North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Is it a Heritage railway or preserved railway running heritage stock? That is the 6 million dollar question.

 

By your own key metric, an Austin 1100 would be 10 times more 'classic' than a Jaguar E-type...

 

But would it be valued and admired as much as the E-type? There's a complicated equation at the heart of value judgements! For example, there are shops, a cinema and other buildings in Salisbury that date back to when the cathedral was being built, I believe, and probably now most, or all, of them are now listed buildings but people pass by them with barely a glance, perhaps because they have new shopfronts etc. and have been adapted to meet modern requirements. Unless one knows otherwise they are just shops etc. and of no particular merit as buildings. I'm suggesting that's analogous to the situation with (say) teak carriages and steel bodied Mk 1s and is amplified by the fact that no real effort has been made to retain the dated (as originally built) decor of the Mk 1s.

 

I’ve no problem with Mk.1’s and do consider them to be historic. However, I would expect historic vehicles to be restored to something like they were at some time in their lives, as is done with most other things in the museum and heritage world.

 

Whether an E type or an 1100 was admired most depends on the visitor. I had a 1938 MG TA in useable not concourse condition and at a car show people were ignoring the pristine Rolls and Beneys etc and admiring my car because it was as they remembered seeing them, whereas the judges weren't impressed because this was wrong and that was wrong etc.

Sent from my SM-A556B using Tapatalk

 

We all have our own preferences but if the the choice was to be there, how many of us (and here I'm using "us" because readers of this forum are a heavily skewed sample) would choose a run of the mill Mk 1 TTO over an immaculately restored Gresley teak TTO? And wouldn't most of us at least like to have the option?

 

A lot of railways I'm sure would like to have the option, the practicality is they can not. I would choose a Gresley teak over a mk1, but I would also chose a Barnum over a teak. I hope that there is the opportunity one day to experience the Barnum on the original line they were built for. When that option becomes available, it would seem short sighted to let any other heritage stock suffer because they're not as old or not as rare.

I don't disagree that Pre-BR stock should be valued and emphasised on some lines more than it is. I also agree that I would seek out rare or unusual stock where there is the option. The issue I have with the consistent disparaging comments about Mk 1s is those comments don't exist in the vacuum of the NYMR.

Sat in the deep cushioned seat of a compartment Mk 1, with original style moquette, adverts and furniture covering the walls and a BR Standard on the front, I am having a 'heritage' experience. It is not like anything I could have experienced day-to-day on the national network, further to that it is not like anything my parents routinely experienced on the national network. Some places got going too late to have a real choice, it does not mean that universally, anyone relying on a Mk 1 rake is not capable of providing a historical experience for those seeking it.

 

Absolutely valid points, but this discussion has mostly been set in the context of the NYMR, where there is (or was till recently, and really should still be) the partial option to experience Gresley teaks on Grosmont-Pickering services, but no longer the case, sadly, and the MK1s on the NYMR are possibly some of the least heritage examples of the genre.

 

Some of which is I believe down to the characteritics of the line e.g aren't the centre doors out of use because the gaps due to the curvature of Pickering platform 1 are deemed unsafe? I'm unclear as to how that would work with the suggested use of heritage suburban stock?
The impact of whatever is agreed with ORR as a solution to its door locking requirements may also have an impact. It's probably unavoidable that if modifications to Mark 1 doors are mandated between Grosmont and Whitby (where it's acknowldeged that there is minimal risk from structures or vegetation) they would also have to be applied between Grosmont and Pickering (where there are such hazards). It would be hard to argue in that event, and to convince insurers, that similar modifications would not have to be made to pre-war stock which might compromise its authenticity

 

This looks to me like a classic example of scaremongering! Know your railway! A likely train of non corridor carriages on the NYMR is unlikely to exceed four vehicles and therefore could be brought to stand in the longer platform at a point where the curvature is less. These carriages are also significantly shorter, less less throw-over on curves anyway, and all the candidates have internal corridors so any affected vehicles could have the worst affected doors locked and still have more doors available than a Mk 1 I really don't think it is an issue - it isn't one that seems to have prevented the NER Autotrailer from being used out of Pickering. Don't try to come up with spurious reasons for not using them before they are even available to try!(And one of them, the Thompson CL, has already run many miles on the NYMR from Pickering!).

As for potential CDL issues, is there any evidence that these are likely to be applied to the NYMR any more than any other heritage railway in the country? If the requirement becomes widespread, one of two things will come down - either the cost of such installations will have to fall drastically, or many railways will go out of business.

 

Well I assume in the near future the ORR will want CDL on Whitby trains, if it is not there already.
Wareham before it was proved a loss making exercise needed CDL fitted stock for all of about o.75 mile from Worgret Junction (although I guess a littler longer if you include their part of the branch to Bridge 4). The set that was used behind 31806 on the mainline test run is now no longer valid without both CDL and retention tanks and would have needed shed loads of money to be compliant for Wareham.
Is it beyond reason the ORR will go for CDL on Heritage Lines?, unfortunately not in my view. Given their way we would probably not be allowed to leave the house.
Of course the Whitby issue could be solved by following the WCRC strategy and the purchase of some Mk2's.

 

In which case, the correct thing to do, is simply keep them locked out of the use - not weld them up and plate them over, changing it from how it was built, and then try to claim that they are valuable historic carriages demonstrating trains and travel of yesteryear.

The NYMR only does heritage and preservation when it suits the commercial side, and usually only with a begging bowl alongside for donations.

Am currently in the middle of a 320 mile round trip to North Yorkshire, and have been less than 5 miles from Pickering for most of the day, and for the first time in 20+ years, I haven't been to the NYMR.

 

No it was a genuine enquiry in response to the criticism in an earlier post of Mark 1 centre doors being welded up. That's a fair answer.

As Gladiator has pointed out CDL is a current issue between Grosmont and Whitby. A solution acceptable to ORR has still to be found but its approach seems to be that a single door lock is insufficient. Whatever solution is eventually adopted will be fitted to the same stock when it's running between Grosmont and Pickering. Where a passenger safety feature has been mandated on a line with virtually no risk it would be hard to justify disabling it on another section of line where such risks do exist. If that's so then equally it might hard to justify passengers on pre-war stock being exposed to greater risk.

 

I don't think the NYMR has dealt with CDL on Whitby trains yet (no doubt pleading poverty) but then I don't think ORR have mandated it yet - wasn't it part of WCR's argument for (unsuccessfully) trying to get out of it for Jacobite trains that they hadn't - but in any case it's irrelevant - the carriages in question here are all either teak bodied or steel panelled on timber frames and so would not be permitted on the EVL beyond Grosmont.

 

That's still scaremongering imho. There's no safety reasoning for insisting that the equipment must be used between Grosmont & Pickering, even if fitted - but if it were to be mandated I think it would have to be mandated for every heritage railway, or the NYMR would have strong grounds for arguing that they had been unfairly singled out just because the meet the requirement in order to run on the EVL.

 

I disagree. If safety equipment is fitted the onus would be on the railway to show why it was thought appropriate to disable it on a section of line with higher risk. Maybe the ORR would not insist on it but it would a hard proposition to explain to insurers. I suspect that Gladiator may be right that if a reasonably affordable additional locking solution can be found it could become compulsory for heritage lines as well. It's not that the ORR are particularly concerned about Mark 1's, ......it's all slam door stock.

 

It will all come down to risk and incidence of accidents. AFAIK there has never been an example of someone ever falling from a train on any heritage railway (except perhaps [though I cannot recall an example]) as a train has been coming to a halt at a platform in 55 years of heritage railway operations. How may passenger journeys does that represent and how does that represent a real risk, should it necessary to argue the case? Genuine statistics can work wonders! There are examples of people falling into the gap between door and platform, so should we now expect to see calls for platform screens aligned for doors, a la DLR? Even the callow youths at ORR must have some ideas about what is practical.

 

I can empathise with that. Perhaps rather than being critical of The ORR’s competence it would help to understand why it appears so concerned about the safety of slam door stock? If the number of incidents is so low presumably it’s based on assessment by of risk and the desire to pre empt future incidents.?

 

We have had many discussions on other threads. My take on it is that they are governed by 'Best practicable safety option' rather than say cost=benefit analysis. Is CDL safer? Is it practicable? If the answer to both is yes, there is your policy. Bangs per buck doesn't figure.

Actually I think the heritage equation might be different in their minds because it risks putting SMEs out of business, never a good look.

Also, do we yet know the Govt's intentions re the ORR safety responsibilities post GBR?

 

Why, given there is no risk on the section to Whitby does the ORR want to impose the restrictions that it does. The legislation doesn’t require them to insist where alternative mitigations exist.