North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

As usual, you hone in a particular point that is really only part of the story, and ignore the rest where I'm suggesting the real opportunity to broaden the scope of interest and attractiveness to the general viewer lies: the "....steam railway as a catalyst for the rapid expansion of the Industrial Revolution and a foundation of modern societies and economies." Arguably, Beamish et al. are more stable attractions because they offer, by showing and demonstrating, a broader range of activities than the NYMR does but why does that have to be the case? Why not have a go at answering this straightforward question in a direct and straightforward way?

 

I simply responded to the specific purpose you highlighted. I agree that there's potential to develop and broaden the experiences on offer . That may well be part of the essential objective of attracting new visitors for whom a traditional heritage railway has little or no appeal

 

I agree that there's potential, and taht it may be part of broadening the appeal. However, as a statement by a trustee of the charity, it feels the wrong way round - the charitable purposes are not there to justify the commercial performance, but should drive what is done commercially.

It's this question of perspective that underlies various of the discussions around the NYMR, and how it does/should operate - it feels as though it's being managed as a business, with P&L performance taking precedence over delivery of its charitable purposes, whereas those charitable purposes should be driving what it offers to the public, and how. The use of the teak set is a classic example - my perspective is that operation of these carriages is not a luxury, but a core means of delivering on the NYMRHT's charitable objectives, because they are a key item supporting the delivery of that objective.

 

Interesting. I'd forgotten that but it was before I had anything to do with rostering and diagrams so nothing much on the PC to refer to. Was this when through ticketing was available so passengers could change trains at Grosmont?

 

I think you can find a good number of railways where run-and-restore agreements have resulted in stock "awaiting overhaul" once extensive repairs are needed. In many cases , as has been pointed out , it is those items of stock where the supporting group is able to subsidise the repairs that get done

Jon

 

And I guess in many ways that it is it a nutshell and maybe the railway should not be a charity. The big lines have become a business and whilst recently we have had debates around the WSR, the Wareham link at Swanage, reduced timetable on the SVR, now the NYMR it all sort of come down to the fact that the evolution of the sector turned the big lines into a business. Now they are a business that strangely relies on a bunch of people, many who are not working volunteers to put money in for what they perceive as a return (which will be different to everyone), and yes this is a different business model. But if you buy shares in a FTSE 100 company you have no say in how it operates, your motivation is profit, rather than seeing a line or a loco operating.
But all these issues seem to come back, to me, that the movement is not like it was in the 80's and the 90's, which yes was a great time, but I see so many posts on here from people who seem to want their line to go back to that time.
But things have changed, and they were changing long before Covid and the economic situation that has just made things worse. There is little point now about trying to change things to go backwards, be that banging on about a link to Wareham or Pickering being a park and ride for Whitby.
The movement is at where it is at, it may have had some good or some bad decisions along the way, and it is very interesting dissecting those, but at the end of the day it gets you nowhere.
There will be people who are interested in industrial history, but if you have a long line, with associated high operating costs, I very much doubt a £40 or £50 fare will entice them just for "the history".
Personally in 2025 we can talk about learning experiences, history or whatever else but in today's I want everything now society it is about a train ride and mainly a steam one. Be that to Whitby, Minehead or Swanage to get to the seaside or on the mainline for a day out and the fact that there is a diesel on the back is something most do not care about.
As a hobby we are a bunch of dinosaurs waiting for extinction to occur, maybe we can avoid it, but we may also not like the end product.

 

But the strange thing is that (unless I’ve read the LNERCA statement incorrectly), the carriage association is offering to subsidise some of the repair costs but the NYMR is just saying no no no.

 

It's absolutely being run in accordance with normal business principles. A primary duty of the trustees is to ensure the financial viability of the charity. Without that there's no prospect of fulfilling the charitable purposes. Unless P&L performance is treated with the primacy that applies to any business the whole edifice collapses. The teak set can make a valuable contribution to acheiving the charitable purposes but only where the terms of its availability and use are based on sound business principles.

 

We agree on the challenge. We agree on the need to ensure the infrastructure is maintained. Knowing the cost of infrastructure works relative to the likely cost of carriage hire I’m a bit puzzled by that being an either / or decision. I’d have been looking at whether the diagram(s) I could use the Teaks in might have a positive impact on the income or not. Very difficult to measure, but I am even more surprised that money is being spent on a DMU in circumstances where budgets are so tight that infrastructure has to trump the carriages.

If I make so bold a comment my first paragraph may be the embodiment of the is problem and the cause of the disenchantment expressed here and apparently felt on the line (from what people tell me). The story isn't self consistent. Whenever that is the case, and I see it often on my own line too, it leaves room for people to be curious or disbelieving. Create that perception a few times and there is a root of discontent that will grow if not addressed. Just because you and the management know what you mean does not mean that your messages were perceived in the way you intended or conveyed the message you wanted or intended. When times are tough it’s harder to get this right. I have the very strong impression that internal communication may not be working quite as well as you think or would want. It really wants a thorough review of tone and content and frequency.

 

I don't want to see the NYMR return to the 1980s! I want to see it move on to become what it should always have been aspiring to be - a multi-faceted heritage railway that offers a lot more of an all-round day out than being just a ride behind a steam engine to a seaside destination! Perhaps the phrase "immersive experience" conveys it better. I suggest that its not me that has problems moving on or narrow vision, it's those who cannot see the need to broaden the range and scope of what is on offer - those (no names necessary, I feel, but they do appear on here regularly!) who seem to think that getting the platform staff to dress in period costumes will do the trick!

 

Railways have become commercial, but there has to be more to it than that. A genuinely commercial company only has to return value to its shareholders, and can plot any kind of path to do so. (Famously, Nokia, a company so old that when it started Fenchurch was merely a glint in Mr Stroudley's eye, started out in the wood pulp business before diversifying into - erm - mobile phones). But I'd suggest a heritage railway can't do that. If I had to sum it up in one word, I'd say that profitability on its own is no good if you have no soul. There has to be a feeling for staff - paid and volunteer - that says "I'm doing this because together we are creating something very special". You can't achieve that if you endlessly row back from the special things because they are deemed too hard / expensive / operationally awkward.

If I could make a plea to railway managers and directors it would be this: "Yes, we know that if the business fails financially, we no longer have a railway. But if the railway loses its soul, you will only hasten that financial demise of the business".

Heritage railway supporters have proven time and time again that when things are tough, they can collectively move mountains. But only when they feel those mountains are worth moving. From afar, I see a railway where those in charge have lost sight of the soul of the place.

Tom

 

Possibly yes Steve, as I am not sure why the Northern services would have been shown. I do know they honoured our tickets one diesel gala when the NYMR service got "locked in" due to late running...........

 

I agree. I would just define “soul” as being the essence of understanding and giving life to the reality that is that these organisations are first and foremost about people. If you can get the people part right the rest can follow (which doesn’t mean you can stop watching the cashflow etc) but if you cannot get the people part right the railway cannot exist over the medium term

 

I do yearn for the NYMR to return to how it was in the ‘80’s when it was profitable, spent hundreds of thousands on infrastructure and stock and had four steam locos out at peak periods. However, I readily accept that the way of doing it again is not going to be the same.

 

As I understand it, budgets are so tight that spending really is a case of either / or; what is necessary spend to enable the railway to operate in 2025, rather than “nice to have”, is it better to spend x pounds on the running gear of a teak coach that is effectively restricted to one return journey Pickering to Grosmont or the same x pounds be spent on maintaining a Mk1 coach that can make two return journeys per day Pickering to Whitby. Or should that same pound be otherwise spent on track maintenance, which would also help preserve / extend the life of carriage springs, and hence save money in the short term. Or indeed, is even that same x pounds actually available to spend / invest (without being borrowed).

As for spending money on the DMU, personally I think that is a good investment at it will save on the cost of operating a steam engine on an internal service if and when rostered as an alternative, as well as probably be even cheaper to operate even than a diesel hauled train (in terms of fuel consumption etc). Plus the DMU gives one of the best views of the moors, particularly when travelling through the gorge. Indeed, if asked, I’d be more than willing to donate money to a DMU restoration fund (in preference to a kettle) if one were to be set up.

 

In the context of this discussion which was about what could be done to encourage more people to use the railway it seems reasonable to test the idea as to what would add more visitors/please more visitors. We can have many views about this, and we don’t know without testing it by doing or by asking potential customers. However, in several years of running a DMU on the MHR (some years ago so tastes might have changed) we worked out from the traffic figures that the additional people carried was sufficient to cover the fuel bill, but little more. It was worth doing because it entertained the volunteers and some of our customers and didn’t subtract from the railway, but it certainly didn’t attract enough customers to materially add to the finances, which was why we didn’t buy it.

In the context of budgets, it seems unlikely that the carriage hire fee is greater than the DMU overhaul cost. If the hire cost is so much that you can pay for more than a section or two of line to be relaid or that it cannot earn its keep with the fares of travelers then something is wrong.

I can quite understand not wanting to pay money on carriages if things are tight. I can’t get wanting to spend money on a DMU if things are tight. And finally, if you can raise money to overhaul a DMU, then why not raise a (smaller amount I hope) to try running the carriages and see what might be achieved with them?

 

I think most people know that you can’t spend omit twice and that what is spent has to be prioritised, especially when income does not match expenditure. What most people are dissatisfied about is why the railway has got into this situation, the more so because , as you said in post 4977, some trains were full to bursting point. The ticketing fiasco has a lot to do with this but it is not the only thing. The elephant in the room remains the intolerably high wage bill which no one wants to do anything about because it involves people’s lives. Cue @Lineisclear coming on and saying it is similar to other railways. That doesn’t make it right, though. There needs to be a reduction through natural wastage and people multi-tasking to cover those departing. The railway will never be a Spa Valley with no paid staff but it can get much nearer that goal than it presently is.

 

That focusses entirely on the hire cost. That's not the issue . The challenge is the cost of below the sole bar repairs. I haven't got the precise figures to hand but it's quite possible that the amount required is significantly higher than the cost of overhauling the DMU especially when a sizeable chunk of that is being funded by its owners. The NYMR wants to use the teak set. The challenge is to find ways in which the cost of essential repairs can be justified by its incremental revenue earning potential.

 

I was focusing on hire cost as I didn’t know about repair cost. Whose liability is that repair cost though? If it is the railways then more fool them for running up a bill without accruing for it. If it is someone else’s then we are back to which can be raised more easily, since in either case donations are the key? Along with the question of which might earn more incrementally for the railway. DMUs are operationally useful, but not at least in my experience, good revenue generators.