North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

75029 has been on the NYMR a lot longer than 76079. This could be a factor. It also has a name and has carried the Olympic torch.

 

I’d suggest that the only reason 76079 isn’t considered suitable is to provide an excuse for it being sold. Strange that the ‘ideal’ arrangement as far as the railway is concerned is for someone to buy it, overhaul it and let the railway use it.

 

Do you seriously think that bearing a name added in preservation or carrying the Olympic torch really matters? I think the fact that it was bought by a very wealthy donor who (I think) retains 50% ownership is probably more telling, as is the fact that the NYMR were supposed to be committed to overhauling it rapidly. I think the failure to meet that obligation, and (allegedly) a loss of communication with him is probably more telling!

 

No harm in suggesting but it's not true! The only reason 76079 is up for sale is that there is absolutely no prospect of the NYMR having the money or resources to fund the major overhaul required for at least ten years and possibly longer. I don't need to suggest the reason as I was there when the the decision was made. The carriage stable was NLHF funded as part of the YMJ project for the storage of carriages especially the core Mark 1 service fleet. If the auditable outcomes of the funding are to be achieved 76079 should be stored elsewhere, quite possibly in the open. Trust Board took the view that allowing it to deteriorate for that length of time was incompatible with responsible custody of a valuable heritage asset . The Trustees would much prefer that the locomotive stayed on the railway so would give preference to a buyer who could afford the overhaul cost and undertake to hire it to the NYMR.

 

Does that not describe a ROSCO Steve?

 

Two questions if I may; I know 80135, Hartland, 75029 and Vera are all under overhaul at the moment so that's at least the next 4 years. Which locos would be expected to go in after that?

Secondly, has the NMYR ever considered the idea of an exhibition/storage shed similar to Oxenhope on the KWVR? Given how many locos are onsite its inevitable you can't keep them all undercover and surely it would save money in the long term on overhauls? For example, the Gwili's new carriage shed will cost £300,000 to build; I wonder by how much you could reduce the cost of future loco overhauls if they'd been stored in the dry rather than rusting outside? Of course it might take a few overhauls for it to outweight hte initial outlay but still?

 

It also provides an additional attraction for visitors. Highley is a case in point.

 

If you pause to consider which of the currently available locos will probably be out of traffic in 4-5 years time ~I think you will have an answer - I can think of 45428, 926, 80136, 29 and 92134 for starters of the service fleet, possibly S160 2253 by then (or nearly so) as well, and even 44806 will be approaching the end of its boiler ticket. Although the NYMR isn't responsible for 65894 and 63395, I think they'll be out round about then as well. Thus, although it's a long way off now, those 8 or 9 engines, including three Whitby ones (44806 should be, soon) look to be being replaced by 4, including just one Whitby one, though I could see possibly 45428 being withdrawn a little early and given a fast-track overhaul. But, am I the only one who can see a potential motive power crisis looming for that time?

 

It may have escaped your notice, but the NYMR has been running up big losses in recent years, and many of us fear that this year will not see much change to that. The upshot is to ask -"where will the money come from?". Even with an HLF grant, there's still matched funding to provide, and that would have to come from a railway that faces major repairs to bridge 42 at Grosmont, and couldn't afford to replace the single slip at Goathland.

 

Nope. Recognised a while back in Moors Line by Piglet et al.

 

There's two overlapping questions in there: storage and exhibition are not the same thing. In particular, an exhibition space, for a given amount of storage, will be more expensive to build. Firstly that is because of the need to have circulation space, so you end up with a bigger building than would strictly be necessary just to store vehicles out of the weather; and then you have additional considerations of access, lighting, heating and - not the least - displays, all of which add cost.

Keeping vehicles under cover is a good idea, but you need to know whether what you aim to build is storage or display space.

Beyond that, it really just comes down to four things: space, money, management capacity to deliver the project, and the opportunity cost of spending those three resources on a storage project rather than any other. Simples! In other words, you get the sense that if delivering locomotive storage was such an easy win, most railways - not least the NYMR - would already have done so.

Sadly, most railways - not just the NYMR - are resource-constrained, and a consequence of that is that short-term priorities will always win out over long-term priorities that might in their own terms have excellent RoI. If you are setting the budget for next year and the options are to repair a bridge that, if not done, could lead to closure of a section of railway and inability to operate trains; or investing in undercover storage that over a twenty year time frame would reduce future overhaul costs, the bridge will win every time. Comparatively few railways have been able to break that cycle, and for those that have built significant storage, often it was 10 or more years ago when times were very different economically.

Tom

 

Hence why NYRM are only spending money on essentials eg Bridge 42, not “nice to haves” eg Single slip at Goathland, “Exhibition/ storage “ shed referred to earlier, Pig Farm redevelopment, teaks below solebar. Etc etc

I’m sure that any new expenditure would have to be backed by a business plan with key questions:
if we don’t spend the money do we have to stop the railway, is there a safety implication, is there a lower cost solution; if we do invest what is the financial benefit (in terms of lower maintenance costs or increased revenue over cost of investment), does the investment meet the railways / Trusts core objectives.

 

There's a further point to consider - for a long time the only space available was behind the Grosmont shed site. At the moment it's full of stored carriages and assorted bits of locos, machinery and the like. It was to be the site of the Bellwood centre, but accessing it requires some very tight curves. Otherwise it would be ideal as it would be part of the Gromont shed complex, but would also restrict further development potential there. More recently the NYMR has acquired the Pig Farm site at New Bridge, where there's probably room for a steam running shed, a diesel works and a steam storage/exhibition shed - but there's no public access. What is really needed, therefore is a suitable development plan that encompasses both sites, and includes better carriage workshops too. If there is one it hasn't been very widely shared yet.

 

I'm not sure that the Goathland single slip is a 2nice to have" - its absence restricts the ability run anything other than Grosmont Pickering services at the northern end of the line, and it was also part of what the NYMR was supposed to be preserving - single slips are quite rare nowadays. Would you dismiss the Goathland or Levisham station buildings as only "nice to have" if it was decided they were to expensive to maintain and it would be better to replace them with corrugated bus shelters?

 

A point which highlights the difficulties in drawing lines between fulfilling core objectives, and dealing with "nice to have" (though I prefer the language of "essential", "highly desirable" and "nice to have" as a way to differentiate).

 

I know its not true and so do most other people. That's why when it was used as the excuse for putting it up for sale, it was just laughable.

 

The tight curves problem was solved when Peter Best bought a traverser for the project. It sat around at New Bridge for a few years before going the way of many things acquired by supporters to help the railway and scrapped.

 

The single slip definitely isn't a nice to have. In reality, it is a necessity. Without it, loco hauled trains can't terminate at Goathland because it is not allowed to leave trains in the platform without a loco attached due to the gradient. Running round is only allowed once the train is safely in the loop. I suppose something could be done if a train from Grosmont detrained in the up platform before drawing forward on the running line as far as the advance starter. When stationary, a second loco could appear out of nowhere to attach to the north end of the train and drag the set into the down platform. I think it's signalling would allow this.

 

Just a few comments on the Goathland single slip from a personal perspective:
The Grosmont - Goathland shuttle operated by the Autocar during the last February half term ran either straight into the down platform if unoccupied, before returning, otherwise into the up platform in which case it then ran forward (without having to detrain) before running back into the down platform once unoccupied. I also noticed that if the Autocar ran straight into the down platform from Grosmont that, if necessary / need-be, it could depart back within 5 minutes or less.

However, the steam hauled February half-term Whitby shuttles all ran into the down platform, and once detrained then drew forward into the siding vis the slip, the engine uncoupled, ran round then drew the train forward back into the down platform and reloaded ready for the return journey. From memory the timetable allowed allowed 30 minutes between arrival and departure but invariably it took 40 minutes or more before returning back to Grosmont.

Thus personally if running future Grosmont - Goathland shuttles I would either just use the Autocar / Daisy or if loco hauled top and tail from Grosmont (with potentially the south end engine running back light engine, and as occurred during the subsequent diesel gala). In other words, a Grosmont - Goathland shuttle can operate without the need for the single slip.

 

Ah yes, the magic "second loco appears out of nowhere" - solves myriad operational problems, that one ...

Tom