North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I wasn't given colours but I was told who was charged with doing the job and my source would trump your 'man at the shed.'

 

I don’t doubt that there were problems with available steam traction but it’ s indisputable that numerous other railways thought it necessary to go all diesel for quite some time. The designation of large parts of the railway and adjacent land as SSSI’s means the NYMR is under more pressure than many others to use diesel in high fire risk conditions.

 

True, but that wasn't the case this year - the railway simply didn't have any locos capable of hauling service trains. Even 29 wasn't put out with a banker on the diner as has happened in the past. Lucie made the odd appearance at Grosmont, and 60163 carted around a lot of fresh air for a couple of weeks.



That was from the middle of August. That wasn't out of choice, nothing was available. 926 and 44806 were still being repaired, 2253 was on washout, 92134 in bits, 45428 dumped round the back, 60163 being prepped for heading south.

I'm still staggered that you think it's a good idea the railway has been allowed to extend its overdraft at the end of the summer season. Over winter to tide the railway over, yes, but not when takings and cash in the bank should've been at their highest.

 

Other railways had steam bans re the dry weather ..NYMR didn’t as several have commented already.
If your memory goes back that far Tornado was dragged to NYMR by diesel and then ran in service as booked hauling lots of fresh air around for a couple of weeks ,whilst the mobile chicken shed and friend was pressed into service due to the lack of serviceable carriages for normal services .
Thought about standing as an MP ?

 

Good financial housekeeping like as soon as trains could run to Whitby cancelling all services on the busiest holiday week of the year to run a Thomas event at Pickering ,with a SMT proud that Thomas covered its costs .
Not the cost of lost income had normal services run as any sane business would have !

 

Agreement to extend the overdraft doesn't mean its needed now! As you suggest the overdraft tides the railway over the lean winter months which has been the case donkey's years. What's important is knowing that it will be available if and when it is needed.
I come back to the point about use of steam. I acknowledged that there were problems with loco availability but to suggest that fire risk was not a critical factor is absurd. Were all the other heritage lines that went 100% diesel wrong?

 

Would love to know passenger numbers for the year and how far down they are.

"Other railways thought it necessary to go all diesel..." and yet in mid-end August when most other railways in the country were all-diesel, NYMR had steam out (and not just Omaha). It was clearly never about fire risk.

 

Each line managed its risk in its own way .Some lines have run steam continuously because of their management and volunteer interaction and positive can do attitude such as Llangollen setting up and manning a fire train .
Lines such as Nene Valley with arable farmland adjacent generally go diesel sooner to avoid claims against them ( although at times the weather v no working steam excuse is rolled out there too ).

 

In previous decades of my experience, during high fire risk, either a diesel was attached at Levisham and Goathland to pilot the train through the centre section, or diesel and steam swapped over at those locations. This with very little negative impact on loadings from either scheme. During hot weather the former operation did tend to see type 2s overheat, but now with type 3s and a type 4, this shouldn't be a problem. I have seen quite a few photos posted online of steam locos being moved about NR in just this way, instead of engine and support coach moves.

Sawdust.

 

I beg to differ. Fire risk is a major consideration especially when multiple SSSI’s are involved. D7076 highlights the pivotal role of volunteers and staff in managing that risk which in the NYMR’s case was via its effective line-side fire patrols.Those enabled the NYMR to run steam when others decided the risk was too great. Memories are remarkably short. Only last year around 250 acres of a SSSI were damaged by a major fire. Natural England has very extensive powers to control what a railway can do ( and even to tell Government that protection of bats and newts at Piddington means its plans may be scuppered). Having upset NE last year it would be madness not to take fire risk into account when deciding if use of coal powered steam can be justified

 

I don't think there's much question that the NYMR could not afford a major moorland fire this year, but as @Sawdust has described, the same problems have been faced in the past and answers have been found that did not jeopardise passenger loadings - a bit more complicated and with a potential impact on keeping to time, but that can surely be dealt with by means of a lightly modified timetable and the USP of steam haulage was better maintained. Why on earth were such palliative measures not tried , at least?

 

I have fond memories of changing locos at Levisham so I wondered why that could not be the palliative measure you suggest. Replacing steam with diesel only over the mid section does nothing to protect the numerous SSSI's between Pickering and Levisham or the National Park between Grosmont and Goathland. It also involves moves at Levisham which the box is not signalled to control with passenger trains left without an engine attached on falling gradients. Authorising movements past signals at danger is OK in an emergency but I suspect that these days the ORR would take a dim view of that being a routine timetabled procedure. I don't know if those were the reasons but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

Even in 1976, steam remained in use between Grosmont and Goathland. A diesel pilot does not leave trains without an engine attached.
Maybe it's just lost experience.

Sawdust.

 

if a train cannot be left in the platform at Levisham because of falling gradients, how will locomotives run round on Pickering to Levisham shuttles this weekend?

 

A diesel pilot between Levisham and Goathland does not but it can still mean taking a fire into a tinderbox environmentally sensitive area. That's why I referred to changing locos at Levisham. It also does nothing to reduce the fire risk over the rest of the line. I don't think it's lost experience so much as recognition that procedures that may have been acceptable in the past are no longer against today's standards and compliance with duties to protect the environment.

 

So if fire risk was the critical factor, are you therefore confident that had it been absolutely bucketing down with rain throughout this summer, the service would have been steam?

My reading from here was that there simply wasn't the loco availability to have operated the full steam service, so the need to be responsible in a drought was actually a rather useful disguise of that point. Now, I am not saying that - given the summer we had - you wouldn't have prudently chosen to use diesels even if you'd had a fleet of ten available steam locos in the shed, because the weather conditions probably made that inevitable. But the opposite is not true: had it been wet, you would still have run diesels because the steam loco availability was not there. I might suggest that in saying the fire risk was the critical factor, you are perhaps being a little economical with the actualité: the critical reason to run no steam was because there wasn't enough available to cover the service, and the fire risk just provided a convenient disguise of that fact.

So the lack of steam is a rather more serious point. Given the fire risk, did the management make a sensible decision to suspend steam services through the summer? Yes. But has the management also failed in meeting one of its core operational objectives, which is to ensure that there is sufficient motive power and rolling stock to handle the published service? Also yes, and that is a more serious failing.

Tom

 

"There was no loco crisis in the summer"

 

Was the NYMR steam loco shortage during summer 2026 caused by an unfortunate cascade of unrelated major faults to each loco? Or by board/SMT decisions to withhold funding for planned maintenance?

 

As I’ve said in an earlier post, significant loco failures have been a prime factor this year with 44806, 45428 and 92134 all being out of service for long periods. I also think that 926’s winter maintenance took much longer than originally planned and 2253’s entry into service was more problematic than expected. 2238 was also expected to be available for the vast majority of the season. That should have been a total of six ‘big’ locos for the service; tight but not unrealistic.
In terms of firecon, there were a couple of occasions when steam was pulled due to fire risk but that became a bit of a mockery when 60163 was let loose shortly after.