North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

With the Broadway extension, the GWSR is now 14 miles long and may be seen as having entered into the HR "big league". It is, however, still a much smaller operation in financial terms than the NYMR. A quick look at the most recent GWSR Accounts indicates annual passenger numbers of about 100,000, with an annual turnover of £2.5M. I think the NYMR annual turnover is a multiple of that figure, but I had better leave an NYMR expert to confirm! The GWSR had a small annual loss, with the Accounts noting that business was still down compared with pre-Covid.

The GWSR gives the impression of being in good overall health and has certainly done very well to manage to date with relatively few paid staff. Only time will tell whether it can sustain that approach.

I think it is widely accepted that volunteering has declined over the past decade. But for heritage railways, this problem is compounded by increasing costs and (at least for some) reduced passenger numbers, which means that they may be unable to afford any more paid staff. The net result is that heritage railways may need to make do with fewer people to run them.

 

I don’t think it is quite as clear cut as that. To take just one example - a railway needs locomotives, and needs them at predictable times. You can achieve that by hiring in, or by having your own paid workshop staff - either way will cost you money, but one shows a distinctly lower head count! It’s just you are still paying, but in a different area of the budget.

I’m not saying that the NYMR model is definitely right, or the GWSR model for that matter. Just that focusing on one figure in the budget - such as the staff costs - can be misleading unless you know what else is going on in the budget.

Where the “low paid staff” model does have an advantage is that potentially it insulates you from sudden revenue shocks. There was a year two or three years ago in the NYMR accounts (2022 I think, but I’m on my phone and not checking!) where the revenue had a very big decline but the fixed costs couldn’t adapt quickly enough, leading to a very large loss. A line with low staff costs is more insulated from such a shock, since it can more rapidly adjust just by buying in less stuff/services to match the cash available.

Tom

 

The GWSR accounts for the year ended 31 Jan 2024 report that "the railway had 6 fulltime [paid] staff and 6 part time staff" [my clarification] - mostly administrative. The line has a full suite of engines (steam and diesel), many of which are owned by outside groups, who are responsible for overhauls, funded from a variety of sources (including fund-raising), but some also use a lot of volunteer labour. Other departments (e.g. Drainage; Carriage & Wagon; etc) are almost all volunteers. It's almost more of a very large very well organized volunteer society, than a classic business (although they do have some expenses, and have to keep the books balanced).

PS: I realize that most heritage lines have a volunteer component of some size; the GWSR is a little further out on the volunteer end of the spectrum than most, I suspect. Note that most of the paid staff are administrative, not hands-on workers.

 

Sadly there seems to be little evidence of the NYMR doing this though, just obfuscatory answers such as this. Whilst you can hide behind arguments such as business confidentiality, this hardly inspires market confidence.

as I see it you have a fairly toxic mix of
I) reduced steam engine availability with several locomotives showing no real sign of approaching the end of their restoration for return to the operating fleet.

Ii) declining passenger numbers and income due to a business running off historic golden eggs, such as Heartbeat, Channel 5, or Harry Potter and point I. In turn this leads to less use of the things that actually generate turnover e.g. running trains.

Iii) an inability to maintain infrastructure at the same level, hence no -restored point work at goathland or the LNERCA coaches.

still I suppose at least this year your auditors haven’t questioned your ability to continue as a going concern.

Many of these issues might be felt sector wide but I can’t help feeling they are particularly prevalent in the North East.

 

I think prescience is what is most lacking.

 

Mea culpa! Amended.

 

The Devil and the deep blue sea, for the heritage world... A choice between paid staff (and not enough customers to pay for them), and volunteer staff (and not being able to find them)! The GWSR has noticed one advantage of older volunteers, in operational roles: the younger ones have real jobs, and are less available during the week! Another difficult choice! A lot of those, in the heritage world.

 

A lot will depend on how c the volunteers are treated, compared to the paid staff. Taking the LNERCA as an example, they have provided a set of teak carriages, raising most of the money to restore them, for Pickering-Grosmont services, but have now effectively been told, by a supposedly heritage railway, that their heritage coaches are no longer required! Supposedly the NYMR can no longer afford to use them, even though the NYMR only do the mechanical maintenance on them. What kind of message does this send to volunteers? what kind of message does the closure of the volunteer sleeping car at Pickering and the disbanding and banishment of the Levisham station group send? Of course volunteers are reluctant to come forward if they see others being badly treated The NYMR has become a railway run by paid staff for the benefit of those paid staff and consequently is probably doomed.

 

True heritage! We're back to the pre-grouping days, when lines were genuine commercial operations!

 

I think you three points can be applied to a large number of Heritage lines other than perhaps the "local things" such as Heartbeat.

The model we have used for so long I believe is teetering on the edge of being broken.

Heritage Railways to me are like commercial airlines, defying sound economic logic a lot of the time.

 

If last year's loss was £268k, I think that represents an improvement.

As I've said before, I was surprised there was no Sunday morning train into Whitby. With just a 12h00 departure ex Pickering, revenue must have taken a hit.
This year, the Sunday morning train is restored.

A reasonably loaded morning Whitby train could have 150 passengers. Over 31 Sundays that brings in revenue of around £230k.

Just 30 additional passengers per day (174 days) would bring in £258k.

 

Remember this was the year that changes were brought in to allow gift aid to be reclaimed on fares, and this supposedly brought in another 400-500K. Bearing this in mind that suggests to me that there was an improvement over the previous year in terms of revenue, but none whatsoever in terms of like for like performance. It doesn't suggest to me, for example, that the CEO deserved a salary rise of ca 50% for their performance! But then, I'm a simple soul and I'm sure Lineisclear will provide an adequate explanation of why everything is quite all right!

 

I do notice that the NYMR are now advertising significantly reduced price tickets over summer, kids go free and I think my other half mentioned the other day that there's a further discount through groupon or similar. From my outside perspective I'd assume that changing over to a £49-return model without the annual pass hasn't been a success.

 

Sorry to disappoint 60044 but I'm not going to suggest everything is "quite all right". Manifestly it's not but that's a situation that is not unique to the NYMR. I credit 60044 with at least suggesting ways forward unlike some other posters who are quick to identify the problems but are short on answers. However, we disagree as to whether his suggesed focus on authentic heritage is a panacea. Interetstingly none of the fading "golden eggs" referred to in another post couold be said to be railway heritage yet apparently they were key attractions. The reality is that only about 5% of visitors are railway enthusaists for whom heritage authenticity may be a draw. They are an important group but getting things right for them is not going to transform the finances.
The latest attack is on salary levels, particulalrly that of the CEO. Apples are being compared to oranges in that case. The previous CEO agreed a low salary and higher pension contributions. The proper question is whether the NYMR is paying fair salaries that attract and retain the resource it needs. That's especially true when times are hard. The old saying of "pay peanuts and get monkeys" is apposite. Addressing the challenges the NYMR and other heritage railways face requires the best managememt they can afford. Penny pincing is not a viable option. It's also necessary to puncture the myth of well paid staff riding on the backs of hard working vounteers. The sector is not renowned for its generosity when it comes to pay. In most cases those employed could earn far more in other sectors. ( For instance recently qualified former apprentices being enticed to move to jobs that pay between twice and three times what they could earn in the heritage railway sector). The hard truth is that paid staff at all levcels tend to stay because of dedication, commitment and the satisfaction of keeping the show on the road. Instead of undermining them recognition of their pivotal contribution would help! Without the paid staff there woud be no opportunities to volunteer on the NYMR and many other heritage railways. As suggested previously getting back to a longer term sustainable financial position is going to require radical change. Looking back to the halcyon days of the past for a solution is a mirage. Heritage railways have to adapt to the world of today. That is going to require leadership by volunteer boards and executive management of a very high order including the courage to make decisions that will be unpalatable. It's far from "quite all right" but, as the going gets tougher, its the tough, both volunteer and employed, who will secure the future.

 

That's somewhat unfair to him; in a recent post on this thread, he said "It's been apparent for some years that the traditional business model is, at best, under severe strain and for some no longer sustainable", which hardly sounds like a 'no worries' attitude.

 

Those are fair answers to the questions on absolute pay levels, and also in the recognition that visitors' motivations vary. However, I note two important elisions in what is said.

First is that heritage authenticity is only a draw for enthusiasts. My own experience at NYMR was that the teak set were a positive appeal in their own right, to enthusiasts and non-enthusiasts alike. They formed part of the marketing for the railway, and were a draw as part of a rounded attraction.

The second is the omission of mention of the ratio between paid and volunteer roles. It may be that (say) GWSR have an unsustainably low proportion of paid staff, but with the paybill so large a proportion of the fixed cost base, questions also remain about the sustainability of the NYMR's staffing structure.

 

The GWSR may have a low paid staff level but they are soundly beaten by the Spa Valley Railway which remains all volunteer from the GM downwards. I think that this is the largest all volunteer line in terms of operations.

 

Noticed on the website a Tornado Summer visit has been announced... No. 60163 Tornado Summer Visit.

 

The observation about volunteer/paid staff ratios is fair comment. The challenge is ensuring that the necessary resource is in place to be able to run the operation safely and at its traditional scope and scale. If volunteers with the necessary skills and competencies aren't there use of paid staff is necessary to sustain that. An alternative might be to assess what volunteer/staff ratio is ideal and let that determine the railway's scope, scale and level of operations. The problem is that would inevitably involve doing and operating less with the consequent impact on income generation,

 

Your analysis, internally correct though it may be (in particular I applaud the observation that "paid staff at all lev[]els [in heritage rail operations] tend to stay because of dedication"), is still looking at heritage rail operations as businesses.

While I agree (as I said previously) that they "have to keep the books balanced", and are thus in some respects somewhat like businesses, I'm not sure that treating them as normal businesses (with a 'product', customers, and all that) will be fruitful. (Hence my crack about "[w]e're back to the pre-grouping days, when [individual] lines were genuine commercial operations"). Although a few, like the Dartmouth Steam Railway, seem to be able to make a go of it, I'm not sure how wide an applicability that model can have in the heritage rail world.

Fundamentally, whether the market they are in is 'entrainment', or 'transport', I'm not sure that their unavoidable cost structure (major fixed assets, maintenance thereof, etc), customer base, etc, along with competition in that market (e.g. cars, in transport), and their cost structure, leaves many market niches for heritage rail operations. Hence my praise for lines that have gone in another direction, fundamentally (e.g. "a very large very well organized volunteer society").

Let me be clear, though: I do not at all wish ill to those lines that have not gone in that direction. In fact, I wish them nothing but the best. However, I might re-word Feynman's semi-famous closing line from his appendix to the space shuttle Challenger accident report ("For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."): For a successful heritage rail line, reality must take precedence over wishes, for economics cannot be fooled.