North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Surely the NER Autocar represents exactly the sort of relevant heritage approach that you have been arguing the Moors should adopt ? If you are saying that such a visit is of limited interest to the wider public , why do you think for instance, the industrial history projects you have previously suggested are going to be game changers ?

Jon

 

Does that assume that the current level of ticket sales is maintained but on fewer services or is there an allowance for the possibility that some will not transfer to the remaining days who would have otherwise travelled if the pattern had stayed the same?

 

You still need to sell seats though. Put the fares up too much and you won't attract enough passengers. The NYMR fares have gone from £33 in 2019 to £49.50 today. That's quite a jump, especially when for the last couple of years that same fare got you a year's worth of travel.

I share @60044's pessimism - it feels like the railway have overpriced themselves for what is an inferior product compared to previously. Compared to Beamish, £99 for a family for a day, or £71 for the year.

 

My worry is the first three months of the season will see passengers travelling, but few people paying for tickets as they still have their annual pass.
Others will baulk at paying a similar price to last year for just one day ticket.

 

It”s only a real jump if you assume that the value of £1 is the same today as it was in 2019. There’s potentially an argument that in relative terms the price has dropped

 

BoE inflation calculator says £33 is now about £42.

 

30 miles v 52 from Leeds. Whatever the merits of your other arguments I think viewed in catchment area terms they are pretty different.

 

i

I don't know enough about term & conditions and The Consumer Rights Act 2015 to comment on the subject. However, I have read the comments made by 21B, 35B, and Platform 3 who obviously have far more knowledge of the subject than me. What they are saying is indeed concerning, especially with regard to precedence and the need for the NYMR to do what they are doing. I hope that they abandon this and, even more so, I hope that the HRA see the folly of it and do not suggest that other organisations follow suit.

 

Thanks. So a modest increase rather than a huge jump! Of course many costs over the same period have increased by far higher percentages.

 

But many of those costs are for essentials. Heritage railway travel is optional...

 

As a responsible trade association the HRA would always suggest that its members should comply with the Law.

 

I would suggest that those who argue that the price has dropped relatively are in the same mould as those who argue the earth is flat. In real terms todays price is about 18% higher than the equivalent of the 2019 price.

 

But that’s not answering the question of why the numbers have not been published in recent years?

 

It would be very interesting to know how that conclusion has been reached, when a lot of the railway's outgoings are fixed, regardless of how many or how few trains are run, whereas less trains surely mean less income. Cuts in operating days and services can improve profitability only if the services concerned would have been running at a loss. How many of the NYMR's trains does that apply to?

 

If the inflation adjusted price should be £42, then if I’ve got my maths right, £49.50 is almost 18% of a rise. Hardly “a modest increase”

 

The fact that one or even a few other railways are struggling is no excuse for the NYMR to be struggling. There are plenty that aren't, both large and small. The other railway I am involved with is trading quite happily within its means and has been subject to exactly the same trading conditions that you use as an excuse. It is not struggling, doesn't rely on grant funding to do so and has two years turnover in the bank. We could really do with spending some of it, though.

 

Does this include Discrimination Law?

 

Only if they are paid employees. Volunteers have no rights. We were told that a few times.

 

I could have some sympathy for not running two days/week if those days were the marginal ones but Thursday is traditionally one of the busier days, along with Tuesday and Wednesday. Even Fridays can be quite busy if the weather is good. How has the decision to abandon Thursdays been arrived at? Has it been in terms of marginal costs versus income because, if not, the decision is fundamentally flawed as the fixed costs now have to be amortised over less days of running, leading to less profitability on the days when trains are running.

Edit: I'm guessing the decision to can Thursdays is because it's been argued that shutting down for two consecutive days is better than two separate days from a cost point of view. However, that ignores the potential loss of income.

 

@5944 mentions the actual calculation. I’d just observe that perceptions of price tend to lag reality (ask any child about the value of grandparental cash presents!).