North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

KWVR Haworth Haddock and now Wensleydale with similar, seem popular.

 

In fairness, I don't read @Lineisclear as saying that - even as discussions of NYMR governance keep coming round to a very strong suspicion that there's an inner circle spanning Trust and PLC which makes that logical leap too easy to make.

It would be interesting to know how the assessment is being conducted, and what views are being solicited to inform the choice.

 

I seem to recall Chris Price, long before he moved to the NYMR and was heavily involved at the Tallylyn, waging a battle there against the catering people who were fighting tooth and nail against the offering of chips in the cafe at Wharf. It's a bit of a pity that he's not still at the NYMR for an encore!

 

Indeed! Steve was clearly suspicious that the decision had already been made by the PLC Board. I just wanted to clarify that as the Trust is the owner of the properties that is where the decision lies.

 

Which is welcome - but in the context of many other discussions on this thread, only answers the formal "which body will make the decision" question, not the "where does the influence that will determine the outcome lie" question. Hence my curiosity about how the review is being conducted.

 

Define "marginal"... In a context where fixed costs predominate, the analysis has to be based on direct costs and not costs loaded with overheads. Those below the line costs really matter, but they very easily confuse the costs of performing an activity and the costs of actually running the organisation.

If fares can reasonably be expected to pay for the consumables used to operate the train, plus the incremental costs (if any) of opening up, and do not incur additional periodical costs (e.g. exams), then the focus should be on drawing cash into the door as the cashflow will be net positive. That is especially true of additional trains on an existing operating day, where they can take expand the income against daily (not mileage) costs that are already being incurred.

My concern would be that there is a standard cost model being used which is based on total cost of operation, and doesn't allow ready analysis of direct costs independent of organisational overheads. From experience, such models can discourage innovation and marginal activity, by inflating the attributed costs far beyond those actually incurred on the day.

I see this at work, where a standard cost model can make additional revenue look like it's unprofitable, but obscure the reality that this is using existing capacity and the costs are only incurred as a result of attributing time to the activity, rather than accepting that it's already largely or even fully covered. Some accountants are better at understanding this than others...

 

Not the only railway that had to fight to get chips on the menu.

 

That would make an excellent question for the Finance Director which you could ask at the AGM but of course you'd need to rejoin first.

 

And that is a brilliant politician's answer

Joking aside, I've no problem with genuinely unremunerative activities being cut - that's a necessary part of any business. My concern is that it is too easy to cut too far, and that NYMR is in danger of following an old BR strategy of raising prices and reducing attractiveness, but without doing the things that will draw more people in. Perhaps a little more of the Chris Green/John Prideaux/Adrian Shooter stardust is required, selling the railway rather than trying to pare things back to a mythical "viable core".

For a range of reasons completely outside NYMR's influence or control, I'll be unlikely to be visit NYMR this year. But if I look at the timetable, and the removal of single fares, I find it very unattractive for precisely the sort of trips I've done in the past - no single fares means walking one way and getting the train back doesn't work, while a classic itinerary (Pickering to Grosmont on the train, then walk back to Goathland and catch the train) now maximises my odds of being in a scrum for the few available seats.

 

That's a pity because if I knew when you might visit I would have welcomed a face to face discusssion. Personally I prefer doing the Rail Trail downhill but as long as it includes a visit to the Birch Hall inn on the way I'm happy

 

If plans evolve, I will be in touch - face to face conversation is always desirable. As it is, I suspect my daughter's field trip to Boggle Hole this week will be the limit of the 35B family trips to North Yorkshire

I have also sent you a private message.

 

Re Fish and Chips.
No mention of the already well established Outlet Cappelmans 50yds around the corner in Market Place.
They take some beating.

 

Surely that should be "They take some battering." Sorry.

 

That may be the case. However, if you don’t offer chips because there’s some competition you are effectively saying ‘go eat elsewhere’ to those with kids who might want chips. I’ve said it before: ‘Provide what your customers want, not what you want your customers to have. ‘

 

Quite! So if customers are indicating what they want is a tourist trip to the seaside and back why should we do see so much pressure to persuade them to stay on the railway as we would prefer?

 

Within reason, the customers should be able to do what they want to do, whether it includes going to Whitby or one of the intermediate stations. That includes purchasing single tickets, by the way.

 

Does that not worry you? If the NYMR can only attract people who simply want to use it as a transport corridor and there is no viable other business, doesn’t that rather suggest that radical simplification is the only viable option. No more museum ambition, forget providing an inclusive day out on the railway. Close all but one intermediate passing loop and operate only Pickering to Whitby. Close the intermediate stations (or reduce to request halts), eliminate as much signalling as possible. Reduce steam loco fleet to 3 with the objective of running one “premium fare” steam service each day and the rest with diesels.
That seems to be a very narrow ambition indeed and without much resilience to changes in circumstance, though it would be a model not dissimilar to several of the American tourist lines, it is a very different thing. Surely the railway can do more/better?

 

US lines tend to be out and back affairs and trains are operated according to demand, ensuring that most,if not all, seats have bums on them. Paul Lewin looked at this method of operation and decided it would be good for the Ffestiniog. He gave a presentation at a HRA conference on these lines and suggested that would be the future for heritage railways. The basic philosophy is ensuring as many seats as possible have those bums on them and railways aren’t dragging empty seats around. It works if your operation is simply out and back and that’s what your customers want but, if you have intermediate destinations and people who don’t want to return on the same train, the idea starts to fall apart.
I think the NYMR would like to adopt the Lewin philosophy.