North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

That video does indeed show the exhaust thrown very high.

 

Galas anywhere are generally a success because:
There is normally a more intensive service.
Normally at least one visiting loco.
People are prepared to travel for galas and often stay for more than a day.
Most enthusiasts appear to not care if the timetable falls apart, and from posts on here many expect it to.

So basically the target audience is far more forgiving with lower expectations than your day to day visitor.

 

Steam gala may have been a success but the recent diesel gala was very quiet.

 

Another factor counting against 34101 is the belief in some quarters that locomotives with Pacific wheel arrangements “cannot go to Whitby”.
What radii are the curves in question between Grosmont and Whitby?

 

That's a reasonably accurate analysis of how the Railway has carried on with the locos it owns over the years. Work on 34101 effectively stopped once it got to a rolling chassis a good few years ago. It did start on the boiler but after a couple of unsuccessful attempts to build a new inner and outer firebox in-house it was abandoned. As you say, there was a concern that, once Richard Shaw had passed away, the family would wish to sell the loco once it was a runner, another reason why fitting the necessary gubbins to go to Whitby was abandoned. Eventually, a consortium was got together to buy five sets of fireboxes from the South Devon Railway and this included 34101. Even then, work was very much on the back burner until recently. The last job I did as a volunteer on the NYMR was helping with the re-staying. Hopefully it will be completed before much longer and, fingers crossed, it will stay on the Railway. I wouldn't bet a Mars Bar on it, though.
2253 and 44806 were only overhauled through the kindness of Peter Best who bought both locos off the Railway and paid for them to be overhauled. Even then, the Railway didn't want 2253 and it went elsewhere after a short while, only coming back when the idea of oil firing took hold.
I don't think the NYMR ever invested in 60007,other than providing space for its overhaul under Roger Barker. It was always a hire loco, the railway paying a fee for its use. In fact. I'd say that nearly all the locos that have run on the Railway and had major overhauls have been funded by benefactors (80135, 3672, 45428) or have been privately owned and hired in, such as the NELPG four, 90775, 44767 and 825. The only exception I can thik of is 926. I believe work did start on 75029's boiler but came to a stop when the new copper firebox plates were incorrectly drilled. The overhaul of 3672 is being led by volunteers using funds raised by them.

 

The 10.00 was cancelled but were buses provided for passengers from Whitby to Grosmont?

 

I've said this before, but I'll make the point again: I know Beeching's name is darker than mud in the heritage rail world, but what he did was precisely look for lines that could not make enough to pay for "maintain[ing their] locos, carriages and infrastructure" - and shut them down. So any heritage line which was a Beeching cut (i.e. most of them) is starting out under water, in terms of their ability to earn enough, as an ordinary business, to pay for their maintenance. Which is why most successful heritage lines aren't ordinary businesses.

Noel

 

Cheers Steve.
Perhaps my choice of phrase re 60007 was incorrect, although by providing space that is an investment of sorts even if recouped through later reduced hire costs perhaps.
My broader point was that the Moors decided 60007 was going to be a core engine of the fleet, in effect making a choice towards that loco rather than other types which may have been more widely suitable.
I suppose I'm saying that the loco strategy has been ill considered or non existent largely on a presumption there'll always be another cab off the rank if you waive a big enough wad. When you no longer have said 'wad' though ......

 

I don't think that is 100% true, even for relatively recent times - I don't believe 45428 has ever been funded by a benefactor, unless it was kept very secret at the time. As for 3672, I think as the overhaul progresses the paid staff will take over much of the work although the volunteers will still be involved, particularly with fundraising. I'm expecting the boiler overhaul to be contracted out, but I don't know if it's condition has been assessed yet. Of course, first time round the inner firebox replacement was carried out at Grosmont by the boiler team led by Norman Ash but that expertise is long gone.

I believe that now the decision has been taken to send all but relatively minor boiler repairs to be contracted out, so what's going to happen with 75029 is anyone's guess. I think that the boiler plates for 75029 that were misdrilled were done by boiler contractors, but are regarded potentially usable in 80135/6, - apparently there are slight design differences, but I don't have the knowledge to confirm that. I bet someone, somewhere does though!

 

The NYMR was contracted to carry out the boiler overhaul during the loco's overhaul led by Roger Barker - and I'm sure they will have carried out other work too, some of which may have been paid for by "free miles".

I don't think loco hire policy has been quite as cynical as you suggest, though. There have been rumours over the years of loco owners wanting to move to the NYMR but being declined because there's definitely a limit to what can be accommodated there.

 

Apologies for my crudeness, from the outside it has sometimes appeared if the Moors has had a 'loadsamoney' approach.
Based on what you say about potential locos being turned away for space reasons it makes it perhaps more curious to make 60007 a long term resident. Obviously it suited the owners, they did hardly any mainline work as a consequence but choosing to use an A4 as a daily machine for 10 years on an 18 mile branch seems rather extravagant and offers quite an interesting insight to historical thinking.
Having said that, having Roger Barker around Grosmont would have been a real asset, I know.

 

60007 was - and still is, of course - a prestige engine that people would enquire as to when it would be running, and make the effort to visit to catch it. I don't think there was any doubt that it helped to attract business and probably more than paid for the extra cost of running it.

 

It was more about the opportunity cost of having 60007 permanently resident, but being best suited to high days and holidays, compared to a more versatile loco which could reach Whitby daily.
I'm unconvinced that using 60007 frequently brings additional surplus over using a less celebrated engine daily and SNG reserved for specially marketed occasions.

 

I had no idea 44806 had been sold to Peter Best but still kept at the railway.

I wonder what the benefactor who bought it for NYMR a number of years ago thought of that??

A bit like selling on a very generous valuable Christmas present you've been given...doesn't seem right.

From reading more and more, it seems without Peter Bests recent involvement and cash, the railway wouldn't be running!!

 

I got the impression from one of the volunteers that 44806 was bought as a short term fix while other locos were overhauled, and would them likely have sat out of traffic for a long time had Peter Best not bought it.

As it turns out, the other locos that were expected back hadn't returned and still haven't........