North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Steve's original post suggested that the General Managers of ALL heritage railways should have in their job descriptions that they should always use volunteers rather than paid staff. Why it is condescending to point out that there a number of General Managers of successful heritage railways to whom that couldn't apply becuase they don't have volunteers and which, incidentally, are also members of the HRA.

 

I wouldn't call it condescending, but when the number of organisations not using volunteers can be counted on the fingers of one hand, it is frankly a distraction.

 

I don't agree (which won't surprise you). As others seem to have accepted there is no one size fits all and there is a spectrum from 100% volunteer at one end to 100% paid employment at the other. Different railways at varying stages in their development occupy different positions on that spectrum. Those at the 100% employment are bound to be small in number but the fact that they can still operate a financially viable heritage railway is significant. With the general decline in volunteering and the need for assured competence in wide range of disciplines, not all related directly to railway operations, there appears to be growing pressure to shift the balance more towards the employment end. It's obvious that the NYMR has moved further in that direction than most but others are not far behind.

 

Given the self confessed financial issues the NYMR is facing it is hardly a ringing endorsement of the move towards much higher proportions of paid employees.

 

Actually that isn’t what was said. The quote was “never to pay for something a volunteer could do”. Speaking as a business owner if I could get people to do things for nothing, I would, obviously. Heritage railways have that offered to them on a plate. Why would you not try to use that resource?

 

That's fair comment, and reasonable if looking at the sector as a whole. However, if looking at NYMR in particular, I remain of the view that it's a distraction.

While I'm generally reluctant to go down the road of assuming that systemic losses are primarily a cost issue, because the reflex reactions tend to kill the golden goose, in the case of NYMR I do think that many of the issues are on the cost side. The published accounts are for 2024, so we don't know how 2025 will turn out, but there are significant indicators that the limits of pricing tolerance have been reached - hence the discounting this summer. While I'm sure there is room to grow income at marginal cost, the impact of the dry summer can't have helped this year.

On the other hand, we know that NYMR has an unusually high ratio for the sector of staff costs to income, and those costs are to a very considerable degree part of the fixed cost base.

That puts the railway in a vice. To trade it's way* out of this structural deficit, it needs to move to a position where it is not drawing on reserves and relying on one-offs, but move towards a position where it can break even on the traffic available. That, based on the pattern of recent years, must involve a significant rebalancing away from reliance on paid staff, with a consequential structural reduction in the fixed costs underlying the railway.

I maintain my view, reinforced by the language you have used and anecdotes from others, that this is not just about a narrow financial exercise, but requires a deep seated culture change. The motto quoted by @21B sets the tone; instead of debating the finer points of whether it's always applicable, there needs to be a clear focus on making that happen and actively looking for opportunities to shift the balance away from a reliance on permanent staff.

* - I'm conscious that you have pursued a strategy of seeking grants, and have taken the view that routine trading won't be enough. My own experience in the last few years is that an initial post-Covid splurge of grants has now dried up, and that external funding (especially public sector) is becoming harder and harder to obtain. That means that, in my view, trading through is the only option - though I share @Jamessquared's view that membership and donations should be view as part of that trading income.

 

It has been a while since the NYMR obtained any significant grants, and it does not seem to have dawned on the NYMR's SMT that grants that support revenue rather than capital costs are scarcer than hens teeth, and that most rants require a contribution from the receiving body. In other words, they are not a panacea! Grant applications are something that can be carried out by volunteers, as the YMJ application to HLF was n- and yet the NYMR advertised for - and presumably appointed - someone to write grant applications. I wonder if they are still in post, and whether they have raised enough to cover the cost of their salary yet. I haven't heard of any successful applications since that job advert appeared, though. In the meantime, the Trust's reserves are being squandered propping up the annual deficit, making it harder for it to offer financial support to any future applications. I'll say it again, I don't think that the existing Trust and PLC boards really have any identifiable ability to find a better way forward, and if they really care about the Railway they should pack up and leave it to others who might. I don't think most people could be worse than what we currently have.

 

Let's be honest, there would be NO heritage railways in this country if it wasn't for the work put in by volunteers. Who built the NYMR? It was not paid staff.

 

True of the NYMR but not all heritage railways. However, we have to deal with the present. Today’s reality is that the NYMR couldn’t survive without its paid staff or its volunteers.

 

The NYMR had appointed a Director of Fundraising (I think that was the title but not sure), but resigned June 2024.

re the point that “I don’t think the existing Trust and PLC boards really have any identifiable ability to find a better way forward” I do note that they have not sat on their laurels and have managed to reduce a loss of £633k to £279k between 2023/24 and 2024/25, whilst whilst not ideal (by any measure) does demonstrate that measures are being taken. And this year, the railway has demonstrated its ability to flex, as demonstrated by its recent change in ticket prices (children go free over summer / introduction on a 3-stop ticket / better publicity of its best value ticket), and quick reaction to securing Tornado after the recent WCRC fall out. I cannot for one moment imagine that anyone else can have done better that’s the NYMR Trust / PLC in the circumstances (Ukraine, NI, cost of livings, inflation etc etc)

 

As I have posted before, I believe that the reduction from a loss of 633K to 279K was largely due to the introduction in Gift Aid on tickets, and so was a one off, and the changes in fares this year make it likely that this years figure will improve the results this year by a similar amount. I would also challenge your assertion that the various measures you have listed as quick responses are anything but; most are responses to predictions that were being made before the season started and which unfortunately proved to be right but took a while for the reality to dawn within Park Street. Finally, is the war in Ukraine etc. still being used as an excuse? If it is, perhaps you might want to throw in Israel/ Gaza, Israel/Iran, Trump's tariffs, uncertainty over the Scunthorpe steel plant and so on - or are those next years lame excuses in waiting?

 

You're correct that fixed costs represent the greatest challenge. Staff costs are a substantial proportion of those ( made worse by the last budget) but the greatest threat is probably the cost of essential infrastructure repairs and maintenance driven by recent huge increases in material costs. It's easy to suggest reducing labour cost. Far more difficult to do it without undermining the ability to operate a safe railway at its present length and scale of activity. At least 60044, when addressing how to reduce labour cost accepted that the only realistic option is natural wastage which takes a long time to make a sigificant difference. Redundancy in any form is expensive and poses huge problems if the intention is that volunteers should take on the roles of those previously employed ( by definition if the work still needs to be done the staff were not redundant and may be entitled to much more expensive redress). Consequently reducing paid headcount involves an unavoidable reduction in essential resource and in the scope and scale of the railway with fewer opportunities to volunteer in operational roles. Is that really the suggested option?

 

As I have posted before, I believe that the reduction from a loss of 633K to 279K was largely due to the introduction in Gift Aid on tickets, and so was a one off, and the changes in fares this year make it likely that this years figure will improve the results this year by a similar amount. I would also challenge your assertion that the various measures you have listed as quick responses are anything but; most are responses to predictions that were being made before the season started and which unfortunately proved to be right but took a while for the reality to dawn within Park Street. Finally, is the war in Ukraine etc. still being used as an excuse? If it is, perhaps you might want to throw in Israel/ Gaza, Israel/Iran, Trump's tariffs, uncertainty over the Scunthorpe steel plant and so on - or are those next years lame excuses in waiting? Of course, by the time we find out another year will have been wasted because we now have the AGM falling in the middle of the financial year and it has become largely a waste of time because another season will be over before this years results can be dissected. How to stay in power even if you are useless!

 

I thought the Gift Aid /Annual Pass was introduced in 2023?

Jon

 

The timing of the AGM is dictated by the Financial Year End , the time required to audit the accounts and company law. It's about the the earliest it can practicably be held. You're right that for a seasonal business the die is cast around May/ June when, even if changes are made, the relatively short period of the peak season remaining means their impact will always be muted. Unfortunately May /June can also be too early to draw firm conclusions about prospects for the season as witness this year when the abnormally dry spring and diesel substitution impacted income. The best that you can do is look at available market data ( and a very broad range is studied carefully) but there will always be something of a finger in the air compromise. I'm not sure that the members' fingers are any more accurate predictors!

 

I’m not really familiar with the VoR or Brecon Mountain Railway. But the Paignton and Dartmouth is I would suggest a very poor model to follow for a number of reasons.

Firstly, at a business level it isn’t really just a railway, it is a fully-integrated transport network designed around offering full-day and half-day itineraries for tourists. The railway is just one part, and serves primarily as a means to get people to the starting point if an extensive boat network.

The second part is that the railway system really has no pretensions to offering any kind of heritage experience: utilitarian stations, utilitarian carriages, simplified signalling no educational or heritage extras such as a museum or goods wagons etc. You get a scenic journey behind steam, but that’s it.

That’s not a criticism of the operation: it does what it aims to do very well. But it manages on paid staff only firstly because it has some commercial economies of scale, and secondly because it does absolutely nothing that distracts from the core function of moving passengers by steam - and only over 5 or 6 miles, not 20+

Is that your optimum vision of the NYMR?

Tom

 

It's not an easy time.
The CEO mentioned the NI contribution changes in April would add 200k to costs. Then the drought conditions have meant very few steam workings in April, May, June and some of July. That is a serious challenge, and passenger numbers will be lower.
The price change to tickets and increased cost of travel will have deterred visitors.
It will be difficult to separate the effect of the fares change from effect of the diesel operation in any analysis.

Tornado, will be be boost and extra cash from Scotsman will be sorely needed.
It's good someone is making an effort to boost takings and create a buzz.

 

could you identify the HERITAGE (as opposed to those set up in an explicitly commercial way) railways that meet your first sentence?

 

Playing devils advocate a little here, would most customers notice the difference between P&D and NYMR in that respect? Aren’t most there for the scenic steam train ride rather than the quality of the intermediate stations or signalling?

 

I think it would be very difficult to retain the charitable status and all that lovely Gift Aid

More seriously, I think the NYMR and PDSR are so different in business model as to be incomparable.

Tom