North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Depends what you mean by a P&DSR operation!
It seems as if the Whitby services are regarded by some as a non-heritage P&DSR like product. However travel between Pickering and Grosmont affords the same heritage experience over that section of the line whether that's only as far as passengers go or if they chose to travel all the way to Whitby. Consequently a complaint to the Charity Commission that running to Whitby undermines charitable status would likely get short shrift especially as the service still uses heritage trains and in the context of HMRC only allowing charitable Gift Aid recovery on tickets to view ALL the work of the charity including its operations to Whitby.
I'd agree that if passengers are led to believe services will be steam hauled then operational convenience alone should not justify their being disappointed. However, given the substantial difference in cost between operating steam and diesel it seems likely that all heritage railways will have to face up to that financial disparity. It's possible that economics will dictate that the opportunity to be hauled by steam will become rarer and perhaps at a higher fare than normal diesel services.

 

Though I thought one of the reasons postulated for preferring paid staff over volunteers was that it was easier with paid staff to require they worked when operationally convenient, i.e. you could (within their Ts&Cs) mandate that they worked certain times. In other words, it should be possible to arrange staff hours such that you cover each day while also ensuring any individual member of staff has leave and a continuous break of two days in any given week.

Given the relative staffing levels, I suspect we have a smaller paid staff within the Loco Department than the NYMR does, but we still manage to ensure there are paid staff available seven days per week.

Tom

 

No, I do not suggest that Whitby operations, per se, make NYMR a P&DSR type operation. That is a question of the character of the operation which, by repute (I was at primary school last time I visited the P&DSR) has limited focus on historical authenticity, but seeks to deliver a steam trip to a holiday destination.

NYMR was founded with more in mind, and has specifically set it's stall out as a historical railway charity - the legal basis for claiming Gift Aid on fares. If it tries to operate on the model of the commercial P&DSR, a whole raft of questions kick in, which could be summarised as "does NYMR bring the charity sector into disrepute?".

The feedback from visitors is very clearly and specifically that the use of steam is not that which the marketing leads them to expect; it is also clear that there are operational convenience reasons underpinning this.

That then comes back round to the seeming red herring in your final paragraph about the cost differential between steam and diesel. In reality, I find that comment extremely revealing in it's suggestion that anything more than the most basic operation should be charged for at a premium.

 

I guess this year will be lower due to the reduction in operating days

Jon

 

I fundamentally disagree with that "disparity in cost" argument, and feel it is mainly used by those looking to run diesels for other reasons.

What matters is your total operational cost, not some marginal difference in fuel prices, which is often how it is portrayed.

How much do you spend on carriage maintenance per carriage mile? If you pull a six coach train by steam or by diesel, how much cheaper is the carriage maintenance for those hauled by diesel?

How much do you spend on infrastructure repairs? How much saving do you make on repairing bridges or relaying track due to diesels rather than steam running on them?

How much do you spend on signalling? How much does the signalling bill reduce because a diesel wafts past rather than a steam loco?

How much do you spend on general business costs - heating, lighting, marketing, running a website, having a payments infrastructure and so on? Does any of that get cheaper running a diesel?

There are only two places where running a diesel potentially saves costs, and one of those is I think unproven. The first is in fuel; the second (which I think is unproven) is long-term maintenance. (The reason I think that is unproven is that history has shown that on a steam loco, pretty much anything is repairable. On diesels, that is less certain, and most diesel groups manage by stockpiling a large number of spares. Crack a cylinder head or require a generator to be rewound, or need to recast a new bogie frame and the costs might spiral).

You have to look at the total cost of operation. There are some marginal fuel savings running diesels, but even with current coal costs, fuel is far from the dominant cost in running a railway. You make no savings on infrastructure, carriages or general business costs, yet if you get a reputation for running significant diesel mileage, you will put passengers off who overwhelmingly want steam.

I think there is a place for diesels to be preserved and run as items of inherent preservation interest (assuming you are a preservation operation, of course!) But I think it is misguided to assume that they will offer significantly lower cost of operation.

Tom

 

This is the blind spot of many - that the bill requiring immediate payment is a true indicator of the cost of running a railway. If NYMR were really heading down this path, I'd expect to see resources (time, money) shifted away from steam overhauls towards ensuring that diesels were available and capable of providing a sustainable service. Instead, I see the existing small diesels worked hard, the long standing overhaul of D5032 getting no nearer completion, and the steam fleet continuing. In other words, the actions bely any ability to deliver on such a strategy.

 

Do the NYMR sell day tickets to travel between Pickering and Grosmont?

 

How much money goes into steam overhauls at the NYMR? 34101's overhaul has been ongoing for donkey's years and 80135's overhaul funding is external, I believe.

 

My hunch is more than into diesel overhauls.

 

Like you I suspect that the real cost of running diesels has never been costed properly. The complexity and expense of for example rewiring is considerable.

The reality is that many railways including the NYMR have used up the residual life of ex-BR locos and then discarded them. That route is not possible any longer.

It is already the case that certain components are irreplaceable on a diesel. This is especially the case with those with early electronic cards (47/4 for example). If those cards go bad replacements will be very difficult indeed. Some of the components are no longer available so a direct replacement may not be possible. Re-engineering is achievable, but difficult. It is more complex than pretty much any steam loco component remanufacture

 

I visited the P&DSR last summer, and having been a bit pre-disposed to be snooty about it, I was actually quite impressed. The scenery was stunning, the carriages OK, the locos certainly worked hard etc.

What you missed relative to a "normal" heritage railway was the sense of the stations as of heritage interest in their own right. Paignton was basically a big shop; Churston you didn't stop at. Kingswear though had its attractions, still to an extent retaining a number of original features.

What surprises me about the HMRC view of the NYMR is that they require the trip to Whitby to qualify to "see the work of the charity", since that almost guarantees that a visitor bypasses the intermediate stations and whatever heritage relevance they have. Nor is such a visitor likely to visit the loco sheds at Grosmont, or walk the original railway path up to Goathland. It would seem more coherent to me that if the stated aim is to "view the work of the charity" then that could best be done on the Grosmont - Pickering section, and according allow Gift Aid only on day rovers restricted to that section. But I suspect that those within the NYMR didn't push that view of things because it would have required similar amounts of work to agree the scheme while offering a smaller Gift Aid return. Certainly had I been an official at HMRC and the NYMR had come with a proposal for a Gift Aid fare scheme to Whitby "to see the work of the charity", I'd have asked them to come back with a scheme restricted to the Pickering - Grosmont section only, and with a requirement that the ticket genuinely allowed a visitor to break their journey at intermediate stations. That way you could genuinely see all the work of the charity.

Tom

 

Please can the timetables be amended to reflect the 'planned' diesel working on Weds & Sats?

Jon

 

Maintenance costs for "track, land, buildings and rolling stock" listed in the last set of trust accounts as £730,000. 80135 and 3672 are listed as having separate pots of money, but nothing for 34101.

The "Bridges and Wheels" appeal was started in 2009 to help complete 80135's overhaul which started the previous year. 34101's overhaul was started two years earlier. 36 years combined!

 

I think the point about "entire" work of the charity is what matters, and therefore the technicalities of the ownership of trackbed get lost in the mix. A Whitby ticket permits one to see the whole work of the charity, while acknowledging that for many large chunks of that work are of zero interest.

My thoughts on the charitable purposes are related to the emphasis that's been placed on them as a means to an end, and then the way that the priorities are being ranked so that those related to history are being positioned as for additional charge. As you've written before, that feels precisely the wrong way round. Businesslike decision making is necessary, but it feels increasingly as though decisions are being made like a travel business, not primarily as a charity in the heritage sector.

 

For reference, 5428 did around just above 12000 miles last year, 29 did around 2500 across the Moors and the 2 railways it visited

 

New member here, just answering a few questions. I visited the NYMR twice a week through 2024 running season.
There was always 3 or 4 steam running, plus one diesel, throughout last year.
They finished 2024 with 8 operational steamers, and 5 diesels.
It looks like 5 steamers are still finishing winter maintenance (including Omaha, part dismantled for oil conversion).
So 4 will be back soon, plus the Q6 new cylinder is fitted, and will be operational this season.
I saw NYMR’s AGM on YT last year with Chris Price. He said steamers cost approx £1100 a day to run, and diesels approx £400 a day. Worth watching, many questions in this thread are answered there.
I would also add that the NYMR could do marketing in Teesside, where it is currently almost unknown, and that’s a huge untapped customer base. Road links are much better at the north end of the line, none of the dreaded Pickering traffic, and it has a rail link!
Maybe NYMR would turn their nose up at attracting Teesside neds, but this is the only reason Grosmont MPD is perceived to be at the “wrong end of the line”.

 

A higher fare for steam haulage on a preserved railway!

Have you ever wondered whether you are in the wrong game John?

 

Same as a cheaper fare for diesel haulage is it not?

 

Well yes, in terms of monetary cost.

Lineisclear appears to have a defeatist attitude, he’s not the first accountant type person to try to apply wholly principles to preserved railways, and won’t be the last.

Steam traction as the norm, with a lower fare for a Diesel only service, should be the benchmark.

 

As a non accountant perhaps I should feel honoured! If you accept that there could be a differential between fares for steam and diesel haulage the question then becomes what the norm for steam haulage should be against which the diesel fare could be discounted. Jamessquared makes some astute comments about fixed costs but on the basis on which many diesels are hired to railways by their owners the big issue is variable costs which tend to be lower for diesel haulage.