North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

A welcome balanced view and reminder that we are all share a common cause.

 

To @Archivist, I don’t think that it is necessarily fair to expect people to share their names, nor necessary. I have never hidden it from someone who PM’d me, but have also never wanted there to be any doubt that I write only in a personal capacity. For the most part I think this debate has been respectful and deeply interesting. I’m interested in the debate for what it can tell us about how heritage railways might adapt for the future, and the Moors has been quite vocally blazing a new path. It seems reasonable to explore that experience.

@Sidmouth, a good post, but if volunteers have been their own enemy what does this say about the supervision/management? In most organisations if the workers aren’t doing the right things, then that’s often because no one told what to do/not do.

There is a great deal of what @Lineisclear says about the changed circumstances that I absolutely agree with. But we really do have to work out how to take our volunteers with us on the journey. I have a really bad feeling from more than one place that there is a lot of discontent. Far more than is healthy and that it is a bit out of sight. Some of it is unavoidable no doubt, but much of it I feel could be avoided.

 

Final paragraph - nail on head!

 

And that is almost certainly the root of the problem, the leadership at the railway seems to have lost the ability to communicate and engage with the volunteers, there is a growing feeling the the leadership team knows best, just believe us. There is no communicated long term aim, but we cannot continue with running a large operating loss each year and increasing the backlog of maintenance / overhauls (a hidden loss). And if volunteer numbers are dropping what are the railway doing to encourage new volunteers ad retain the existing ones?
John Green

 

Surely the use of an alias encourages impersonal posts? It's a convenient tool but some feel free to hide behind an alias making comments about individuals which might well be actionable and to denigrate and undermine the organisations they profess to support. 21B and others are consistently balanced and constructive but, as Sidmouth pointed out, not everyone observes the same standards. There's something cowardly about attacking individuals or organisations from behind the smokescreen of anonymity.

 

Just a small New Years post to say that once again I've thoroughly enjoyed volunteering at the NYMR for another year to make 13 so far.
I've only managed 41 days this time but that's not a bad number in my mind. (Not including any non-rostered time for which I don't have
a record). There's been challenges from a footplate perspective at times, largely traffic related, but nothing that hasn't been overcome even if the timetable hasn't been quite as originally envisioned.

I also spent an enjoyable day on some small bits for the Vera group (who do organise weekend working parties) in early December
which whilst being a very small group of two owing to the attrocious weather, was productive all the same, right up until high winds
caused a power cut which put an end to things. The other volunteer being one of the many paid staff who will return to work on their
days off to give up their time for free.

I look forward to the welcome return of the MIC classes in the next few weeks, and to the February visit of the NER autocar which
I'm yet to see in the flesh. I've seen the prices for the event on the Website and they seem very reasonable, for 6 trips to Goathland
and 4 of those to/from Whitby, an adult day rover is £25, I truly hope the event is a great success, and even if I'm not lucky enough
to be rostered, I'll definitely be making a visit!

 

It is. But, quite frankly, as a paying customer, I'm looking at it from a perspective of "what am I getting for my money". For similar length drives from here, SVR at £25 vs. NYMR at £49 is not a comparison that benefits NYMR.

 

I wonder when the 2025 timetable will appear, and if less days are operating are less costs going to be the benefit of the switch?

Will for example, all the shops/cafes be shut on none operating days?

 

I'd be more interested in whether the savings from not operating are compensated for by increased revenue on other days, or just reduce the overall income. It's a reasonable option in shoulder season - NYMR are far from alone in doing this - but does potentially reduce the income required to cover the fixed costs of having a railway

 

That's a logical and reasonable response but of course it begs a number of questions. Are heritage railways competing with each other or with other tourist atttactions? It also assumes that £25 is a realistic fare given the costs involved. The example of fares charged by operators of heritage trains over the national network may be a better indicator of the appropriate price point.

 

I don’t think that charter services on NR are a good comparator, because the infrastructure costs are fundamentally different - not least because an occasional steam charter over a route in daily use by other operators is mainly funded by those other operators. Whereas a heritage operator basically has a fixed infrastructure cost that they have to cover from their own resources. At that point it becomes a numbers game with how many passengers you are going to spread that cost over.

As for the SVR - in crude terms, if they can use the lower fare to attract twice as many passengers, they are quids in. The risk in keep raising the fares and cutting the services is that you cut passenger numbers quicker than the rising fares can compensate.

Tom

 

Yes, Tom but if you take Vintage Trains Shakespeare Express no frills fare of £45 as an example ,and accept you point about infrastructure costs, the implication is that many heritage line fares are way too low. I'm not sure that quids in is the term I would use. It would be more like making a small margin on costs.

 

Post 3622 by me was my crude attempt to illustrate this. As I keep saying, it would be interesting to see passenger numbers, both now and in recent years. Ten years ago we were claiming 300.000 a year although, even then the actual figures don't appear to have been published. They must exist.

 

The Shakespeare Express is probably the closest to a HR comparator, but it’s 30miles and speeds much higher than any HR. It’s really very different to any
HR surely? Granted that it is close to the main value proposition of the Moors though. (Posh park and ride). For most railways I don’t see that the comparison with the mainline operation even of the SE help much.

 

But taking your point about the best comparator being other tourist attractions, not just railways - how does £49 stack up against, say, Beamish or Duxford or other whole-day attractions?

Tom

 

You miss my point. I'm focusing on what I'll pay for a day out, considering relative value. I made the comparison between NYMR and SVR because they're like for like (and both ~2 hours drive), but the comparison can be spread wider.

I'm a life member of NT, and have EH membership. That means I'll gladly visit their sites, but resent paying to get in to other similar sites - hence I've been to many NT/EH places, but have still to visit Belvoir Castle or Grimsthorpe, despite their being local.

As a customer, I don't care what it costs to provide the service I buy - but I do care about what I pay. My perceptions of "fair value" may or may not be accurate, but are built based on comparison. £25/head is an (expensive) family day out. £50/head is a top treat. I've just looked at Alton Towers (have teenage kids, so a relevant comparator). I'd pay £68 on the gate for a day there, but can prepay for £29. That's something I'd consider doing once a decade, and as much more special than a heritage railway normal operating day.

Many people dislike "what the market will bear" pricing, thinking it's an excuse to gouge, and expect cost plus instead. Yet this is an example of where what the market will bear demonstrates how dangerous cost plus pricing can be - because it doesn't pay attention to price sensitivity.

That's why I'm interested (my A-level economics and professional experience combining) in how NYMR have analysed market sensitivity. The conclusion I'm drawing from the answers is that the analysis leans towards cost plus, and that there's a low weight been put on price sensitivity. My hunch is strongly that this understates the potential for additional demand at a lower price point which would yield greater overall income.

 

Both are sub-£30, and Beamish is an annual pass.