North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

The long drive (presume that 400 miles is the round trip distance as it it only 280miles one way for me from Salisbury) seems to have helped to anchor you to your hobbyhorses! I am not convinced that heritage railways are inherently incapable of funding their serves from their trading revenue supplemented by member's donations, which you seem to dismiss - but how much did the match funding appeal for the Great Yorkshire Journey contribute by way of matched funding cash? I suggest that it's not the "Tom Rolt business model" that is failing, rather it is the commercial management of the railway. It is largely the post-Benham years at the NYMR when things have gone down the drain, and although there have been extenuating circumstances in that time, at the same time the NYMR has benefitted from some very substantial grants that were supposed to alleviate them, and all the signs to an outsider suggest that they have been squandered opportunities that have worked well elsewhere have been abandoned at the NYMR - Wartime Weekend, Train of Lights etc. - and not been replaced I have no problem with abbreviated running weeks (I suggested exactly the same over 10years ago when Steven Hogg was the Finance Director) but it really is time to replace any cuts with something designed to be more profitable. I think it is possible to trade a way out of the current position, but someone needs to be thinking about how to make the railway run more profitably when it does run. Reducing costs is only half the equation, but not attention seems to be being given to the other half of it! A former bank manager has told me that he thinks the NYMR may be insolvent by this time next year unless things improve and he may well be right. Brace yourself for a rocky and bruising AGM this year, when I expect some searching questions to be asked.

 

It's difficult to make worthwhile suggestions because passenger numbers and footfall at stations remains a subject only known to the privileged few. Before trains went to Whitby, trains arriving at Grosmont would dump 300+ passengers on the platform and anyone who's been there will know there's not much to do and little competition for that secondary spend. With trains to Whitby, relatively few get off arriving trains and those terminating there don't carry large passenger numbers.
Unlike 60044 I'm against abandoning Whitby whilst ever it lures people to take the train. It would require a huge injection of capital to provide sufficient of interest for visitors to see and do and encourage them to visit the railway and probably significantly more people. I don't really think that's do-able.

 

£400K of Gift Aid is not to be sniffed at but I do wonder if the true situation is that it has reduced income substantially. £400K at the current ticket price is a bit less than 10,000 passengers. How many of our passengers are reasonably regular, travelling twice or more each year. Several posters on here have suggested that it has saved them a good bit of money in only having to pay once. Anecdotal evidence suggests that a good number of people are utilising the ticket to travel more than once. Kids go free is another give away that hits the bottom line. It's great for large families but should the railway be subsidising them? I have four children and, when they were young, I simply accepted that it was going to cost me and paid up the entrance fee.
I think the fact that the 12 month ticket has been abandoned tells people that it's been a significant own goal. Unfortunately, it is an own goal that is going to continue to be scored for virtually another year. It's not as if it wasn't seen by many of those involved with the Railway. However, yet again the facts remain a closely guarded secret.

 

As per previous posts, because moving from a 7 day to 5 day operation will probably mean there will be no spare capacity to accommodate gift aid returnees using their annual pass. However, hopefully the 10% donation plus 15% voucher gift aid model will prove as successful as the 12 month annual pass.

 

I note the clarification, and understand the reluctance of members to contribute to things they don't deem of value. With my church hat on, this reminds me a lot of legacies to Fabric Fund to bypass the General Fund.

However, I disagree with the answer to that. Specifically to NYMR, the role of paid staff is sensitive - but I suggest that the inability of leaders over some time to convince members of the need for so many paid staff and such a high proportion of revenue being devoted to paybill raises more important questions than how to avoid such awkward so & sos being able to be awkward. More generally, I take the view that if a support charity is genuinely to support the operating company, those objects need to include provision to bear load when that company is under strain; something that wise trustees have long been able to find ways to do. Likewise, for individual donors, the answer (and it can never be marked "done") is to continually reinforce the importance of keeping things going, and that this is as much part of their support of the railway as the "interesting" projects.

 

Re gift aid, I think a fundamental difference between the NYMR and Beamish is that Beamish has infinite capacity to accommodate annual pass returnees and that secondary spend is effectively captured on site.

 

I'd be very interested to see the maths behind that, because it is an extremely counter-intuitive proposition when assessed in the round.

 

If, as you say, there's no spare capacity because of moving to a 5 day week, what is going to happen to the thousands of people who took out gift aid in 2024 wanting their second, third, fourth and more journeys? Foot and shoot seem to be appropriate words.

 

Two thoughts occur here, beyond the obvious. The first is a question of what contract has been entered into for this donation. The second is to do with what HM Inspector of Taxes may feel about constraints being put on the ability of donors to benefit from their rights.

I suspect both are eminently soluble, and that the capacity constraints suggested by @Sidmouth4me are not nearly as intense as proposed. However, they are points that I trust have been considered properly as part of the decision making process.

 

Or like the SVR for a year ,a voucher for one free return day not valid at galas etc .

afraid you’ve been brainwashed by Park Street if you expect the majority of customers will go through all the gift aid waffle a pay a surcharge to get a voucher for money off a rancid ,overpriced ,cup of tea or coffee rather than free return visits .

 

You’ve got to be careful praying Tom Rolt in aid - especially with any idea of a ‘model’.
He was rather of the opinion that the UK wasn’t big enough for multiple volunteer led preserved railways.

I’d lay (even as an interested TRPS member) reasonable odds that the ‘Tom Rolt model’ will see the Talyllyn through when everyone else has closed or gone professional.


Which, oddly, would vindicate him….

 

Looking at the accounts I see there was a 15% profit in 2019. Accounting for inflation, 2023/4 should have a turnover of 8,378,000 or thereabouts to keep pace with inflation, but the turnover was 7,898,000. So roughly 400k short.
I notice there's a charge (29/08/24) on the plc assets by the bank. Its not good.
The plc directors seem to have a mix of heritage and railway experience but is balance effective, are there enough time served operators and engineers? NYMR is not English Heritage. Are the trustees equipped with sufficient experience? There's a huge amount of experience in past trustees, many have retired, but are the present bunch as effective?

 

Like the FR, the TR is run by dedicated enthusiasts. Like you, I think they’ll be around for a good while yet.

 

Personal experience suggests that reducing the number of operating days does not concentrate the same number of visitors on the remaining services. Some proportion simply don’t travel at all. Let’s hope that the handy trick of losing fewer fares than the cost savings is achieved or a bad situation might look worse soon.

 

We’ve gone up various branch lines in our discussions on the NYMR. Let’s bring it back to the main line and the real problem and that is the fact that the current wage bill is unsustainable.

 

Which brings us round to three questions:
1. How is revenue increased to make it sustainable
2. How can volunteering be increased to reduce the need to spend money on staff
3. What it means if (1) and (2) can't be sufficiently delivered.

For many reasons, I think (1) and (2) should be the focus, but (3) is a very dangerous subject for an open forum given the potential effect on peoples' lives.

 

The wage bill is certainly larger. £190,000 in pay offs in 2023/4, why?

How were Thursday and Friday chosen as the closed days? Monday would seem to be an obvious choice and one that could be sustained throughout the season.

 

I would agree that Monday would be a more obvious choice compared with Thursday.

 

I think that is just another sweeping generalisation. The NYMR is appealing for £150K or so, I think, to complete the overhaul of 75029 and I'm willing to bet that not all of that will be for materials, there will a proportion of it going on wages to shed staff who there is already a commitment to pay, and I think that most people who contribute will understand that. Where there might be more reluctance would be to help pay for year round salaries to those who are less than fully occupied in the winter in their nominal roles, for example - in other words I think that if the management are looking for financial support they have to be prepared to deliver a credible response, and to be able to show that good value is being given in response.

 

Seven of the eleven trustees are recent appointments. Only three predate 2020.
Is that wise?