North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Does anybody on here think the teaks will run on the NYMR again? The quote during the AGM was 'we don't need them'. I believe they are still paying to lease/rent them from the LNERCA though... I wonder if there is something in that contract that means they have to be in a running state upon the contract expiry (2028?). If so the NYMR could come unstuck at the end having to fund/do lots of work on carriages that may never run on that railway but be moved elsewhere.

 

I've no problem with studying the contract too closely, the real problem seems to me to be interpretation of some of the clauses - and perhaps that was combined with a lack of sufficient gumption (a most apt Yorkshire word, I think!) to ask other railways how they handled them.......

 

A tragedy if it happens, and potentially an expensive one for the NYMR - but would anyone be surprised - hasn't this sort of thing happened before with ems sold off at well below what was paid for them, to avoid associated liabilities? 34101 and the S160 both spring to mind, for example. IMHO it would be the end of any pretence of being a heritage railway and would tell other groups - e.g. the H&BRSF - that they would be on borrowed time. The next stage in the downward spiral?

 

That interpretation (which of course it is the Adviser's privilege to make) would only make life more operationally difficult ( in the sense of having to originate services at Grosmont) if there wasn't also the maximum daily mileage limit that effectively limits services to two return journeys with a consequent reduction in potential ticket revenue of around 33%. My dislike of the standard contract must be obvious. It's probably best epitomised by the provision that, quite apart from the daily mileage limit, the daily mileage should be kept "as low as practicable". No doubt in the mind of whoever drafted it there's sense in minimising operational use of an historic locomotive purchased for the public to enjoy but it suggests a depressing preference for static display.

 

I did!

 

That sort of begs some more questions, though - did you ask the right people, did you ask the right questions, were they delphic utterances that weren't interpreted correctly or did they give realistic answers that were just ignored? It's really hard to see how the NYMR version of of "organisation" could have gone so badly wrong otherwise.

 

Are you saying that the contract mandated you start the services at Grosmont? I don’t understand the reduction in the services you keep mentioning. Assuming the services run the full length of the line the number that can be done is the same regardless of where you start. I presume that you mean that if you started at Pickering the loco would have to run light at either end of the day and that would mean less revenue opportunities.
My interpretation then of what has been said is that for some reason or other it was demanded that the loco be based at Grosmont. This seems to have been sub-optimal for operations, with more options for parking at the other end, and unfortunate in the sense that probably with fairly minimal cost on security the loco could have been based at Pickering, if parties were willing.
The other option that occurs to me would have been to offer single trips on the otherwise ECS moves with a balancing service to return customers to their start point. Priced appropriately these might have been quite popular (not everyone wants a round trip behind FS).

 

I trust you have personally observed the recent parking both in Grosmont and Pickering. I have, on both Monday and Tuesday respectively.

As previously stated, with the Whitby service, Locomotion and sightseers on Pickering station there were just 15o spare spaces combined between the NYMR and Trout Farm (the latter known locally known as “platform 3”) car parks in Pickering, compared to an overall capacity of 190 vehicles in Grosmont (with staff displaced to the nearby cricket field). Yes there are two more Long Stay car parks in Pickering with a combined capacity of 182 spaces, but these are normally well occupied by others, whilst the nearby Ropery car park is always usually full and limited to 2hrs maximum stay in any event. So overall there is more capacity to accommodate the FS related cars in Grosmont than Pickering. The issue in Grosmont is exacerbated with cars entering and leaving the car parks simultaneously, particularly between service A and B. Imagine that happening across the level crossing and on Park Street!

One suggestion has been to use the Pickering Showground site, which is now known as the Galtres Retreat and Lodge Park, as it previously been used as a park and ride to the NYMR station to accommodate a similar major event. I note this site has recently been used for it own events (such as classic cars), but note one such recent event itself caused horrendous traffic management issues with queuing back to the Pickering roundabout (and 1 hr delay to all other road users that day). In addition, even if the NYMR had negotiated its use as a park and ride site it probably would have turned into a disaster zone give the recent heavy rains, with cars parking on the grass there churning up the ground. I note the Trout Farm management (when I spoke to them) said they’d stopped cars parking on their grass due to the recent rains.

So, yes there has been a car parking issue at Grosmont but the magic wand solution would not have been otherwise to have run the FS trains to / from Pickering, given the operation of a Whitby (even if limited) service and Locomotion.

Ps and yes I am qualified in car park capacity calculation etc from my previous role prior to retirement (4 park and ride sites under my belt in Cambridge, planning and outline design etc), and yes I am totally familiar with the operation of the NYMR car park in Pickering, using it twice a week (including periodically emptying its parking machine as I do… etc) and Grosmont (once a week).

PPs whilst there are lessons to be learned (lessons should always be learned from any event, that is just good management for continual improvement), nevertheless I do wholeheartedly support the decisions taken at the time to run the FS services in its present form, given the risks and opportunities, information and constraints to hand. The question I always ask myself is “what would I have decided differently at the time” not based on what I know now but what I knew then.

 

Surely a town like Pickering has far more parking potential than a small village like Grosmont. When Grosmont is full it is full with nowhere else to go. In Pickering there is always somewhere to park even if it means a bit of a hike to get to the station. Plus there is also the very good Coastliner bus service to Pickering. Sure there are problems there but not on the scale of Grosmont.

Peter

 

What I struggle to understand is how you managed in the past if this is such a problem now - particularly had trains been based at Pickering.

The issue seems to be that you have one set of passengers (and their cars) arriving for train 2 before those who caught train 1 have departed. So realistically that means you have to deal with around 900 people (and their cars) simultaneously. But in years past, the NYMR claimed to have 300,000 passengers per year, which is averaging more than 1000 per day! And presumably in those times, many of those visitors were away for the whole day, so the peak number of cars needed parking simultaneously. So why is it suddenly so problematic to cope with the 900 or so people at the overlap of two Flying Scotsman trains - particularly were they to start in Pickering, not Grosmont?

But moving on from that - let's suppose the Grosmont start was inevitable due to other contractual and business model reasons - surely in that case a major part of your event planning is "how do we deal with the visitor numbers?" A starting point for that is "where will they park?" and you need a solution for that - even if that solution is "we'll hire a field from a local farmer for the duration - and lay down matting to avoid cars getting stuck in the mud". Major events and festivals happen all round the country all the time, so there must be companies out there that can provide the necessary essentials.

(As an aside, I visited Kingston Lacy, a local National Trust property, yesterday. They are embarking on a major upgrade of their visitor facilities, and on the information boards about the plan, the opening sentence was something like "We know that the starting points for an enjoyable visit are good parking facilities and toilets" - or words to that effect).

Tom

 

You mention learning lessons. That relies on using previous experience. How did the experience of the 2016 visit feature in the planning?

 

2016 is very nearly a decade ago. I don't think any of the present SMT were in senior 9or indeed, any) positions back then. "Institutional knowledge" is ingrained a lot deeper than that, but surely one of the lessons to be learned here is that it needs to be accessed and used.

 

That’s why I asked. The fundamentals of the railway location (including parking) are either unchanged, or marginally better. There was a successful event 10 years ago, without generating complaints.

I’d hope that the plans for that previous event were dusted off, reviewed, and adapted rather than being created completely anew.

 

At the August BH NER 200 event at Kirkby Stephen there was a FREE Park and Ride from the Main Line Station stopping at the East Station then through the town to a FREE car park. Service provided by some 1950's Classic Buses.
Also FREE was a Classic bus to visit various Viaducts in the area.
Admission to the East Station was also FREE in fact the only charges were for Shop sales and train Rides.
I understand that attendance was approx 1000 per day for the 3 days of the event.
If Stainmore can organise a Park and Ride like that, then why can't the NYMR ?
Bearing in mind that the A road through the town is not the most traffic friendly layout.

 

I'd suggest an answer, but some readers might think I was being unduly harsh, and I've expressed my feelings on the present SMT in plenty of earlier posts. All I'll say here is that it's just the latest in a mounting pile of evidence.

 

Just thinking outside the box here - could the Scotsman service start at Pickering and the first trip and last trip are hauled one way by another Steam engine, and are sold at a slight discount - say 10%?

 

At Pickering yesterday it was busy in between trains during the afternoon. Locomotion was running and the Whitby return train at 1520 was well loaded. The buffet was open later and busy.
It would be nice to have a departure board printed up for each day to act as confirmation and show any changes.
Yesterday there were small printed versions of the calendar, with a note to go online as times had changed, but no large clear accurate departure information.
The small A4 printed loco roster was the only running information that was vaguely correct.

Departure boards are part of the railway furniture as much as clocks and other treasured hardware. Artefacts in themselves, a large A1 printed sheet or decent sized chalk board would be a feature at most town stations. This feature is striking by its absence at Pickering.

 

It seems to me that there is a strategic issue here. Perhaps rather than relying on 'big bang' events/visiting locos they should be doing more to promote 'routine' services. Surely those would result in more spread out demand through the day, with no particular requirement on joining at one end or the other. NYMR are not the only railway that seems to be becoming more focused on the 'big bang' strategy.

DISCLAIMER: I haven't read this entire thread in depth so apologies if I am repeating someone else's argument (and I am probably being naive in this suggestion).

 

I think they're so desperately short of money that FS is essential to boost funds.

 

I think it's harsh to criticise NYMR for following a strategy being adopted by most railways, where the ability to price "ordinary" tickets doesn't generate the total income required to be sustainable, and therefore events are required to generate additional profits.