North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Bearing in mind that previous conversations about maintenance budgets for this railway the obvious question is how many of those failures were because of cuts to that budget, and how many were extended because of waiting for parts where those parts would have previously been stored ready for use.
Whilst the Q6 is unfortunate, the P3 was extended at Embsay after Leaky Finders were already finding more issues. There was a opportunity there to request it back that wasn't taken and I suspect it will go there again next year no matter the NYMR fleet availability though that's just opinion. Whilst not as big as some of the other engines that would at least cover the internals.
For 926, winter maintenance always goes longer than planned on the NYMR. Every year at least one or two engines are in bits for longer than estimated. Whether that's because of lack of labour or parts or some unforeseen issue, the delay is the predictable bit. Its just which engine(s) it will be that isn't.
I've seen nothing about the Lambton tank here. That engine could have covered the internals but wasn't used much for the vast majority of the summer except for Driver Ex's. A missed opportunity?

But going right back to the start of the season, the railway knowingly went into it with a lack of engines. From memory in March all that was available was 44806, Lucie and 29. If it hadn't been for the lower amount of trains running early on due to Bridge 42, it would of been a much bigger issue. I certainly remember all diesel days before Grosmont was reopened.

 

I suspect that you are unlikely to get an answer to this from our "management insider" unless it is completely wrapped up in spin!

 

There wasn’t a steam loco shortage ,it was down to good SMT management re the weather and the unfortunate location of the railway near SSSIs,but everyone’s ignoring what he’s saying !

His comments just highlight why NYMR is in its current situation .

 

Just spending a pleasant morning volunteering as a German Spy for the GWSR schools war time experience. Sorry to disappoint but despite my new found ability to unearth secrets I’m no longer by any description a management insider.

 

As Tom suggested even if Steam had been available it would have been wrong to use it in times of extreme fire risk although other posters have acknowledged that the NYMR was still able to run some steam when other railways were diesel only. Just for clarification it’s not just that the railway is near SSSI’s but substantial parts of its trackbed and lineside are designated SSSI’s in their own right.

 

Even if some of us find some of your arguments unconvincing, I for one am grateful that you are back here presenting them. A bit more transparency from those who remain on the management team would be extremely welcome but seems extremely unlikely.

 

Regardless of SSSI designations, I agree in principle with this. What I find harder to follow is how that position reconciles with the railway's use of steam, especially Tornado, before the weather changed. The impression left, fairly or otherwise, is that weather was being used as an excuse for not operating steam in late summer, unless steam was actually available.

There is unlikely to be agreement on the ultimate truth on this thread. However, what it does demonstrate - again - is the importance of clear and consistent communications in conjunction with a realistic plan.

 

With services advertised to be hauled by a celebrity guest locomotive there’s a different commercial dynamic in play. For “ordinary” steam hauled services it’s possible to substitute diesel especially where the option to do that is made clear beforehand. For services behind a locomotive like Tornado passengers are booking for a specific experience not just a train ride. If that can’t be delivered the right to a refund enshrined in Consumer Rights legislation is much stronger. Exclusion clauses in terms and conditions are likely to be ineffective if challenged. Consequently there’s a much greater financial incentive to use whatever risk mitigation is available ( such as lineside fire patrols) so the railway can supply the experience customers have paid for.

 

So normal trains can't run because of the SSSI, but if a celeb loco turns up then all the nice words about responsibility and the SSSI go out the window?

If it's possible to run Tornado by using mitigation measures then why couldn't normal trains run using this method?

Something doesn't make sense here...

 

If I'm honest, that's not a very comforting answer. It suggests, slightly to my surprise, that absolute safety decisions are actually subjective, relative, and determined by revenue. It also omits the minor issues that a) diesel substitution is known to reduce custom and b) that the impact of no-shows (as distinct from demands for refunds) is also significant.

I would be VERY interested to see the formal risk assessment done before running in the summer, and how the local authorities, remembering the wildfires last year, might have considered it.

Personally, I find the alternative "we have no working steam" far more convincing.

 

Gimme a B
Gimme an Ollocks

 

See my note above about any answers being shrouded in positive spin! It does raise an interesting question: if @Lineisclear resigned as a Trust board member (and before that, though I'm not sure how long ago) as a Plc board member, were all channels of communication between him and the SMT cut off at that point? Moreover, does it imply that the Trust board members were kept just as ignorant of what was happening, and why?

 

Here in Kent we we were unable to run steam on passenger trains for 7 weeks this year thats unprecedented. The main issue was the early harvest which included this year large fields of flax which is combustible (used to make Linseed OIl) and the length of time that the stubble remained. Red Diesel in the quantities likely purchased by heritage railways is 131p/ litre this morning here.

 

It is very difficult to find sense in Lineisclear's replies. He is persistent, I'll give him that but doesn't answer direct questions and just flies off on some tangent, usually legal or regulatory, in an attempt to dodge the issues raised. If he can obscure the issues by irrelevant blether he will.

The alternative "no working steam" is very much the accurate and truthful answer in terms of the regular passenger fleet over late summer. 44806/45428/92134/926 were simultaneously out of service for repairs and LHJC29 the sole steam loco available. As I'm sure you know it struggles on more than load 5. 2253 was nominally in traffic but, as Steve has explained earlier, had few crews passed to drive it.

With his usual "let's create a red herring" attitude Lineisclear raises the spectre of SSSI as a mythical reason not to run and yet n the very next breath tries to suggest NYMR was right in running steam unlike other unamed railways in rather more drought prone southern climes.

Two significant facts are ignored by Lineisclear. SSSIs exist alongside the line because of the conditions, not in spite of the line or threatened by it. Between 1845 and 1965 it was a busy, active steam railway. Since 1973 until recent changes it has again hosted regular steam through every summer season. Clearly any SSSI is an important asset and should survive but the simple fact they remain in co-existence with the railway makes a nonsense of Lineisclears spurious and increasingly pathetic assertions.

The second fact is that the overwhelming majority of all NYMR visitors come expecting steam. Lineisclear suggests only premium "rockstar" services have some special right to get what everyone pays for. The fact that diesel substitution has become a regular and almost ubiquitous policy whatever the weather means that people either turn away at the ticket office or relecuctantly cough up for a non-steam journey which they will inevitably regard as inferior. I will make one positive point on favour of management here, the current promotional video on the Home webpage. It is excellent, varied, scenic, well-judged and hugely positive. It perfectly appeals to the two principle markets the line needs to attract, families and middle aged couples.
I'm sure it encourages custom and is, of course, almost entirely a vision of steam. Compared to what we provide, or what Lineisclear suggests we are obliged to provide, it's no wonder visitors don't come back.

I'm sure the throroughly discredited NYMR managenent are very grateful to him for towing the party line, maintaining the status quo, bending what few facts he can into a warped version of indefensible policies which have brought the line to almost total financial meltdown. Keep Calm and Carry On may be a fine sentiment in wartime and I'm sure he is very convincing in his activities today at the GSWR. He tells us he is posing as a German Spy to entertain school children. I think he'd be equally convincing as their Minister for Propaganda.

 

If non celebrity steam is just as important to the customer who pays for it and believe me it is, past trends tell me it is. Then why should celebrity steam be any different.
You are basically saying one set of customers matter and the others don't.
It's nonsense.

Sawdust.

 

it is basically nonsense, but it is also terrible business practice, which is why I'm baffled that @Lineisclear seems to support/endorse it.

Then again, perhaps they are the new generation of premium customers, as the SMT seems to want, even though they don't seem to be charged more - but there seem to be a lot fewer of them, so perhaps that's why they are attractive to the SMT?

 

I think the general feeling seems to be that fire risk was a convenient cover story for the underlying situation that no steam engines were available and that that was a consequence of one or two factors, lack of people to maintain and/or lack of money to maintain/fuel. I doubt that there will be a confirmation of this whether true or not.

Hypothetically if it were true that fire risk was a cover story then it demonstrates a rather remarkable lack of transparency internally. As an external communication strategy it works only for a very short term.

Coming on top of last year with a degree of flux in the fare structure, the failure to run the advertised service will further damage the brand. And however you dress it up the truth has a habit of getting out.

The message of running Tornado will not have gone unnoticed by the general public. Basically whether true or not it looks like a cost saving exercise if you can run steam when a premium fare has been paid. It completely undermines the fire risk communication.

Now, if the truth of the matter is that the line can only afford to run steam if people will pay a supplement ( Snowdon Mountain railway I think does this and it is pretty common in other countries) then fine. Have that as an offer, but be upfront. Your ticket is for a train hauled by a diesel. If you want to go by steam that’s another x please. It may not be very popular, but it may be where we are heading and it has the advantage of being open and honest. Customers can take it or leave it, but it won’t undermine the brand, and who knows it might (or might not) be a sensible financial move.

The self evident situation at the Moors currently is that the executive team feel “got at” and under great pressure and as a result they’ve done the very worst thing and put up defences. The communication is just not happening. When anything is said at all it is defensive. That’s only going to make matters still worse.

The railway needs someone who can communicate.

 

From what I can see its only in the short term costs that Diesel Loco haulage is cheaper if you took in to account overhaul of a diesel loco and replacement parts over say 50 years which the preservation is past now the costs per mile to the punter would probably be in the same ball park. You can probably offer a DMMU at reduced cost.
Possibly doesnt apply to the Snowdon railway which is a special case.