North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

You're right Steve that like any responsible employer the NYMR should be concerned about the livelihoods of those that have committed to work for it. It is a significant local employer , and as a result a substantial supporter of the local economy ( something that has weighed in its favour so far as grant support is concerned). Important though that may be the main reason is that there is no easy way to further reduce paid staff numbers without affecting the railway's ability to operate safely at its currrent size and scale. If it was as easy as some of the critics suggest ( "just fire a few managers") why would anyone imagine that relatively easy path hadn't been followed? There has been a recent reduction in headcount but the reason for not going further is not just concern for those involved; it's recognition that the consequences would be deeply unpleasant. There's a determination not to admit defeat and continue operating the whole railway. That depends on both volunteer committent and support and the continued contribution of paid staff.

 

I'd suggest that across the heritage railway movement there's a long history of contractual liability for repairs unsupported by accrued funds. I believe one railway has multi million £'s worth of such contracts for locomotive overhauls alone. The contract with LNERCA was signed in good faith in a different era when material and engineering costs were a fraction of what they are today. Both parties have struggled to make it work. Sadly, it no longer makes economic sense. The challenge is to find an alternative that does.

 

If everyone else has the issue then that makes it alright then. I know that isn’t what you meant, but it really doesn’t do to deflect from this issue in that way. Yes, there are many liabilities that are not properly funded. But I think we get to the nub of the problem here. These carriages are right now expensive and the NYMR needs to find the money ( or a substantial part of it). There are limited opportunities to make use of them, and though they could well be attractive to visitors (who might not want to travel to
Whitby) and fulfil a charitable purpose as well, the expense is too great.

I think the remaining questions for me are:
- What has been done to assess what incremental revenue they could bring
- Why can there not be an appeal for funds to repair?
- What services does the railway expect to be able to run the DMU on?
- If those are the same “service slots” that would possibly have been used for the Teaks why do you think that the overall benefit will be greater using them DMU? Or is it only that the risk is felt to be lower because the expenditure is less?

 

I know the Autocar is different, but during the last February half term when running a mix of Autocar Grosmont to Goathland and steam Whitby to Goathland that (even when the steam ran as steam throughout, rather than part diesel), depending on the timetable, hoardes of passengers on the train from Whitby would disembark at Grosmont to join the Autocar running 15 minutes behind, leaving the steam train to Goathland running relatively empty. I’m sure some of these passengers were specifically wanting to travel on the Autocar for its aesthetic appeal but equally I’m sure quite a few were wanting to travel on the Autocar rather than the steam train simply for the panoramic views it offered from the main driving coach. I’m sure some passengers will equally want to travel on the DMU for the same reason.

I do think some of the best views on the NYMR are forward and backward as the train negotiates the many curves, particularly through the Newton Dale gorge, rather than simply sideways from a normal coach. It would be interesting if a passenger survey could actually be undertaken of those using the Autocar against a local hauled service on the Sundays when the Autocar is actually operating. How many would come simply to travel behind the Autocar and why (for the views or heritage ride, or disappointed not steam, or couldn’t care less - simply a means of transport from A to B).

 

Why no appeal to members or the public then? An appeal might allow for a number of carriages to be repaired and while the repairs are taking place a scheme for use could be put in place. You’ve mentioned several times about the “challenge” of finding appropriate uses for the tracks, but you’ve never mentioned that the challenge had ever actually been looked at. Has the railway ever formed a group (including the LNERCA and other NYMR interested parties) to really look at the problem and come up with solutions?
Everything you’ve said on here indicates that the teaks are in the “too hard” category and are being forgotten about.

You mention that it’s impossible to reduce staff numbers any further, but I would ask how does the GWSR, SVR etc survive with less staff and similar line length?

 

@Sidmouth4me Great. Someone should Go and collect some data. Compare it to data about who might use the Teaks. Then there is the basis for a decision. The Moors management might of done this, but knowing railways as I do I suspect they are going on gut feel and extrapolation of vaguely applicable data - a bit like us here. That won’t do in the modern context where money is tight, likely to remain so for a while.

 

I did not mean to suggest running as many as possible. My questions were in response to a statement somewhere upthread that one constraint on possible use of the teaks is availability of paths in between the Whitby services.

Anything to promote (profitable) travel between Pickering and Grosmont could both help to balance the books and contribute to fulfilling the charitable purposes.

 

Not sure that you are right in one assumption at least:

I’m sure some of these passengers were specifically wanting to travel on the Autocar for its aesthetic appeal but equally I’m sure quite a few were wanting to travel on the Autocar rather than the steam train simply for the panoramic views it offered from the main driving coach. I’m sure some passengers will equally want to travel on the DMU for the same reason.

I don't think anyone would suggest that most people are likely to want to travel in a DMU for its aesthetic appeal! Maybe some will want and appreciate the panoramic views, indeed they would have appreciate the GNR saloon (now overhauled and modified to become an observation saloon with increased seating capacity , at the LNERCA's expense and would have paid a premium for it) but they are unlikely to get the opportunity in the foreseable future. It will be interesting to see whether the Autocar and trailer will continue to remain an attraction whilst they are on the NYMR, or if the novelty will wear off. Past experience suggests that there is a place for the DMU, but past experience also suggests that previous examples were not particularly reliable, and with only a single example there is no back-up.

 

I think that a responsible management would have gone all out to avoid taking on all those staff in the first place! And as for looking for answers, the NYMR management (PLC Board, Trust Board and paid management) don't seem to have asked for any input or suggestions from anyone outside their charmed circle (as far as I can tell). "Stay out of it, we know best" seems to be the prevailing attitude, but whilst money is tight it costs nothing to make a plan to improve things when circumstances permit - so why is that not being done and involving all the active volunteers?

 

I also volunteer on the GWSR and I think it's fair to say it benefits from a very different local demographic. Following its recent reduction in staff numbers I believe the SVR ( which including operations to Whitby is around nine miles shorter than the NYMR) still has a similar number of paid staff to the NYMR's total.

 

The slots which the DMU can utilise are exactly the same as those for the teaks.
With regard to the agreements for the teaks, I believe (but aren't certain) that the agreement puts the onus on the NYMR to maintain the mechanical bits of the running gear and the LNERCA to maintain the coach bodies. As usual, the railway has left things until the wheel tyres are no longer fit for use, amongst other things. This is not unusual, though as the railway has form in this. The original DMU's (the Gloucesters) were run into the ground then got rid of; the original Cl.101 DMU, bought by donations, was also run into the ground and cast aside. The present Cl.101 is privately owned but has been similarly run until substantial repairs are needed. Fortunately, an agreement appears to have been reached with the owners to solve the problem but I'm sure that, given time, the same will happen again. The only locos that seem to continue in service year after year are those with an owning group to look after them, such as NELPG and the ELS.

 

SVR 16 miles
NYMR 17.90 miles (the part responsible for maintaining ) not 18 1/2.
Whitby NR )6.30 miles

Should a responsible employer be ensuring the short term employment of all its staff and continue to run up unsustainable losses or reduce staff levels ,ensure its future and the long term employment of less employees?

is the railway still employing trolley dollies etc ?

 

As I said that's an option but the future railway would be a shadow of what it is today.

 

I've often heard people make the point that a benefit of a DMU is the view out of the front window. What is rarely mentioned is that realistically only the a handful at most of the passengers can actually get that view; for every one else it is side windows just as on a normal carriage.

As for comparing the DMU to the NER Autocar: I'd suggest chalk and cheese in terms of their attractiveness. I'm not a diesel fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I'd make a special visit to ride in that vehicle if it ever came down south. I wouldn't to ride in any form of post war DMU.

(Generally speaking, my visits to other railways tend to start by looking at the coaching stock: pre-nationalisation is a definite draw, and where a railway runs a mixture, I would plan visits around the pre-nationalisation carriages).

Tom

 

I take it from that comment, and others in this sub-thread, that therefore your view is:

1. The railway is financially sustainable with existing staff costs and
2. It is not operationally sustainable without the existing levels of paid staffing?

Is that a fair summary of your position?

Tom

 

Sorry, I didn't respond to your trolley dollies question.

It's a neat illustration of the challenge. With the revised Gift Aid arrangement this year involving 15% vouchers it's all the more important that there are on train opportunities to spend them. Ideally that would mean volunteers staffing the trolleys or buffet facilities. As has been mentioned many times their part time nature means that around five are needed to provide the same dependable presence as one employee . Of course recruiting that number of volunteers should be the aim but what if they don't come forward? Is it better to not have on train catering or to employ people to ensure that element of customer service is provided? Obviously employing people to deliver that service is less profitable, especially following the recent budget, but isn't that better than no service?

 

Attention has been drawn to the positive 400K of income from gift-aided ticketing, what hasn't been pointed out is that the anticipated loss last year of around 400-500K seems likely to be similar to the previous years loss, and came about despite the gift-aid money, and all the cost cutting and savings that have been taking place. A lot of questions arise. Does the NYMR have a catering manager, and what do they do? Clearly, organising an open catering facility at Goathland for the half term workings of the Autocar appears to have eluded them, despite the management being "delighted" or "excited" (their two favourite expressions of satisfaction) with these services - a basic error, and much needed revenue lost, I suggest.

 

I suggest that's too simplistic Tom. Number 2 is undoubtedly correct which is the key issue. The question then is how can it be made financially and operationally sustainable in its present form? The answer is only with substantial additional and profitable sources of income.

 

That's wrong, I feel. The simple answer is that the NYMR is not currently sustainable in its present form, therefore all options have to be addressed in reducing its cost base and timetables to a level that are sustainable, and all areas need to be addressed but you have already dismissed the option of reducing the largest single area of costs! Rather, the management should be, inter alia, exploring how much more its volunteers are willing and able to take on and allow the paid staff to be reduced. Isn't it about time someone asked them? As I have said previously, for example there are extra costs in running steam locos to Whitby, so if it isn't possible to abandon running to Whitby, how about running diesel only and carrying out and engine change at Grosmont on Whitby services? The would require only one diesel loco per day and if, as we all assume, diesels are cheaper to operate, could allow a slight reduction in the through fare to make it more attractive. It might also allow one less steam engine to be needed each day (I'm sure Steve will let us know if I'm wrong!)

 

90 at SVR, 150 at NYMR according to last set of accounts. But the previous year SVR were 157 and NYMR 134. The loss of SVR staff appears to be mainly down to fewer casual staff.

To be honest, I'd expect the SVR to have more staff - compared to the NYMR it has more locos, both steam and diesel, more rolling stock, more stations, more catering facilities. Yes, the route mileage is less, but that's only a tiny fraction of the costs.