North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

While I am not convinced either that Whitby was a financially driven project (as an NYMR member at the time, my recollection is that the focus was emphatically on completing the railway), or that it is the source of the profitability issues for the railway, I do agree that it has fundamentally changed the character of the line and moved it towards being a park & ride operation.

My judgement, in addition to what @21B has posted, is that much of what we see around financial performance is tied to that question of character.

One aspect of that undoubtedly lies in regulatory compliance. It involves going on the "big railway", and playing by "big railway" rules. That drives certain requirements, and influences behaviours - a notable example being the discussions over door and window locks.

Another is in how the railway generates money. @60044 comments on the loss of secondary business; my hunch is that it was never significant enough to be the issue he describes. But it does create a tension between a core business of 3-4 round trips per day of park & ride traffic, and how the railway earns money the rest of the day, and from its other stations. My sense is that, over the last 8-10 years, NYMR has increasingly lost focus on how it serves Levisham, Newtondale, Goathland and Grosmont, while also leaning on Pickering being a starting point, not a terminus.

This then brings round the question of the role of culture and volunteers. It's clear that there has always been a tension between "Park Street" and "the railway", and that seems to have deepened. @Lineisclear comments on concerns over staff morale, and I believe him. Yet what is also apparent is a technocratic spirit, focused on business, that leaves little space for what I'd call the soul of the railway. The narrow focus on a lowest cost model of running a steam railway, the very narrow interpretations of what it means to meet charitable purposes, the interpretation of volunteers as a cost - all leave the impression that this soul is being squeezed.

The board are clearly, and rightly, concerned about financial performance. But I am also concerned about what may be left if they are successful (I can't bear to contemplate failure). For many, maybe even enough to pay the bills, a park & ride service that's often steam hauled, supplemented with "experiences", may cut it. But I wonder where the next generation(s) of volunteers will come from, and how that operation will keep itself viable.

We can see that the price rises this year have stretched public tolerance. That requires doing more for less, and my view remains that this makes retaining, motivating and recruiting volunteers the most important thing the railway can do.

 

The passengers vote with their feet. They get off at Whitby. As with Minehead, so with Whitby.
Goathland is the other attraction and could be promoted more widely especially in Whitby.

It's normal for 100 to 150 people, or more, to be standing in Whitby station up to 40 minutes before departure. Could the railway sell something to them or provide a better experience whilst they wait?

New signalling procedures should speed up Whitby trains and a less padded journey on the Moors may be even more attractive.

My local butcher tells me people are not spending as they used to. This is probably the long knock on effect of Liz Truss on mortgages and the high inflation period that followed.
As people get older, the younger people coming through are not as wealthy.

The boomer wave has broken.

 

As mentioned before the analysis done some years ago indicated that the optimal financial model is the much derided Whitby Park and Ride with just two services a day and nothing else. So if the object is just financial sustainability the best course of action would be the very oppposite of what 60044 suggests. Personally I believe the NYMR should gradually wean itself off dependence on Whitby for a number of reasons but that will take some time. If that process is not carefully managed over many years the prerequisite would probably be impossible to achieve.

 

I think I find myself in full agreement with what you write. I wish I saw more being done - and, again, it is largely about tone - to promote "ordinary" use of the stations from Grosmont southwards as destinations, rather than leaning into Whitby as the primary goal.

 

This winters Grosmont to Whitby resignalling plus Northern’s desire to run more EVB trains may give the NYMR the opportunity to recast its timetable to minimise the running of some of its what are effectively ECS trains, and so that the Pickering and Grosmont stock are effectively cycled each day: at present the 9.15 ex Grosmont departure finishes its day back at Grosmont whilst the first two ex Pickering departures likewise finish their day at Pickering, so that at present if a carriage on the Grosmont stock is required back at the Pickering C&W then this means an uncomfortable/ undesirable set swop at some point during the day at Grosmont.

 

What is the scope of this resignalling? In particular, does it include the ability to split the section between Glaisdale and Whitby at Grosmont, to allow greater flexibility there?

 

Much has been talked of NYMR passenger numbers. I feel that using passenger numbers as gauge of the health of a railway is next to useless.
Passenger numbers/footfall can only be guessed from tickets sold, unless preserved railways have completely closed stations with revenue protection on barriers and on trains, it is impossible to ensure every passenger buys a ticket. It's extremely unlikely that a preserved railway would go down that route.
When Mr Benham was NYMR's GM; other Preserved railways used to joke that the NMYR counted a day rover ticket as 3 passengers, because it was feasible to do do 3 round trips between Pickering and Grosmont per day; which inflated the passenger numbers compared with the railways which counted 1 rover ticket as one passenger.

Mr 60044's needle is stuck in the "lay-off paid staff" groove. I decided to have a look at information available on the public record; on the Companies House Website. Namely the Annual Accounts for various preserved railways.
I looked at 15 railways; for the same two figures: Turnover and Paid Staff Costs.
For turnover, I used the total revenue for the organisations, whether it was from fares, catering or donations.
For Paid Staff Costs, I ensured I used the same metrics: salaries+ employers National Insurance & pension costs.
I then divided Paid Staff Costs by Turnover x 100 to give a percentage.
I'm not going to list a league table, because I would be criticised for various things. The information is available to anyone with internet access!
NYMR (44%) isn't the highest..... Nor is the Dartmouth Steam Railway (45%).

Due to timings of annual reports, some of the reports go back to 2022-23, where others are right up to date with 2024 - 2025.

Mr 60044 advocates wholesale lay-off of paid staff. It's not impossible, but it's not easy.
ACAS have a guide to help Employers stay within the law.

Step 1: Check redundancy is needed - Managing staff redundancies - Acas

 

A very helpful contribution! What 60044 and others who argue for paid staff reductions need to consider is what roles, competencies and resources can the railway manage without? The assumption that it could cut employee numbers substantially and still carry on much as it is now is delusional. They also need to recognise that their constant clamour for paid staff reductions unsettles and demotivates all staff including those without which the railway absolutely cannot exist. They are playing with fire.

 

As I understand (from hearsay, so treat as you will)
- Grosmont to Whitby will become a block rather than Glaisdale to Whitby
- NYMR once authorised to enter EVB, will be able to proceed directly to Whitby Platform 2

Currently:
- NYMR trains immediately stop on entering the EVB to reset the point back to mainline (whatever the technical term is but Glaisdale toward Whitby); the Ground-frame crew seeks permission from the Nunthorpe Signal Box to change the points from NYMR to mainline, enters the token into the groundframe, changes the points, walks forward to the driver, hands over the token, walks back to the brake and enters the train.
- at the Sleights station stop board, the train stops and authorisation is received from the Nunthorpe Signal Box to proceed. Once reviewed, the guard then authorises the driver to proceed.
- on arrival at Bockhole sidings the Ground-frame the crew gets off the NYMR train, collects the token from the driver, walks forward to the ground frames , seeks permission from Nunthorpe Signal Box to change the points from Platform 1 to 2, enters the token into the ground frame, unlocks and changes the points accordingly.
Rinse, Repeat for the return journey (except for the stop board at Sleights, but the train does momentarily stop at Ruswarp station instead for clearance of the adjoining level crossing

I understand thought was put into restoring the loop at Sleights but would have also required the installation of a new footbridge rather than a foot crossing to serve a restored platform there.

 

I do not wish any staff made redundant. My concern is over the repeated emphasis on a model that, despite proclamations that volunteers are welcome, creates cultural and practical barriers to their use despite their ability to act as a force multiplier. That is increased when I see such high ratios of staff costs to turnover, noting very helpful comments from others about the care required in interpreting such numbers, where the railway is so loss making.

The attitude needs to be about how the railway can more fully exploit the financial resources it has because cost cutting a la Beeching cannot solve the railway's economic problems. So, in answer to "what can the railway do without", the parallel question has to be "how can these roles, competencies and resources most economically be provided?".

I sense a deep reluctance to really explore the volunteer route, and I think that a great shame.

 

You are correct two token machines are set aside by NR to be refurbished and fitted at Grosmont.

 

I am someone who has often asked for passenger numbers, and the reason is very simple. We have this data for every other comparable railway. It is not commercially sensitive… unless people have something to hide.
Yes they are not a perfect metric, but at least comparison can then be made with other railways and historic data.

why the great reluctance?

 

I’m not party to the passenger numbers but even if I had them I’d regard them as pretty meaningless. As previously stated, I’d consider passenger revenue is the key metric, particularly for 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024. I have no doubt that passengers numbers increased over that period, but many may have been using an annual pass; 20% for 2023 and my best guess towards the end of would be towards 40%, and with many accompanied with children also travelling for free. In addition, EPOS would record / give total numbers of passengers being issued with a ticket, but how far were they actually travelling eg maybe just Pickering to Goathland but they’d have been automatically issued with a Pickering to Whitby all line ticket.

So, even if you had the data, you would not be able to compare it with other railways, whether in terms of total passengers, passengers per train-mile or passenger-mile per train mile operated. And you would not be able to deduce trends for reasons stated above. I’d be more interested in comparing passenger revenue per train-mile operated as the KPI.

 

The problem seems to me to be that the present management don't seem to have much idea to make the NYMR more attractive than being a gateway to Whitby! Apart from the annual diesel and steam galas there doesn't seem to be much going on. Yes there are occasional events to entice families a with school age children, but they tend to be events for the younger ages Some real creativity is needed to bring on new events - something like the Polar Express at xmas, for example, but created in house and without the copyright overhead! There's a "community engagement" person, on the staff - well get them to do some engaging by going round schools looking for students studying drama to volunteer to come along and do some entertaining on Santa trains while broadening their drama experience! Make the point at the same time it's a case of use it or lose it! The privately owned car park adjacent to the railway is supposedly up for sale at the moment. If that was acquired it would provided an income and space to stage events like a small to medium scale steam rally or vintage car events. I'd look to fund its purchase by selling off two currently useless - or barely used - assets, the Station Hotel and the second cafe at the end of Pickering Station.

Contrary to what has been said, I've no wish to make anyone redundant. I've lived for a while in fear of being on the receiving end, and some years later it eventually happened to me, so I know it's not pleasant, but I'd rather it happened to some staff than see the whole enterprise collapse through misguided loyalty towards the staff. Like it or not it's probably inevitable, and with the railway doing less and less it is hard to see how the present level of office staff can be sustained.

 

The wage bill is only part of the story though. Do the other lines have hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of loans to pay back? Do they have a maintenance backlog? Numerous speed restrictions, unusable sections of track, rampant lineside growth? Locos stopped that are regularly stopped for winter maintenence in November that don't re-enter service until after the summer peak? Frequently relying on diesels and hired in steam locos to maintain the service because not enough of their own steam locos are available for traffic? Paying hire fees on vehicles that aren't being used? Overhauls (not full rebuilds from scrapyard condition) that last for decades?

The wage bill is a big, single number in the accounts so it's easy to focus on that, but all the other waste seems excessive. All five motive power units today are hired in, while the home fleet sits broken or unused. If the fire risk is so high, why is 60163 allowed to be used but nothing else? Not even a token service from Grosmont to Pickering. Steam to Whitby seems to a very rare occurrence these days - a quick look through https://www.nymrdiesel.org.uk/workings.html shows 31128 and 37688 have worked the majority of them over the last few months.

 

That would seem to leave much rolling stock and many staff lying idle. Do trains between Pickering and Grosmont really run at a loss?

 

And another question, who would volunteer on such a railway with big big gaps between services?

 

You might well ask. But I’d go back to the financial question - because that would then give much better insight into where the opportunities for additional revenue are. I remain convinced that one of the factors is the apportionment of costs to operations, and that it makes them appear unduly expensive to run

 

Not me which is why I've described such an option as over my dead body! As another poster highlights much of the stock would be superflous. It's not a serious option as it would eviscerate the NYMR but it indicates the ultimate commercially viable business. It would run on similar lines to the P&D and other commercial railways without volunteers. No one wants to follow that path but it serves as a reminder that maintaining the traditional NYMR comes at a price involving a compromise between the financial security of a purely commercial business and pursuit of the NYMR's charitable purposes.

 

I suspect you eventually come to find that such a model wasn't viable for non-financial reasons even if the money worked - notably that with a very sparse service, it becomes increasingly difficult to train staff. Certainly it wouldn't work with volunteers, no-one would get enough experience to train through the ranks. (Imagine trying to train a signalman at, say, Pickering if the sum total of their experience was to signal two departures and two arrivals during an entire shift?)

Ultimately though you come back to the point that some of your big costs (and in particular infrastructure renewals) don't scale back just because your service scales back. Which leads to the somewhat counter-intuitive point that running fewer trains makes the per-train cost higher, because you have the same infrastructure costs spread over fewer services. That's not an argument for running empty trains, but it is an argument that says you can't cut your way to profitability. Ultimately, if the NYMR is to survive in the long term, it has to find a way to grow its revenue base; it can't survive by cutting costs.

(As an aside, the problem of covering fixed costs is why I believe that dieselisation is a false economy. Changing traction does nothing to reducing all teh non-traction costs).

Tom