North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

How long would works on the scale of Bridge 42 usually take? Less than 3 months (if they plan to reopen fully in time for easter) sounds quick.

 

I doubt the bridge will be tackled. I thought work would be late 2027 for completion in 2028.
It may be work on platform 4 at Grosmont and signalling for the NR connection will be this winter.

 

I assume the line is shut now north of Goathland until Easter, so that gives them over 5 months to carry out the work. It's not going to be a quick job, especially not in the middle of potentially a very cold, snowy winter.

Whether they can afford it is another matter...

 

I've been told they are waiting for the result of a grant application, and if it comes through fairly soon the work will at least be started this winter - that could save another year of having to hire the props. A lot of the pway work needed is ballasting and tamping, which ought to be reasonably inexpensive cost of ballast mostly, and not starting from scratch, and the paid pway staff are at a minimum and being paid anyway.

 

Going from my admittedly now-dim memories of what was outlined in the planning application for the work, it would to some degree depend on how big a crew was put onto the job; i.e. how much money they wanted to spend. I don't know enough about that kind of work to have a reliable sense of how to go from what was outlined in the planning application, to 'how long it would take'. Putting the propping up took, IIRC, several weeks; going from that, my guess for the repairs would be a month or two (depending on crew size).

Noel

 

For one of the biggest heritage railways relying on grants to complete the works rings alarm bells. We are all maintaining ageing infrastructure and should be putting money aside.

 

With some of us the alarm bells have been ringing for a few years now.

 

..... but some railways have more infrastructure than others! Actually, I think the NYMR has a pretty good record compared to many other lines Several bridges replaced with good grant support, and quite a high proportion of the track replaced - it is only in recent times that it has slipped, and I think that can really be tied to a SMT that really doesn't appreciate the need to spend as much on it as, well, admin staff .......

 

Which does seem to be the case, with the £250,000 operating profit last year only being made possible by a transfer of £500,000 from the trust.

 

First financial rule for a business; "never use your money when you can use someone else's".

 

I know both of you have in depth NYMR knowledge but others who don't might gain the wrong impression re the £500k transfer.

There was no operating profit in the last financial year (to Feb 2026) and although the accounts suggest otherwise they are a fiction. The £500k transferred from Trust to PLC simply disguised an operating loss as in previous years. Also there was no Trustee surplus to subsidise the transfer - it was conjured up from loans which will sooner or later need to be repaid.

Far from a surplus the Trust accounts shows a negative "free reserves" deficit of over £3 million and still going in the wrong direction. Those lending sums to the Trust (principally Santander) do so on the basis of assets owned by the Trust but mortgaged as security to those lenders. This isn't an unusual arrangement but where the NYMR is concerned those assets are vital to run the business from. In blunt terms if the bank gets cold feet and calls in the loans then vital assets would have to be sold off, hopefully the Park Street offices first.

Bank of England base rate is now 4% and likely to rise further and, although the PLC don't disclose the actual rate being charged you can bet your bottom dollar it is significantly higher than base rate. Hypothetical I know but 6% on £3 million is £180,000 in interest alone every 12 months, and that's without paying off any actual debts, which have increased further this financial year due to poor management.

Like Pete and others I agree that there is nothing wrong in seeking grants to meet specific projects and very welcome they are too. However the spend now - pay later policies adopted by the CEO and crew has clearly reached the end of the road, together with their credibilty.

I genuinely hope and believe the new Trustee Chairman can reverse the stupidities of recent years and dispose of those responsible.

 

I think in real term you are right, though at a technical accountancy level if the plc receives a grant from a trust (any trust) then that is a direct impact on the profit and loss, and may well turn a loss into profit. So in accountancy terms it is correct, though I think it would be normal in the explanatory notes to explain the transfer and state that the income after "extraordinary items" was a loss.

Tom

 

As much to the point, I'm curious as to why (a) the Trust felt it necessary to donate money that would put the PLC into a surplus, and (b) if this related to the timing of grants, why the matching principle wasn't applied to defer recognition of at least some of that transfer until the associated costs were incurred (or if for a backlog, recognition of those costs deferred until the income received).

 

Indeed the NYMR has been replacing bridges since the 1970s and the Esk Valley viaduct had the arches re waterproofed in the 80s. It's since bridge 30 that external funding has been sort.

Sawdust.

 

Bridge 30 was by far the longest bridge replacement carried out by the NYMR and replaced a wrought iron bridge with a steel and concrete one; quite a significant job and was well executed by Nigel Trotter and his team. It got into trouble with Bridges 24 & 25, done with grant funding several years ago but they still have a 5 mph speed limit over them due to problems with track alignment.

 

Which, I have heard on a reliable grapevine, was the real reason for the withdrawal of the teak carriages, due to the damage being caused by the track there.

 

Which is similar to what I’ve heard.