North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I fully agree. The question, though, is how much reliance can be placed on these as opposed to other markets and where balance lies.

 

Tom ,
You missed out the 4th variable which I highlighted which was that the SNG services involved the sale of special experiences in the form of travel behind a celebrity loco. The other variables are there and should also be part of the lessons learned as I suggested. As a certain highly respected GM of narrow gauge railways has identified the focus should be on minimising the amount of fresh air carried. The near absence of any vacant space on those largely pre-booked services suggests that they may be a better way of achieving that aim than traditional timetabled services.

 

I believe Fox & Edward’s booked at least one coach on each train to market as one of their premium offerings but I don’t know what that was. However, they gave back some seats so that the NYMR could sell them. That tells me that the premium offering wasn’t as popular as had been expected, at least by Fox & Edwards.

 

Even accepting that, you have completely ignored in your conclusions the fact that the service was only 60% of the price of your regular service - which I’d suggest might be a rather significant factor!

To my mind, filling a train with passengers paying £30 is clearly much better than pulling round lots of empty £50 seats. But I’d hesitate in that case to leap to the conclusion that it was inevitably the pre-booking, or the “experience” element that led to the success, while completely ignore the pricing element!

Tom

 

No,Tom, if you check my posts I agreed specifically that All the variables should be taken into account.

 

It seems to me to be a very curious that a "special experience" using an expensive hired in loco at greatly reduced fares was a success! Genius! Who would have thought it! If only someone had thought of working out a way to give a discount on Pickering-Grosmont fares last year - maybe it wouldn't have even been necessary to go to the trouble of digital marketing! I don't know, perhaps even something in the local media could have worked - e.g.:




But, have I mentioned before that no-one at the NYMR seems to even have the wit to look around and see what local competing attractions are doing to boost their figures?

 

Erm ...

Your original post said, in full:

"When something succeeds it would be nonsense not to take note. Essentially the SNG week is evidence of the potential for pre -booked experiences and the benefit, as others have found, of working with third party promoters.
As Steve will no doubt recall from the recent HRA conference the increased use of digital marketing techniques focussed on special experiences was identified as a potential growth area."
​

So where in that post did you say that "all variables should be taken into account"? It certainly looks to me that the lessen you have drawn very strongly is about pre-booked / special experiences, which ignoring the pricing and other elements.

I don't want to be aggressive - but there seems to be a constant disconnect in your posts between what you say, and what you subsequently come back and say you meant!

Tom

 

Quote from my post
“ the other variables are there and should also be part of the lessons learned”

 

I wouldn’t run away with the idea that the FR has found the golden bullet.

In essence what has actually happened is that the service has been hugely scaled back and the old pricing of a full line return applied to partial distance journeys with the longer journeys becoming a premium service. As a result the economics are working a bit better, mileages are reduced and smaller locomotives can be used.

Watching the WHR from my front door as I do, I note that there is often a lot of fresh air on the services, but what has certainly happened is that there has been a reduction in costs, because the available traffic is carried on fewer trains.

This is hardly revolutionary, we were trying to do that on the WLLR in the 1980s. Bums on seats not more trains was the drive. Then and there it didn’t really work because the workshops are at the wrong end of the line for a railway where 65% of the traffic originated at Welshpool. There was more traffic available, but not when we were running the trains and probably not enough to justify a second set most days. Shifting the workshop might have the desired effect, but really the other factor was length of journey.

The FR/WHR is making use of a few factors. A changed set of behaviour from the public being one. Both lines are (at full length) an experience, perhaps for many once in a lifetime. It is only my observation, so highly flawed, but the through trains at Beddgelert don’t seem to carry many families, certainly not with younger children. The older demographic is more prevalent. The shorter services do carry families.

During lockdown people did get used to having to prebook, but I’d be very interested to know what the breakdown is of how far in advance people book. I don’t expect it is that far for the most part.

The vintage trains introduced in the last couple years seem to fill well, and give use to the delightful range of older vehicles. These are at a premium, both for price and availability.

What is the general lesson though? Here I hesitate because what works there will not work everywhere. They have two long railways for a start and offering shorter trips makes a lot of sense as shear length puts some off regardless of price. But they have an opportunity to daily offer services at a greater range of price points than many.

The lesson I take away that is generally applicable is to think about the range of offers, (services or products whichever you prefer) and work out how many different ones can be offered and at what price so as to maximise the potential.

I think the NYMR has a different issue. An unwillingness to experiment with reducing the number of Whitby trains because the roof would cave in. If you were to follow the FR model you might only run all the way through on a couple of days a week, the rest of the time focussing on shorter runs, some which light not go the whole length of the line. But, and this another lesson from N Wales and Hampshire , if you stop at an intermediate point, don’t take the train away. People won’t linger if do. They will immediately want to be back in “their” train. “Curated” visits are great but only work if the train stays with the people. Forget setting up attractions middle of the railway and then working a “transport” like service. It doesn’t work.

 

IMHO, a fundamental difference between the Ffestiniog/Welsh Highland and the NYMR is that the former is undoubtedly the destination. In other words, it is the train ride/scenery that they are visiting for. That is not the case with the NYMR where most passengers are going to a destination, whether it is Whitby or Goathland. This enables the FR to operate in the way it does. I don't think there would be any financial advantage by reducing the number of trains to Whitby except, perhaps on wet weather days but, even with the finest of management, I don't think that can be catered for.
There might be a case for operating a Pickering-Goathland service in between the Whitby trains (using the teak set!) but that has just been shot in the foot by removing the facility to run round trains at Goathland. Hopefully that's temporary but you never know.

 

You would certainly have to think carefully about the possible services, and design some careful experiments. I have little doubt that the solutions will be different than the FR even if informed by them. Really I was just thinking that there wasn’t a lot of sign of careful experiment, and in that the NYMR is with the majority of lines tbh.

 

I thought a bit more about your post. I think you’re right that there are a chunk of customers that want to go to Whitby. But the railway appears not to be financially well off as a result. I don’t know what the costs are of going there as opposed to not going at all, but clearly the revenue hasn’t yielded the returns expected (I think Lineisclear said that a few weeks ago) perhaps partly because costs have risen more than was expected. You would certainly not lose all the traffic if Whitby was no longer offered. You might be able to raise the price on any remaining services. The SNG experience might suggest that a lower price on non Whitby services could be attractive, and there would be more space for these. If such a recasting permitted an overall reduction in cost and maintained the revenue the line would be in a better position. I am a total outsider. I just look at the conversation here and wonder whether a very significant shift isn’t required if the line is to be more viable.

 

I understand Fox and Edward’s booked two carriages, but subsequently “gave back” one carriage to the NYMR for the 29th and 30th services, and that all the remaining seats in the Fox & Edwards coach(s) have effectively sold out (as today, by observation of “their” two coaches). This proves that a premium offering can work. In addition, I suspect another advantage to the NYMR would be many of the Fox & Edwards customers would probably never have travelled on the NYMR before, so are effectively new customers to the railway and who hopefully might make another return to the railway sometime in the future.

 

Having figures to quote is nigh on impossible as they appear to be a closely guarded secret. However, from personal observation the first train off Pickering @ 09.20 loads well, as does the first train off Whitby @ 10.00. The 09.20 then forms the 12.35 ex Whitby which is poorly loaded; indeed it ran as an ECS during the covid period of limited operations. The 10.00 ex Whitby forms the 12.00 ex Pickering and that loads reasonably well. This forms the 14.10 ex Whitby which takes quite a few people who had come in on the 09.20 ex Pickering. The 12.35 ex Whitby forms the 15.10 from Pickering which essentially brings back those who had arrived on the days first train from Whitby and have been exploring Pickering. This train then forms the last train of the day from Whitby at 17.10 and this is often filled to capacity, carrying passengers who had arrived on both the 09.20 & 12.00 ex Pickering. The railway has tried limiting which return train passengers can travel on but this proved to be very unpopular and is not currently pursued (AFAIK).
I actually believe that the last two years of gift aided 12 months tickets have been double edged swords. Firstly, they have allowed the many people who would travel two or three times a year to do so at no extra cost and many to trave level more times. Secondly, the higher price charged to better align with a 12 month ticket has put off a lot of people from travelling, especially those on holiday who would only travel once. Anecdotal evidence from booking office staff says that many people are put off by the high fare and ask for a single ticket with the intention of returning on the parallel Coastliner bus (£2 until this year) but such single tickets were not available, resulting in lost custom. I do believe that a more realistic and more traditional pricing structure would improve passenger numbers rather than the present high and limiting fares structure which appears to be subject to the law of diminishing returns. We have talked about the internal only service between Pickering and Grosmont and better marketing that but you can't buy a return just to do that unless things have changed; it has to be the full length day rover.

 

What about the 'internal' services? What level of traffic do they take?

Sent from my SM-S926B using Tapatalk

 

Of course the 12 month free return ticket allowed those who would anyway have made additional trips to do so and to that extent involved a loss of income. However, critics of the Gift Aid scheme emphasise the negative rather than the positive in the form of a £440k free gift from HMG. Experience showed that only around the forecast 20% made more than one trip with a Gift Aid uptake adding an additional 25% to the fare in the high 70% level. In other words any loss of future sales revenue was massively outweighed by the increased Gift Aided income. The free return model has been dropped this year not because it wasn’t successful but because it’s a harder sell when operating days have been cut back to five days a week to get a better balance between cost and income. Had that not happened I suspect the free return model would have continued.
What the success of SNG week has confirmed is the viability of an out and back experience from one end of the line only with no use of intermediate stations. The high loadings mean that an attractive fare of £30 generates a healthy profit but that doesn’t mean that should be the fare for traditional hop on hop off services over the same distance. Steve suggests other fares are too high and no doubt they will be a deterrent to some. The NYMR is never going to compete on cost with a subsidised Coastliner service. At £49.50 for a 50 mile round trip ( compared to a net £56 + after Gift Aid) its arguable that fares are really too low especially if there is the ability to pay for a single fare leaving half the operating costs of a return journey potentially uncovered.The reply may be that you’re operating return trains anyway so any income is better than nothing. Fair enough but that assumes the model will continue to be one if timetabled services with standard fares.
Gazing into a crystal ball I see heritage railways generally, not just the NYMR, being forced into a different model. The imperative will be high loadings avoiding the unproductive movement of fresh air. In parallel with digital marketing techniques that target sale of higher margin experiences on particular market segments the pressure to adopt dynamic pricing may become irresistible. Instead of standard fares they would vary by how far in advance they are booked, the nature of the experience on offer and the time of day etc so fares become a more sophisticated tool for balancing supply and demand. That will involve substantial investment in IT systems. Is that a future I want to see? Absolutely not but ,sadly it may be the unavoidable price of survival.

 

As an enthusiast and also a lover of beer, fish n chips and Whitby in general, the ability to travel there is a definite pull for me if I’m holidaying in the area. But then so is walking, and we generally do the Goathland - Grosmont trail (via Beckhole obvs) as part of a longer day out.

For us, fixed return itineraries (‘experiences’?) are not attractive, but in fairness we have the same problem with another of my favourite lines, the WHR, which lacks flexibility for those wanting a good walk with ‘refreshments’.

Anyway, in the case of the NYMR, a thought has just occurred to me. If Whitby can’t be made to generate a profit, would it be possible to time services so exchange with NR is straightforward, maybe even with joint ticketing?

I realise this is probably fraught with difficulties, not least of which might be capacity on NR. Or maybe a composite solution where NYMR run just the two peak demand services, and the others are covered by NR connections?

Lastly, I doubt we’re a key demographic and the above is probably just selfish wishful thinking!

 

My fear is that this model will destroy the underlying economy of heritage railways, as it reduces the space for informal interaction and pushes prices ever higher. I was in north wales in 2021 and the price of the (necessarily limited) WHR offering put me right off - and that is a bucket list trip.

There is of course a place for pre-booked trips, and for upselling. They can increase margins and secure revenue regardless of weather. But that doesn’t mean that they are the future, or that reliance on them is likely to be sustainable.

As for the absolute fares, £50 per person is well past my “piss off point” for a nice day out for myself. I can afford it, but there is simply no way that I’ll pay that - even for a gala, I’d regard it as steep. I paid double that last year to go to the Jungfraujoch - but that was a) a one off and b) for a really unique destination.

The economics of this week’s SNG visit have been good - and I’m delighted. But the conclusion that the “low” fares are only sustainable because of very high load factors appears to me to beg some important questions - not least about how load factors might increase if fares were lower.