and established attraction so hardly innovative) - how why are they going to attract visitors who wouldn't normally consider visiting? What other innovative developments have taken place in the ?2 years since the "non-grant" was awarded?

 

"Heritage" condition, which off the top of my head, on certain vehicles includes features such as:
1) Commonwealth bogies
2) Welded up / plated over centre doors
3) Toilet compartments at the ends of vehicles removed to create extra space
4) Formica covered interiors
5) 2000 / 10's era bus moquette used to cover seats

To keep trying to justify them as heritage stock is laughable. Heritage stock is what other preserved railways have.

 

So, to summarise your post, over the last 5 years the only development/enhancement (that you have already stated is essential), is the sale of digital products?

All the other items you’ve mentioned come under non recurring grant type income.

That’s a pretty poor indictment of the SMT.

 

Surely toilets should be in original condition to give a true heritage experience as most other heritage lines continue to provide.

 

just so we’re clear then, Mark 1s aren’t heritage because there are loads of them preserved.

so Mark 2s are heritage because no one’s been lunatic enough to preserve them in anything like such numbers?

A good rake of Mark 1s is a good heritage rake for lines that weren’t in early enough to nab the more interesting stock IMO.

Chinnor, for example, does very well with its half dozen, which are looked after and in good nick (and increasingly far removed from the average experience on the Big Railway of today).

 

As a total aside, one of the interesting facets of a trip on the Northampton and Lamport is the Mark 2s…

 

Apologies for third post…

I’ve no great love for Mk1s, as someone who grew up with the SVR, but I recognise that done well they have an honoured place in the heritage landscape. The SVR needs their rakes alongside the toplights, teaks and LMS set, and the good ones are stunning.

admittedly ‘done well’ might be a sticking point.

 

So, really, anything post - well- yesterday is worthy of heritage status, however crap or commonplace they may be? Sounds like you are one of these people who would describe a 1960s Austin 1100 as "classic"! Chacun a son gout!!

 

well no actually, you’re the one who opened the case for the prosecution with ‘there are loads of them’!

 

A classic car is classified as one at least 40 years old unless it is something more special when it can be younger. !

Sent from my SM-A556B using Tapatalk

 

Heritage is age related. As enthusiasts we should be very conscious of the precedents from the past of rejection of what was then unfashionable, regardless of heritage.

The above also means that the label is of limited value. The NYMR do say that their stock is heritage, and it is factually correct to do so. It also misses a significant point.