North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I can understand where you are coming from but I doubt that you could practically run less Whitby trains unless the 09.20 stays in Whitby until it is time to take those it brought in back to Pickering. It is the same in the other direction with the 10.00 from Whitby. However, the sets aren’t idle and cater for internal passenger traffic, as well. The only thing is that they can’t be made up of the teak set but, even then, the teaks can get in two round trips/day unless there is a lunchtime diner.
I agree that comparison with 1970 prices is meaningless. I was just refuting the statement made by @Lineisclear that today’s fare is cheaper than 1970.

 

Many people will have travelled on SNG because it's £19.50 cheaper than a trip from next Monday on.

 

I know exactly what 60007 and the railcar is costing the NYMR as the CEO accidentally told everyone who was listening to the recent open panel meeting. However, it’s confidential so I’m not repeating it. Suffice to say the NYMR has done well financially this week, IMHO.

 

And 60007 infinitely better than Reptile …

 

Not sure that conclusion can be drawn. The other interesting fact is that the SNG trains have run full despite a less than 30 minute break in Grosmont; hardly time to visit the shop / teashop or toilets there; certainly no time to explore Grosmont itself.

 

And for Fox & Edwards by all account.

 

A ticket to ride behind SNG with Fox & Edwards Events cost £39.50. What extra did you get for that additional £9.50 that you are paying. According to their blurb it was "During our journey, tuck into a complementary box of baked treats, exclusively commissioned for Fox & Edwards Events with a lovely steam train cover. These are usually £17.50, but are provided free of charge for each booking. " I wonder why we can't provide similar add-ons with our tickets? I agree that it's more hassle and needs to be something relatively simple but it should be do-able and, based on a similar offering, would not cost £9.50 as there would be a sensible mark up. It would probably require reserved seats at a table, as well.

 

If that is true then you have what you have and there is nothing that can be done, which is sort of what has been being argued on behalf of the railway.

There are no comfortable choices here. One way of reducing the number of Whitby services would be not to run there every day.

Another cost saving might be to dieselise the entirety of the operation Grosmont- Whitby, and a further one to have only one set of carriages that was used on that section.

Finally, and regretfully, if it cannot earn more at a lower cost than at present and raise more income in grants and donations, the railway may forced to drastic measures, perhaps closure. We all face that.

 

This is akin to what I was suggesting above, where I wondered if connecting with NR services to Whitby would be a more economical option? Personally I don’t think having steam on the Whitby leg is a must have, it’s pretty pedestrian.

 

Couldn't Whitby be a DMU shuttle, from Grosmont, if the railway has one that's capable of operating over the line, that would allow the railway to then concentrate on the rest of the line, and work out what's profitable, Granted, it will need work, to be able to terminate in platform 3, so it does not impact the other platforms, and perhaps a separate ticketing arrangement so that costs can be accurately assessed,
I see no point in Running to Whitby, if it's going to bankrupt the railway,

 

I imagine the problem with using a DMU would be the capacity. My own experiences of using the Whitby trains in the summer has been that they are very well patronised. I can't remember exactly how many Mk 1s were in the train (6?), but there was very little free space. I think it would stand to reason too, that if you weren't worried about the trip behind a steam loco, you would just catch the ordinary (and cheaper?) main line connection

 

Wouldn't the capacity argument apply there too? The idea of a DMU seems a bit strange in the first place though - getting a three coach set passed to run on the EVL sounds like a real challenge, finding enough to make up a 6 or more coach train, as would be needed, sounds like the Everest of challenges!

 

As a passenger, I think there are two issues with breaking the journey at Grosmont.

The first is changing train. Grosmont is not generously laid out, and the platforms struggle with a crowd. If the change then involves transfer between platforms 2&3, you add the perceived risk of seeing the other train go.

The second is the idea of changing to the Northern service. That is typically a 2 car Sprinter, and often already well laden. Even allowing for the greater capacity of modern units, 6 into 2 is unlikely to go.

Running steam on the “core” and diesel on the Whitby leg is superficially attractive but may also cost. Steam sells, and the movements in and out of Whitby are conspicuous; diesel would be less so. I believe there are also issues of capacity with the stabling at New Bridge which mean that rostering would be harder.

More generally, the picture I’ve always understood of Whitby operation is that it is not so much expensive to operate as that it is relatively inflexible in terms of both pathing and crewing; and now, with increasing ORR/NR obligations, in terms of stock too.

My hunch is that the railway has backed itself into a corner where the Whitby traffic has become predominant, and that has in turn come to dominate thinking because it dominates both revenue and operational planning.

What’s missing is the wider sense of mission, demonstrating value in the whole railway and living up to the full intent of the charitable purposes. That then contaminates the complex conversations about the position of Whitby operations by making it either off limits or a lightening rod for those unhappy with the status quo.

 

What’s missing is the wider sense of mission, demonstrating value in the whole railway and living up to the full intent of the charitable purposes. That then contaminates the complex conversations about the position of Whitby operations by making it either off limits or a lightening rod for those unhappy with the status quo.

Those two sentences sum up the point I think I've been trying to make all along. The NYMR has lost its way in presenting itself as a destination, and it desperately needs to do that. How it does it will be another debate, but fwiw I think it needs to be a combination of making it much more of a heritage railway in all aspects but also a more immersive experience that will also draw on the experience of places like Beamish and Crich. It's probably unrealistic to see an end to Whitby services, and if they can be done sufficiently profitably then they should continue provided people want them and are prepared to pay whatever is decided the asking price needs to be. But they need to become a side-show to the railway, not its most attractive feature and selling point as seems to be the case now, and that is where I believe that an altogether new managerial mindset is needed and is unlikely to come from the present lineup. There are no straightforward or quick answers but a simple recognition that all is not well and that things need to change needs to happen asap.

 

That's a perceptive post. Whitby traffic has become predominant because that's where the majority of the paying public want to go. Changing trains at Grosmont doesn't look like a realistic option even though that might be an authentic heritage experience! With platform 4 out of use (apart from storage) due to the collapsed mine workings changing NYMR trains would seem to involve 300 plus people moving without shelter between platforms 2 and 3 over the foot crossing which has a history of causing trips and falls. That's hardly a compelling customer experience.
The "wider sense of mission" is presumably shorthand for encouraging visitors to pay for the intermediate services between Pickering and Grosmont but unless that's incremental traffic it would just abstract from all line revenues. It would be a huge mistake to try to force visitors to pay for what the railway, and those working on it, might prefer them to want rather than the trip to the seaside that the numbers are showing is their preferred product. The fundamental question is whether there's sufficient additional demand from other visitors for the shorter traditional relaxed hop on/hop off services? As always the customers are kings so establishing what attracts them, and persuades them to part with their cash, must be the key to success.

 

"Wider sense of mission" is not a shorthand for encouraging visitors to pay for the intermediate services, but an observation about the nature of the railway itself. And, in that, your further response demonstrates precisely the concern that I and others are expressing.

At a commercial level, it suggests a complete lack of confidence in the product that the railway has to offer, and the ability of the railway to offer a product that is of interest. Given the fixed constraints on NYMR capacity in terms of available paths & platform lengths, my inner commercial manager recoils at the lack of ambition for selling marginal capacity and expanding the offer. At a more fundamental level, it betrays a serious gap between how the railway is run, and the charitable purposes - to the extent that it is not impossible to see someone consider the NYMRHT being a business masquerading as a charity.

I see these as being additional to, not in place of, the fact that the primary demand on NYMR is for days out to Whitby. But you don't have to believe that Whitby is an expensive white elephant to be gravely concerned about the lack of focus on developing demand on the section that NYMR owns in favour of demand on the section it has access to - and could lose access to.

 

For once, I think this a point appreciated by the management where, for once, with the development of new "charitable objectives" - e.g. lineside conservation - being manufactured to defend against such accusations. It's just a shame that they do not seem to be able to show similar creativity towards delivery of the Trust's "core objectives" (my term admittedly, since I think they are now well down the delivery agenda).

 

I think we agree at least to the extent that demand for traditional intermediate services has to be in addition to Whitby services otherwise the potential for revenue abstraction is obvious. Encouraging additional new visitors to enjoy the railway between Pickering and Grosmont is clearly desirable and marketing initiatives such as the SNG week are succeeding in that objective. Others will no doubt follow with the aim of encouraging visitors to enjoy that section of the railway but that should not be at the price of detracting from what you acknowledge is the service for primary demand exists.

 

I would be cautious about overstating how much agreement we share. Fundamentally, I believe that the NYMR is neglecting the appeal of the core section it owns, and is leaving itself deeply exposed to a change in circumstances by placing reliance on Whitby operations. I also believe that it is doing so in a way that causes it to deprioritise (at best) or ignore (at worst) parts of its charitable purposes in pursuit of a golden goose of high yield events and Whitby traffic. In doing so, despite continuing severe losses, it is IMHO in danger of acting not as a charity with specific purposes, but as a business.

 

I agree, and I think that a point in a previous post is telling:

"Others will no doubt follow with the aim of encouraging visitors to enjoy that section of the railway but that should not be at the price of detracting from what you acknowledge is the service for primary demand exists. but that should not be at the price of detracting from what you acknowledge is the service for primary demand exists"

There is a lot that seems to me to be wrong here! Firstly, is it really, factually, known that the Whitby services are more profitable, given the extra costs and risk of extra costs that they incur and which are seldom mentioned, e.g. replacement bus services at times)? That is not something that the overall results show, as far as I can see, since Whitby trains seem to be consistently loaded but the NYMR continues to run up big losses. As I've said before, Whitby now seems like a sacred cow, and the development of more interest in the NYMR itself seems to be very low on the priority list, always being "others will no doubt follow with the aim of encouraging visitors to enjoy that section of the railway".to be carried out.... when? Isn't the whole point and art of advertising to alter the thought patterns of the target argument to make them wat to try what the advertiser wants them to try? Maybe in this case some professional advice needs to be sought! The Whitby services sell themselves, apart from the need to generate more per capita sales via onboard catering etc., and those for whom a trip on the railway has to be to arrive in Whitby are unlikely to change their plans, but there is still a potentially huge pool of holidaymakers for whom a train trip may be one of a number of alternatives, and who really need to be convinced that it would be an attractive option, so the real adverting focus, and all out effort needs to go into promoting the railway's internal services.