North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Don't know where you've seen that, but by trying a booking, most trains seem to have 50-70 seats booked in total, with two coaches blocked out. Group bookings perhaps? Either way, 6 coach trains when the bookings could be accommodated in a brake and a buffet.

 

At the same time, it's not going to be a significant dissuader to customers, though.

Noel

 

Even though there may not have been Car 79 in the set then it's place must have been taken by an alternative brake vehicle so with the RF in the mix the set would normally have been 5 coaches long. I don't think the GW saloon was regularly included. I do remember thoughts of extending the bay platform, but I think there was always a lot of doubt over how useful it would be, other than for storing strengthening coaches.

 

Maybe it is just me, then, and it would depend on what stage the plans have reached (nowhere or very close to it for most I suspect) but I would like to think that a strategic plan should be written along the lines of a business plan - for example, instead of just saying "we want to develop the "highly inefficient Grosmont locomotive workshops" I would hope that they might at least provide an outline of what might be required and how to go about it.

In recent years the railway has bought , or had gifted to it two commercial premises (The Station Hotel and Mulberries) and there is no mention of how they might be used to the railway's benefit, and no mention of what to do with the pig farm site at New Bridge - or for that matter how to make better use of the "hostel" at Stape.

As to your other comments I feel they relate to the "PR puff" content, which actually comprises the bulk of the document It does not propose any actions to deal with, well, anything, and in all these senses it can hardly regarded as a strategic plan!

 

An extended beck siding should easily accommodate five coaches. I’ve no idea behind the desire to extend it, if that actually is the case. It may simply be a case of reconnecting it and nothing else.

 

I've just had a look on Google earth and I would be surprised if it was possible to engineer in a 5-coach bay platform - even for five coach trains to only depart from. I really can't see it as a meaningful development now that adding or removing strengthening coaches is no longer practiced. Simply reconnecting the bay seems to be a waste of resources. Maybe some explanation of the idea would help - e.g to use the Station Hotel as a nearby on-shore kitchen but that would require a lot of deliveries being made to the train across a busy road, and doesn't strike me as a great idea. It would be good to see some evidence of planning and joined-up thinking, rather than a wish list. More information is more likely to arouse interest and support.

 

Financial problems solved!

Several thrill-seeking supporters are taking the plunge for North Yorkshire Moors Railway (NYMR) next month.

Staff and volunteers of the heritage railway will bungee jump to raise funds for the ongoing Bridge 42 Appeal.

The fundraising jump will take place on Sunday 20 September from Larpool Viaduct in Whitby, which is the only bridge bungee jump in England.


Larpool Viaduct in Whitby, the only bridge bungee jump in England
Bridge 42 needs urgent work, with temporary stabilisation and permanent repairs costing around £800,000 in total. While almost £400,000 has already been raised by supporters, much more is needed, and every single donation helps.

The bungee jump, organised by UK Bungee Club, is 42 metres (138ft) in height over water, giving jumpers the stunning views of the picturesque North Yorkshire coastline, surrounded by stunning natural beauty.

Peter Fisher, digital marketing campaigns lead at the NYMR, said: “I’m taking part as I would love for the railway bungee crew to raise an extra £10,000 towards the important Bridge 42 appeal.

“It’s been great to see the group of us come together for this, from various areas of the railway all with the common goal of raising money to protect the heritage railway we love so much. It’s very exciting and such a different way of raising funds for the NYMR.

“Thank you to everyone for their donations so far, each one really does make a difference.”

Following detailed inspections, it was determined that temporary propping was necessary to guarantee safety and operational reliability of Bridge 42. This measure allows trains to cross the bridge throughout the 2026 season without disruption.

During the operational season, NYMR will finalise a full repair programme for Bridge 42, scheduled for implementation over the winter of 2026/27. This programme will restore the bridge to its long-term structural integrity and ensure its preservation for future generations.

To donate and find more information on the Bridge 42 Appeal, visit the NYMR website.

 

The Bridge 42 saga just keeps giving.

In the latest Moors line there's a piece about it as you would expect. In it they give the updated fundraising target of £950k, split between the two phases. Phase 1 was the temporary propping 'Has stabilised the bridge, secured the 2026 season and bought us the time needed to design the permanent solution'

Phase 1 comes in at £550k, phase 2, the permanent repair is estimated at £400k.

Phase 1 should never have been needed. This was known about a long time ago. We were talking about it on here, Piglet said about it at the AGM. But still plans weren't started until an inspection meant full closure? So the railway have now spent more on propping it than the full repair would have needed? I just don't get it.

 

The pi

The piece in Moors Line actually also contains the nonsensical maths already pointed out on here, earlier in this thread. At least, they were nonsensical to me and my primary school maths education, but not to whoever wrote the piece , or to whoever proof read it (if they did). Yet people on here feel that I am overly critical of the NYMR management. How much worse do they have to be for these uncritical folk to realise?

 

Whilst I wouldn’t disagree with the sentiment that the works would have more logically/economically been done in one hit, I suspect that from a cost perspective the argument above doesn’t stack up. A fair proportion of the work already done with regard to providing access and temporary support to the structure would have been needed to facilitate the repair work anyway, so the cost of that would need to be added to the £400k figure for the permanent works themselves.
So yes, it would have been cheaper to do it in one go but it certainly wouldn’t have cost “just” the £400k.
And having reviewed inspection reports and costed options for works to many hundreds of bridges on the national network during my career, believe me, the “putting it off until it’s absolutely necessary because we don’t have the money available” approach is far from unique to the NYMR!

 

Fair points well made. I suppose the difference here is that this is a charity who need to be seen to spend every penny as wisely as possible because they are relying on donations from you, me and anybody willing. The more times that money isn't seen to be wisely spent the harder it is at the next appeal, or the one after that. If your backers think you've waste a couple of hundred grand that could have been avoided, will they back you again? Its harder for a charity then say, Network Rail.

 

Bridge 42 was brushed aside at the last AGM

 

Actually, I was perhaps a little unfair in my summary of the maths, nevertheless there are still an inconsistency or two! For example, it is stated in the latest "Moors Line" that the propping work cost £550,00 (at lot more than the 250K I seem to seem to remember bas the figure previously quoted!) and the repair work itself is quoted as £400K, for a total of 950K for the whole job. But....it is also said that a 20% discount has been obtained on the propping work, so either the propping work actually cost 550K after the discount, or actually cost 660K before the discount! If the estimate for the propping work was out by a factor of at least two, then how much confidence is there in the quoted repair work price? From my standpoint, probably not very much!

It is also stated in the same article that donations have been flowing in at a rate of 2.5K/day, every single day - but is that true, and has that rate been maintained? I suspect not, or it would have been trumpeted! I think it was an average, and skewed by some large donations, leaving a lot of concern for the future.

 

As others have said, fair points, but wouldn't you have expected the NYMR management to have made them in their article?

 

I had forgotten i had taken these photos of the rail & footbridge at Grosmont which have caused all the problems lately
Propping of the rail bridge



Temporary footbridge built over the old one



Neil

 

It looks like my informant was premature with this as the decision was later taken to use a diesel due to the fire risk. 60163 seems to be still Ok, though! Tomorrow (Wed) might see 2253 on the diner.

 

I saw Tornado come in just now with around 70 or so passengers. When my family visitors tried to book this train yesterday, they couldn't book as it was 'fully booked'.

 

That's frustrating. On the website it was still showing empty seats this morning which I believe were bookable. If they are still wanting a run tomorrows are most definitely still available through that route. Though I don't understand why the ticket office wouldn't know that (assuming that's how they tried to buy?).