North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

PS I find it difficult to compare employed staff numbers with other heritage railways as most railways quote the total number of staff employed rather than Full Time Equivalents (FTE). Eg someone employed say two days a week over 7 months would effectively become 0.24 FTE. I would be more interested in a comparison of overall staff costs per unit of annual train miles operated (if such data exists). In addition, if other railways do contract out some of their services (eg diners) then it will make such paid-staff comparisons even more difficult to make.

 

PPS can I remind Members to vote in the current election of new Trustees.

 

Indeed, I was just about to point out that for the K &ESR the number quoted in the post above (48) is the total average headcount which includes for instance casual catering staff, all our operations being in house. Our accounts also show the FTE 2024 (28) and 2023 (26).

 

Some interesting statistic there. One obvious one that is wrong is that both the FfR and WHR are showing as 140 staff each but I'm sure the reality is that it is the total staff employed. I checked the Bluebell as that showed a high level of staff and that showed up that over half were part-time/seasonal with only 14 classed as management with a total wages bill of £1,780,480. How do these figures compare with the NYMR, given a total wages bill of £3,421,933, pretty much nearly double?
I note the suggestion that staff should take their annual leave in the closed season. I think that this already happens but it becomes a two edge sword, especially at the MPD as staff who are needed for winter maintenance are then on leave leading to a slow down in planned work. That is also tied to the Spring Gala comment as, at the start of the season there is always a dearth of locos available for traffic. Personally, I think that this is made worse by the insistence on stripping all locos down for P & V examinations. In the good ol'days of BR, P & V exams were usually done every 20-25,000 miles, if not longer. It would be very rare for an NYMR loco to approach this and annual mileage is often less than half of this. I'm told that P & V exams are done annually to avoid them becoming due during the operating season but, with a bit of planning, these could be done at a slightly extended routine boiler washout if they did become due.

 

There is a note at the foot of the table which explains that whr and fr totals are combined, which for an ai quite impressed me. Also interesting to hear about the k&ear and bluebell more accurately.

Sawdust.

 

Your positive suggestions mirror what I was suggesting about finding new profitable products and services as the preferrred option. I'm less convinced by the suggested reduction of ten or twenty people across all departments. What would be the consequence of removing that resource?

 

Ok I've taken a different tack with the ai. Again it might be all complete slop its produced.

| Railway Name | Length (miles) | Total Staff Costs (£) | Year | Staff Costs Per Mile (£) | Total Revenue (£) | Profit/Loss (£) |
|--------------|----------------|-----------------------|------|--------------------------|-------------------|-----------------|
| Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway | 14 | 401,000 | 2024 | 28,643 | 2,360,000 | 145,000 |
| North Yorkshire Moors Railway (incl. Whitby extension) | 30 | 1,082,545 | 2024 | 36,085 | 4,300,000 | (500,000) |
| West Somerset Railway | 19.5 | 971,364 | 2024 | 49,815 | 3,090,962 | (422,690) |
| Great Central Railway | 8 | 500,000 | 2024 | 62,500 | 1,200,000 | (250,000) |
| Severn Valley Railway | 16 | 1,200,000 | 2023 | 75,000 | 3,500,000 | (641,224) |
| Bluebell Railway | 11 | 1,780,480 | 2024 | 161,862 | 4,777,501 | (618,494)

Sawdust.

 

This illustrates why people think the management is being complacent.

Again AI produced.

### North Yorkshire Moors Railway (NYMR) - Historical Turnover and Profit/Loss

Based on the latest available data from NYMR PLC (the operating subsidiary of the North Yorkshire Moors Railway Trust), here's a table summarizing turnover (total revenue) and profit/loss (net profit after tax) for as many years as possible. Figures are for the financial year ended in February (from 2015 onwards) or December (earlier years), rounded to the nearest pound where applicable. Data covers 2009–2025.

| Year Ended | Turnover (£) | Profit/Loss (£) |
|------------|--------------|-----------------|
| Feb 2025 | 7,609,962 | (278,869) |
| Feb 2024 | 7,898,691 | (633,118) |
| Feb 2023 | 6,320,538 | (599,635) |
| Feb 2022 | 5,852,027 | 5,209 |
| Feb 2021 | 1,844,864 | (560,923) |
| Feb 2020 | 6,521,630 | 571,182 |
| Feb 2019 | 6,731,827 | 799,547 |
| Feb 2018 | 5,983,177 | 757,234 |
| Feb 2017 | 2,250,977 | 614,659 |
| Feb 2016 | 2,165,070 | 393,876 |
| Dec 2014 | 1,949,651 | 550,576 |
| Dec 2013 | 1,888,419 | 509,328 |
| Dec 2012 | 1,852,674 | 488,279 |
| Dec 2011 | 2,012,174 | 538,501 |
| Dec 2010 | 1,884,944 | 531,714 |
| Dec 2009 | 1,940,970 | 646,760 |

**Notes:**
- Losses are shown in parentheses.
- The sharp drop in 2021 reflects COVID-19 impacts.
- For the parent Trust (charity), turnover is higher due to inclusions like donations (e.g., £9.8M in 2025 with £728K surplus), but operational figures are from the PLC.

End of AI

It's not how much you do, it's how much money it makes!

Sawdust.

 

Oops, missed that.

 

I'm still staggered that winter maintenance usually means the loco missing the start of the season, or in the case of 92134, the whole season. It's only running now because the superheater elements from 92214 have been borrowed. Maintenance started beginning of November, cylinders rebored and valve gear rebushed, steam test and trial run end of August, then promptly failed.

There's only 15 days left of the season, as it looks like the Flying Scotsman timetable only requires Whitby locos. Unless it's used for Santas, it will have hardly worked in 18 months by the time the 2026 season starts.

 

I'm not going to say close x outlet or axe this activity because that would not be fair on the people who fill those roles. The CEO is paid to make difficult decisions at the end of the day, if trust board mandates a reduction of (from the top of my head) £30k from the staff budget then that is their choice not mine. It is entirely possible that the economy worsens and visitor numbers fall next year, there are just so many clouds on the horizon, energy costs show no sign of going down, inflation particularly on food is higher than people have been used to for a long time, all these things are squeezing people's disposable income. People may still come but bring their own sandwiches or more likely go do something cheaper or free. There have been redundancies in the past and they don't necessarily have to be compulsory. You must know what makes the most and losses the most money, act on it.

Sawdust.

 

That's still the standard business school answer.

I am reminded of the classic Maine (the state in the USA) story. A summer tourist is driving around, and they are lost. They stop next to a Mainer leaning on a dry stone wall, pull over, and ask them: “Which way do I go to get to Millinocket from here?” The Mainer ponders, considers several options, and rejects each one, and then concludes, “Come to think of it, you can’t get there from here.”

Noel

 

I don't think I said that, and I do know that some of them help out in PWay work in normal times when there are big relaying projects going on - but these are not normal times and there is no big relaying project this winter, so it was a simple question really, that I hoped would be answered rather more definitively - how many operational staff are there, and what do they do when the railway is closed - they surely can't be taking all their annual leave in the closed period!

 

Sorry to reply to an old post (well, a few days old), just catching up with this thread. But what a great, perceptive post this is.
I've no involvement in NYMR matters whatsoever but I've seen that "distance" issue elsewhere and I've seen the damage it can do... from the grass-roots volunteer level it usually starts with regular long-term volunteers just not coming as often, or going elsewhere because they don't feel that the organisation is moving in the direction they want it to go in, but feel disenfranchised to do anything about it other than walk.

But on the second paragraph, I think there's an underlying difference which occurs when the management layer is employed rather than volunteer. And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having a paid manager, indeed for larger organisations there might not be much choice in the matter (and I make no comment on the NYMR, I don't know enough about their setup). But paying someone fundamentally changes the dynamic; lets suppose for the sake of argument that the board directs that loco x's overhaul is to be paused, or that a track relaying job is to be cut back, or that the catering department now has to buy cheaper sausages, or whatever their latest wheeze is to save a few pounds. A paid manager will take this possibly upsetting news to the staff, who will grumble like hell, the manager will then report back that they'll make it work somehow, and the board thinks everything is running smoothly. Now substitute a volunteer manager; they will most likely tell the board in no uncertain terms that it's a stupid idea because of x, y and z and that if they want to make a cost saving, they should look at loco y, or reducing the ballast stockpile, or increasing the price of fairy cakes, or whatever, instead. The board may or may not appreciate this feedback... but they're far more likely to receive it, and thus be able to make an informed decision, if the person who should be giving it doesn't have half an eye on making sure they can still pay their mortgage the following month.

It's a problem in all organisations and a bigger problem in bigger ones with more layers of management... but on a heritage railway, typically run on a shoestring even in a good year, any blockers to communication between board and shop floor could be disastrous.

And then we get to things like the Beck Hole poster, posted up thread...

Which I completely agree is an unacceptable way to carry on (though I wouldn't vilify the person who posted it on here, at least without understanding their motive for doing so), but I can only assume that whoever posted the physical thing on site is deeply frustrated by... whatever it is. And even though their means of expressing their frustration is unacceptable, I hope that the management will at least make some attempt to understand how they reached the point where they felt that that was what they needed to do. At least, you need to understand whether this is a lone voice or indicative of a broader underlying problem.

 

Totally agree. I would only add that it could work where the GM/CEO could be frank with the board, but the board has to be prepared to listen

 

The logic seems flawed to me. It seems to be suggested that an employee will be less likely to argue with a decision because he or she has more to lose. Surely it's not that simple? An employed manager has legal protection against unfair dismsissal backed by a potential reference to an employment tribunal. A volunteer manager does not. They may not have a livelihood at stake but would have no redress if their volunteering was summarily terminated. If they really care about continuing to volunteer they might be just as reluctant to challenge decisions they disagree with.

 

No I think there is some merit in the logic. Very few people rely on legal protection for the simple reason that it can be very hard to prove, and unless you happen to be a lawyer, expensive. Volunteers do not as a rule expect to have their offer of labour refused, and whilst there have been occasional examples they aren’t all that common. In any case it is a question of degree and the manager representing an alternative view to the board is unlikely to be able to prove unfair dismissal simply because the board wouldn’t take their point of view. In reality experience and observation suggests to me that the logic is largely correct.

 

The board makes a decison and tells its managers to implement it. According to the suggestion an employed manager who disagrees will keep quiet and tell the troops to get on with it. On the other hand a volunteer manager has less to loose so has greater freedom to challenge the board's decision. One has the protection of an employment contract and statutory protection against unfair dismissal where the costs are invariably loaded against the employer. The other has nothing. Which one is more vulnerable?

 

The paid employee in reality unless the order from the board is illegal. The protection of which you speak is not all that strong where there is a difference of opinion. The employee that doesn’t act on a board resolution is pretty exposed legally. It is probably grounds for dismissal, unless as I say there is something else going on, but that wasn’t the proposal. The suggestion was that the volunteer is likely to be more comfortable being frank with the board, and that I think is accurate in heritage railways.

 

I would argue the volunteer is more vulnerable and therefore less likely to speak out.

At least, in the case of the NYMR, volunteers have the potential to join the Trust Board as a Trustee where they can then have the potential to challenge / steer the PLC (eg set the policy / strategy the PLC should follow). Yes I have heard the previous arguments on here against the Nominations Committee but at least this year there are now 8 good candidates for 6 vacancies on the Trust. So no matter how you feel now is the opportunity for Members to make their votes count.