North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

It is indeed an interesting question but of course not one unique to heritage railways. It applies to any service provider where the charge for the service can be Gift Aided because the 2015 Act applies to all service provison unless specifically excluded.

 

That’s your view and you’re entitled to hold it, but other informed views see this as a rather unhelpful potential precedent and one which it is far from clear was actually required. I do hope that it isn’t a policy that you or others come to regret.

 

The passenger numbers have been mentioned several times in recent posts, without comment from @Lineisclear
Perhaps he would be good enough to explain why the numbers are no longer published?

 

A genuine invitation to log on to the NYMR web site, search against Terms and Conditions snd then look at what the General T&C's say about expectations of adherence to timetables on a heritage railway (as distinct from national network travel) and the circumstances in which compensation or refunds might be appropriate. There's also clarification of the way those will operate for the "Annual Pass" and confirmation that the NYMR will recognise the consumer's right to involve an accredited ADR service provider as all similar operators are obliged to do. I'd be interetsed in how the levels compare with those in the MHR terms and conditions and how they are seen a setting an undesirable precedent unless the collective view is that heritage railways should ignore the Consumer Rights Act?

 

As Bob Geldoff might have said - answer the ******* question!

 

My reply was very obviously in response to 21B's post. Data on passenger numbers should be available for members in due course.

 

Possibly. But my experience of working with commercial and contract law is that there’s rarely only one way to get to an outcome. Without suggesting that NYMR are wrong, it feels presumptuous to suggest that what has been done is the right way to obey that law.

What interests me in the comparison between the two railways mentioned here (and I’ve yet to read both on a suitable screen for comparing) is that they are both proceeding individually, trying to navigate a piece of law that leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

That makes the role of precedent important, and surprises me that the industry trade body doesn’t appear to have a point of view that members can use as a framework.

 

It’s very binary for you isn’t it? Your way is the only way and everyone else is wrong.

 

As I said it’s a genuine enquiry as to how the MHR and other railways address the issue.

 

I don’t speak for the MHR. I picked that set of T and Cs because they’re the ones with which I am most familiar.

 

As far as I can see the Act encourages the consumer and the organisation to reach agreement as to an outcome before someone like the Rail Ombudsman would get involved. I’ve never heard of a heritage rail case going to the rail ombudsman. One would hope in most instances that an amicable solution be found due to the relatively low amount of money at stake.

As heritage railways are generally not modes of transport (despite VAT treatment..) then passengers don’t really have an expectation of travelling from A to B by a certain time which must be an influencing factor for compensation on the big railway.

 

And this is where I have some sympathy for the objective being sought by @Lineisclear - a documented treatment can be a good way to mitigate losses by sidestepping the costs of a dispute.

IANAL but I do wonder whether, given the concerns over how a form of ADR might operate, whether any treatment that formally and explicitly limits liability would then stand up. At which point, as an operator, my sympathy tends towards the approach outlined by @21B as an exercise in fair risk management.

 

All this discussion about terms and conditions is interesting but, like most fine print is irrelevant to everyday reality! I'd like to return to reality, having just had a phone call from a fellow concerned member, who I believe is a former bank manager. He has pointed out that from previous accounts and what we suspect this years loss will be, the railway has lost around £2M in the last three years (I'm taking his estimate on that but even if the assessment is not quite right it is an eyewatering sum) and many of us supporters are not convinced that the level of fares this year are going to induce enough of a turnaround to reverse that trend - or even halt it - and if we don't see that happening we must all be very concerned

 

I thought the Rail Ombudsman always tended to side with the TOC. It was pointed out elsewhere that their published guidance during Storm Darragh disruption for example actually contradicted UK Consumer Law.

 

It’s by no means universal but in keeping with the financially stressed situation facing a number of other players in the sector. At least one large railway reported not so long ago that it faced a serious risk of collapse. Of course we are all concerned. It’s an incredibly challenging situation but the decision to reduce operating days and services should eliminate the annual deficit and create a firm foundation for the future.

 

We shall see in due course, but until I see real evidence of a much more aggressive marketing campaign I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. Dropping down to a cut back level of service is not likely to bring more customers to the line and I'm not overhopeful about the visits of the NER Autocar, 60007 and45596, 60007 because it has been several times previously and the other two because whilst they may attract enthusiasts they have little or no attraction to the general public. Until the NYMR has an SMT that can organise and promote mass attraction events I can't see any room for optimism.

 

It is not all about bums on seats (as many defunct airlines can testify to). It is about getting the level of service right at a price people are prepared to pay that makes a profit.
It may be the wrong strategy, but I remain unconvinced that just "adding more" will work either. The location is not like a Bluebell or an MHR where there is lots of habitatio with an hours drive or train ride.

 

Perhaps you have the honour of being the ultimate pessimist as far as the NYMR is concerned. Some of have more faith in the future.

 

It's not about one thing or the other, its about having an attractive combination! The NYMR is in a heavily patronised tourist area which is busy from Easter till the end of October and there are different target groups of people at different times who need to be attracted in different ways at different Nor is it quite the windblown outpost that you seem to suggest - I don't think it is much further from Tee-side or Leeds than the MHR is from Portsmouth, for example. The NYMR needs to fill more of the empty seats at prices that are profitable but also affordable, and that there seems to be a strong feeling among volunteer that it was too expensive last year. If that was the case it's unlikely to be much more attractive this year.

 

Are all the whole of the SMT supplied by the same optician with heavily rose tinted glasses? Perhaps you should supply me with his address! After three successive years of post-covid failures I think have good reason to be less than optimistic when I don't see much other than cutbacks being used to improve the position, and I've explained why. Does the SMT seriously believe that thee visits of 60007 and 45596 will be transformational events? If they are not, what else are they doing that is transformational? Cutting back services will save coal and oil, but what else?