North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I ignore the ‘D’ (for drift) on Stanier locos and close the regulator and wind the reverser back to the point where the steam chest pressure gauge just lifts off the stop. That’s usually about 25% at our line speeds. No steam or just cracked if it’s needed for lubrication. Where a steam chest gauge isn’t fitted I use 25% as a norm. Slide valve locos always in full gear.

 

Answering (1) first. There’s an argument that you can’t make money unless you run trains so the simple answer is to run more trains. That, to some extent is true but you need to make sure those trains you run at least make a profit on a marginal basis and preferably contribute to the fixed costs. The NYMR’ decision to go to a 5 day week has immediately increased the fixed costs apportioned to each operating day so makes each train theoretically less profitable. At the start of the season it was hoped that the passengers denied a trip on Thursday and Friday would transfer to other days. Has there been any evidence of this? In terms of running more trains, the Scotsman trains. Have done that. However, I’m told by someone who should know that the decision to go 5 day working is nothing to do with economics but is to give the railways infrastructure and equipment a chance of surviving the year. On this basis, the Scotsman trains are potentially an additional risk to the infrastructure.
In terms of (2), without a detailed breakdown of costs and comparing them to the marketplace, the only thing that can be realistically attacked is the payroll. I don’t think the idea of substituting diesel for steam is a sensible option but I don’t have any figures to substantiate my gut feeling. We have an idea of turnarounds at the booking office but no idea of those who decide not to even venture to the railway because of the type of motive power.

 

There's been suggestions in the past that the solution is to shake the mythical magic money tree a bit harder. What Steve advocates is the converse of that......cut payroll cost without detracting from the ability to operate the railway in its current form. It's another myth based on the populist assumption of unecessary paid staff , an untapped experinced/qualified volunteer resource ready to replace them, and that a market is bouyant enough to generate a surplus from routinely operating more trains on more days. The hard truth is that if Steve's right, that the only thing that can realistically be attacked is the payroll, there will be an unavoidable impact on the railway's capacity to function at its current level. Pretending that's avoidable is just as much a delusion as the magic money tree.

 

I’m confused by this narrative being pushed that there are a whole host of roles that volunteers won’t cover. I assume they have a) been advertised as volunteer roles and that b) an uptodate skills audit is kept of volunteers so those with appropriate skills can be identified and asked?

There are many times I’ve needed to find volunteers for things, on and off railways, and whilst a) has often not worked, it has as soon as it is combined with b).

volunteers come from all walks of life, we are told in publicity for many of our railways. I quite understand that someone from, for example, a compliance background will not want to walk out of their 9-5 job and do the same thing unpaid. But five years after they started volunteering, gained their competency in their area (let’s call it signalman)… would they reconsider? Have they got such pleasure from becoming a signalman that they are happy to professionally contribute to the railway and give a bit back in return for that joy? Have their working circumstances changed, and whilst holding the experience and skills they are not using them day to day? Even if they don’t want the sole responsibility, could they lead a team? Or pass on skills to someone willing to work in the area?

the NYMR needs to cut costs… but seems to be putting a lot of options on the “too difficult” pile. How long before operating a passenger service becomes “too difficult?”

 

There are times when one is reminded of the cynics definition of an expert: someone who tells you why something can’t be done.

 

Still only 60163 out steam-wise today, despite plenty of rain over the last few days.

 

The situation you describe already happens. There are many volunteers contributing their skills, experience, and in some case professional qualifications, to support the railway. An enhanced focus on volunteering has been confirmed recently. It's not that cutting payroll costs is in the "too difficult" pile but that there's reluctance to take that step because the consequences would be unavoidably painful including for volunteers. If there were simple easy painless remedies they would have been taken long ago.

 

That may be. But what I notice (and have contributed to in part), is the focus on cutting. The bit that frustrates me is that there’s little focus on growth - and the role that careful use of paid staff to enable volunteers to do more can achieve. Nothing said here gives me any sense of strategic vision, just tactical muddling through and matching costs to activities.

When suggestions that the marketing is 7 or more paid staff, I begin to despair at the allocation of resources given the results achieved. From outside, my speculation would be that there is no overall strategic direction, and that the decisions are made by competition between departments, with winners and losers defined by headcount and budgets.

 

Being sued and being prosecuted are different. You can insure against one but not the other. I suspect I'm not going to get an answer to my question because it's never happened in a heritage railway setting. In fact I doubt it's happened anywhere as the employer is the "controlling mind". If the instruction is no good then it's the employers fault for engaging an incompetent instructor. And yes, an HSE inspector told me they don't differentiate between volunteers and paid staff.

 

Sometimes it's necessary to take some very unwelcome actions to prevent the whole organisation failing. Read John Harvey-Jones books.

 

Your frustation is shared widely! To achieve worthwhile growth there has to be demand for the product at a price that can generate a surplus. All the comparisons with other tourist and hospitality businesses, both regional and national, confirm that the NYMR is doing considerably better than most. Many are reporting reductions in visitor numbers of around 20%. If the NYMR could buck national trends and achieve substantially growth in visitor numbers and operating surpluses our shared frustration would be over but I suspect its advisory services would then be in demand at national Government level!

 

An admission that suggests that that has not been the case previously

 

Welcome, but not what I referred to. The persistent “will we, won’t we” to auditors giving “going concern” status suggests fundamental issues on both cost and income sides. Volunteers allow an organisation to get more bang for their buck. Yet the persistent tone is about the downside of volunteering, and how they can’t be relied upon.

I read other railways’ threads on here, and it’s clear that this is untrue. Volunteers are a force multiplier, yet NYMR persistently handicaps itself by finding reasons to constrain their use. Legitimate questions are framed not as “how can we” but “what might go wrong”, meaning that the tone is wrong.

 

As the plc chairman has gone, will more of the plc directors leave? Does the pivot to 'more volunteers' and talk of blank sheets and limited time to implement more savings mean the railway is now in crisis?

Are many of the problems simply bad management?

 

Given the resignation statement, taken in tandem with reports of the former chairman’s engagement with volunteers, one may also wonder in which direction policy is moving.

 

It's clear that some on here think the NYMR's management team is doing a poor job, but I have to say I'm glad not to have that job.

 

yes indeed, it seems many of the bigger railways are experiencing sustained drops in passenger numbers compared to pre Covid levels. Navigating a way forward though this in addition to the general rise in costs is tricky to say the least. This isn’t a problem unique to the NYMR.

 

But some seem to have taken action some time ago to mitigate
the problem.

Sent from my SM-A556B using Tapatalk

 

what are the visitor (or passenger) numbers then? I seem to be able to find them for almost every comparable railway, or indeed other major non railway attractions?