North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Unrealistic to expect no change, but rather disappointing to see NRM contracts regress to the point where they are arguably exploitative. To run three round trips, plus light engine turns from Grosmont to Pickering & back, is 144 miles. I know the NRM is in the business of conservation, but adjusting mileage to allow for the length of a line doesn’t seem an excessive ask.

On the other side of the equation, it does feel like the lawyers are on top rather than on tap - viz the term regarding under cover storage, and its interpretation.

And, talking of exploitative, I do get the “we need money” vibe off the operating choices and lack of focus on parking. As a railway that has never been blessed with good parking, despite being highly reliant on car borne traffic, I’m shocked that this wasn’t part of the base planning.

I don’t expect the trustee members to comment mid-event on what will come out of the wash up, but hope that there is a real wake up and smell the coffee moment.

 

I'm pretty certain it spent all the time on its two Bluebell visits outside (and we have shed space we could easily have used if requested). That included days in which it was in the yard for footplate visits on its more recent visit (I think maintained in light steam, as I recall). So it does feel to me that whatever the precise wording of the contract, there is a degree to which it is open to interpretation.

Maybe the problem with having a lawyer look at the contract is they read what it said but missed what it meant

Tom

 

Not aimed at NYMR, but it is frequently a problem where contracts are read very literally, without understanding context, the balance of provisions, or asking questions for clarification.

 

There would have a parking problem whether starting at Pickering or Grosmont, given that Pickering only had 150 spare spaces to accommodate (eg yesterday when I counted) to accommodate two loads of FS train passengers arriving by car. Yes the SNG event worked OK earlier in the year, but that then was the only service running at the time.

 

If that is a defence (and I don't think it is), then it raises the secondary question of how NYMR did, or did not, proactively try to address this pinch point.

It's understood that this is a challenge, but the reflexive appearance of "it couldn't have been any other way" is less than convincing - as well as causing concern that genuine learning isn't on the cards.

 

Next week, with the Whitby shuttles running, and combined with Northern services, it is quite practical to travel by train to/from Whitby, given the abundance of parking adjoins the station there.

 

I get the logic of this, but if I were driving from the south, the idea of driving 6 miles past the start of my trip, parking up, then relying on Northern to get me to Grosmont, then repeat on the return would not be attractive. When I visit an attraction, I expect to go to and pay for the attraction, not to buy an intermediate product or service after travelling, but before experiencing the attraction. And that assumes the "park at Whitby and catch the train" option is even on the pre-publicity and booking information.

 

The NYMR shuttles to/from Whitby are useless next week 3/4/5/8/10/11/12.

1000 off Whitby arrives Grosmont 1025, 4472 service departs 1140, returns 1415, shuttle having left 1330?? So tickets will have to be bought with Northern, departs 1519.

1235/1400 off Whitby connect into 1500 4472 service, returns 1730, Northern service 1912.

9 November is better, 1130 from Whitby arrives 1155, missing the 1140 4472 service.

1400 off Whitby connects with 1500 4472 service, but again relies on Northern service 1807 to get back there.

 

I’m sure genuine learning will be on the cards! Particularly if and when FS were ever to visit again (personally I can’t think of any other engine that has such a draw). Nevertheless lessons do need to be learned with an action plan “put in the bottom drawer” in case such an opportunity presents itself in the future, but I’m sure “management” are already on the case.

Personally, what would I have done differently:
If running from Pickering (if contractually possible, eg under cover / LE issues) then run no other internal services, given the potential for creating a parking monster there.
If running from Grosmont then just run a more intensive Whitby Shuttle and promote the parking available to the station at Whitby, and maybe offering a ticket offer in conjunction with Northern Rail to allowing Northern passengers to use the shuttle and vice versa. Maybe offer a limited internal service if possible but only available to FS ticket holders (using Daisy?)
These options are only possible “out of season”; which would in any event have precluded this week particularly given the annual pass contraints. So should the offer of FS to run this week have been turned down, given the outcry it has appeared to have caused here?

 

Have you looked at the timetable? 08.45 from Grosmont, no connections from Whitby. 11.40 from Grosmont, connects with 10.25 NYMR service from Whitby, but no return NYMR service so you'd have to buy a Northern ticket to get back. 15.00 from Grosmont connects nicely off the 14.15 NYMR service from Whitby, but involves a 100 minute wait at Pickering in the evening for a Northern service.

For the first run in the morning, the times work out better if you're coming by train from Middlesbrough than from Whitby.

This is what I meant when I said the shuttles are pointless. They don't connect with the FS services, and parking at Grosmont is limited. You can't even do a trip behind FS then a trip to Whitby, unless you only plan to spend 20 minutes there in the afternoon. Or pay for a ticket with another operator. If I've spent £200 for a family of 4 to ride behind Flying Scotsman, there's no chance of paying an extra 20 quid to travel to Whitby by Northern.

 

Still load 5 today on the Whitby.

 

I'm not sure I accept the framing of the question, either in terms of "outcry" or the degree of constraints that exist. I welcome the additional revenue that FS has brought NYMR, and am disappointed that, almost uniquely, this has not been matched by a reputational boost. However, and taking your use of the phrase "offer to run FS" at face value and literally, my concern from this discussion is that the thinking appears not to have been much more sophisticated than "we need to do something, this is something, therefore we shall do it". And nor is that the first time that this has seemed to be the case at NYMR (Gift Aid and the challenges/constraints it imposes being another such).

Taking the comments from @Sawdust and @60044 at face value, my fear is that the railway has lost the habit of looking in the bottom drawer for the benefit of previous experience. That fear is reinforced by the comments of @5944 about the integration of the internal and Whitby timetables with the FS specials - even with the pathing constraints that do bedevil NYMR, it feels that no-one has actually looked at this from the point of view of the ordinary customer, visiting with their 2.4 (grand)children for a nice day out.

Other railways, similarly constrained, have avoided such angst - WSR has very similar "internal" constraints, yet chose a model that balanced out demand quite effectively and seemingly without the reputational damage caused by the parking issues in Grosmont.

 

There's an interesting statement in there which neatly sums up the busy fools conundrum. The railway needs as much of a financial surplus as it can generate which is a very different thing from revenue. If chasing every available bit of that ramps up avoidable cost by more than the additional revenue then

It can also be a problem when organsiations make assumptions about what they are signing up to, don't bother to check or don't understand the obligations and restrictions they are accepting.

 

Indeed - that makes a major part of my job. But those checks also require looking for the gaps, and checking the sizes of them. Given what I know of @21B's experience, and reports from other railways that have hosted FS recently, I'm struggling to believe that NYMR are uniquely constrained.

 

The tale of the golden goose is also relevant here - if it does not offer the quality of service that those customers seek, because it chases profit, the return business will be compromised. A balance is required - and NYMR is less likely to survive taking an O'Leary like approach to costs than Ryanair.

 

The concept of a fixed mileage without looking at the Railway that 60103 will be running on is pure Civil Service (and I speak as one of them for over 30 years). The mileage and gradient profile from Grosmont to Goathland summit is vastly different to that from (say) Pickering to Levisham if you are concerned at wear and tear. Surely there is potential for longer railways (like the NYMR) if constrained by a daily mileage to operate a shuttle with 60103 from (say) Pickering to Levisham with another loco on the back to draw back the set to its start point. More seats sold in a shorter time = more cash to bank. Just because you have a longer line doesn't mean you have to use all of it for experiences like this and surely non-enthusiasts will be happy whatever the journey time - the Worth Valley do well with 5 miles or so...

 

I don’t know enough to be critical or offer constructive comment on the organisation, but I will observe that the parking at the MHR is considerably more compressed than 100 or 150 spaces available at the start points. The thinking about the event started with - how will people arrive and where will they park for those that arrive by car (vast majority of)

 

It may be simplistic, but it negates the need to expertly assess every railway with the likely consequences of a cry of “foul” from somewhere

 

So very evidently true, see my comment earlier about studying the contract too closely and over-interpreting some of its requirements too harshly - e.g. "must be stored under cover when not in use". Other railways have weaved a way around that and - as far as we know - have not been blackballed as a result, so it would appear that the loco could have been based at Pickering and services based there, where there is - if not wholly ideal - better parking availability. How did the NYMR cope with parking in the past with big events when there was no Trout Farm car park and the railway's own car park was closed? Very simply, a deal with the Pickering Showground and a shuttle bus service. What short memories the current SMT have! Except they are probably too recent recruits to remember any of that and too arrogant*/stupid* (*choose your preferred adjective) to talk to anyone who might give advice.

As you also point out, generating a quick return looks less impressive if it gives the outsider an opinion that the management cares little for customer service and reputational damage results. We don't yet know the extent of that n- if we ever will - but I'd bet that a straw poll of those who received parking tickets might give a rough idea.........

 

I suspect ( but don’t know)that a driving force in the decision to run from Grosmont was that mentioned by @torgormaig in post 8357