North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I find it helpful to think of the opportunities to deliver services to the public as products. Each product has its own unique characteristics that appeal to a unique set of customers (there is of course overlap because more than one product may appeal to the customer).

The Moors currently has had just one product which utterly dominated its timetable and all operational thinking, the trains to Whitby. The dining train is a different product, but much less prevalent.

It seems to me that if @Steve is correct about the operational constraints the railway has very little flexibility to introduce any other product, whether or not such a product would be attractive. You could attempt to fill any unused space on the Whitby trains and the dining trains for internal passengers, but this may very well be hard to sell for reasons I will come to in a minute.

It also seems to me that operational inflexibility has bred an overall inflexible culture. “It cannot be done” appears to be the default setting, which leads to an attitude best described as “anti - innovation”. Some will say, but the operational constraints stop us doing … I would say this, you need to ask what you want to achieve and then what that would take and then whether you can afford to do that. If you stop having that investigatory approach you stop innovating and ultimately you just stop.

That reason for internal services being a hard sell if only using up capacity that’s already there…. I have noted that people do not like leaving “their train” they will if there is a big attraction like Whitby at one end and the train takes them there for a period. Otherwise they will not. Intermediate stop travel on just about every heritage railway has gone from rare species of traveller to virtually extinct in the last 20years. Good luck therefore with internal services that are not dedicated to that purpose.

Where does that leave the NYMR. You probably cannot enhance the internal ridership without being prepared to shed capacity for Whitby traffic to make room for it.

So where does that leave the railway? In fairness to the management, in a bind. Reducing Whitby capacity to create space for internal services is a gamble. It won’t reduce the cost of a specific service all that much, it will reduce the price point and it may not attract as many passengers. It would on the face of it be a brave decision.

So tinkering is not going to work. It is probably also true that investment in the amount of infrastructure needed to enable internal services is not realistic either - hence having to reduce Whitby travel to have attractive internal services. Doubling the line from Grosmont to summit is a massive investment. The only alternative is to consider entirely dropping the Whitby service. Given how much of the revenue that has generated as a proportion over the last 20years that’s another tough call. It might work, but only if the cost (and I am afraid that means staff) can be radically reduced as a consequence. Sadly, if the news we get is accurate, at some point significant reductions in the staff are pretty much the only option other than a major injection of cash from some benefactor or grant body.

 

None of that means you shouldn’t try everything you can to encourage additional traffic wherever you can squeeze it in.

 

Thinking about this a little, I'm going to compare and contrast with the SVR, mainly due to being the railway most familiar to me.
Main starting station for passengers: Kidderminster and Pickering
Main destination, some starting traffic: Bridgnorth and Whitby
Secondary starting and destination: Bewdley and Grosmont
Intermediate destination: Highley (Engine House) and Goathland
Other intermediates: Hampton Loade & Arley and Levisham.

When I've visited, Goathland has often been quite busy, but while there is a station shop and cafe the other attractions are off the railway. The Engine House provides the visitor centre opportunity which is missing from the NYMR.

The SVR regular gets canoe trip traffic. The parties canoe down the Severn from Bridgnorth or Arley and join the train later to travel back to their starting point. This isn't applicable to the NYMR, but have the equivalent walking trips ever been done?

Casual walking is easier between SVR stations due to shorter distances and paths are a little clearer than on the NYMR.

 

I never said it would be easy ..... but I really do feel that attempts need to be made, and I don't see any of those being made at present.. I'll put another argument - in the pre- and early-Whitby days the NYMR made a reasonable annual surplus, but nowadays it makes a consistent annual six figure loss, so a couple of reasonably straightforward conclusion are that it did used to (pre-Whitby) attract sufficient custom to wash its face, and that (since-Whitby) at best the financial performance has at best stood still, with the costs of running to Whitby outweighing the benefits in income. Of course, its more complex than that, but what worries me more is that there is no plan B, not even a hint of one - at the moment survival really seems to hang on the Grosmont-Whitby section - which the NYMR has no control, and seemingly little influence on. I'm not angling for big or even any!) reductions in staff, but throughout I have maintained that the present levels are not sustainable, and somehow the cost of running the railway has to be brought to point where they are. Other railways do it, the NYMR is not uniquely different, but the right formula and mix have to be found. But..... to find correct mix and formula it is necssary to look, and then experiment, and that is a new concept at the NYMR!

 

I agree with this analysis, but with a caveat.

A curiosity of the timetable is that most paths cannot serve Whitby. That has two effects. The first is that there is capacity within the hourly timetable to travel to the intermediate destinations. The second is that the real pressure point is for those intermediate visitors if they happen to need a train from Whitby to Pickering.

Taken together with the stock rotation enforced by the awkward paths, I share the view of @60044 that there is scope to boost internal traffic as marginal revenue at relatively low cost within the traditional peak season hourly timetable. The diagrams mean that locomotives are being steamed, and trains run, so the additional cost is fundamentally only the true marginal cost of the extra miles - any "per steaming" costs are already incurred. From comments made previously, I am convinced that these marginal costs are quite heavily loaded with fixed and "per event" costs, meaning that the value of such additional revenue is depressed.

 

Extending the loop to summit will pose some problems as has been pointed out over the years.
In the past when the various stretches of track have been renewed, the opportunity to realign the curves has been taken. In some cases the amount of slew has been over 10 foot. To realign to fit 2 tracks to Summit would require most of the curves to be relaid with Check railed track as the curve radius would be too tight. There may be a need to install a PSR when the aim of the work is to maintain a speed or reduce the section time.

An increase in the provision of greasers would be required and the added work of filling and maintaining them.
On a similar note increased wear on all Loco's and rolling stock wheelsets will cause more continued expense,
Can grease applicators be fitted to Loco's?
How much is a new loco or coach tyre and fitting going to cost? More frequent Tyre turning.
Near Abbots house an additional problem would be the embankment that is gradually moving downhill.
Currently managed by regular tip stone and tamp operations.
To fit 2 tracks through here would require considerable widening of the embankment.

 

Paths between Grosmont and Whitby are constrained by sharing the route with Northern. It makes sense for the paths that are available to be combined with paths between Grosmont and Pickering, so the Whitby customers can stay in their seats. But why is it so difficult to run other trains between Grosmont and Pickering?

 

It shouldn't be difficult to run those "internal" trains, and they do, but clearly they aren't well enough promoted. Nowadays, as well, one of the slots is frequently taken up by a lunchtime diner, which may be profitable but is possibly also quite offputting to "normal passengers, to whom it represents a2hr break in the middle of the day, as it really ruins the possibility of an afternoon out on the train. I'd suggest that the knock-on effect of this one departure is quite possibly disproportionate in revenue terms.

 

To some extent the Railway realises that running to Whitby creates operational constraints that are not conducive to anything but a standard day. For this reason, the galas have a timetable that does not include the usual Pickering - Whitby services. Favourite now seems to be an early through train from Pickering and a late return. For the rest of the day, there is a Whitby -Goathland service using the available paths. This seems to work well. An alternative is to run a Whitby - Grosmont shuttle top and tailed so it can use platform 1 and not interfere with services over the rest of the NYMR. In earlier times it was possible to squeeze in a couple of Whitby - Battersby trains which, with the chance of 40mph running, were very popular with enthusiasts (and train crews!)

 

I didn’t think you thought it easy. I certainly think you have a point that it has become plan A only, which would make me uncomfortable too.

If @35B is correct then it makes no sense not to try to fill the internal trains that are possible. The question becomes what product do you offer in order to do that. Experiment and imagination required. Whether the railway can resource this or the resulting additional products (be them family orientated or dining or whatever) is another question. The focus on Whitby suggests not, and they’ve hardly been winning over people of late.

 

Going back many years bow, there was a plan to build the NYMR equivalent of the Engine House at Grosmont. it was in the 1980's and would be known as the Bellwood centre and primarily intended to hold out of ticket locos under cover but with much more of interest incorporated. A lot of preliminary work was done on this project, including tipping near the loco shed to create the necessary level ground. Peter Best even obtained a traverser for the railway which would have provided access to the tracks in the building. In the end, it came to nought and a simple array of storage sidings gradually took up the designated area.
There is a very popular walk involving the NYMR and that is between Goathland and Grosmont (or vice versa depending on your preference for a downhill or uphill walk), usually combined with a stop at the Birch Hall Inn. However, the Railway does little to promote this. In fact, for the start of the 2025 season it abandoned single tickets so you couldn't do this walk without buying an expensive return ticket. It was the same between Whitby and Pickering where people often asked for a single with the intention of returning on the Coastliner bus (at £2 at the time.) You could only buy certain return fares which negated any chance of picking up intermediate fares. Fortunately, the outcry from various quarters led to a change of mind and certain single tickets were re-introduced but it does show the mindset of those in charge of running the railway.

 

It was me who mentioned double track to summit in response to @60044's suggestion of an intermediate loop in Newtondale. It was me trying to explain why a loop in Newtondale would be of no benefit in increasing train paths. I never suggested that it should be considered as I'm only too aware of what has happened to that stretch of line in the years since providing additional capacity was first mooted in the 1980's.

 

I think you underplay this; the walk used to be heavily promoted, along with other more strenuous walks between the two. This was a cheap way for the railway to encourage additional business and fill non-Whitby seats.

 

AIUI the kitchen and waiting staff are paid, and the operational staff (loco crew, guard, signalmen etc) are volunteer.

I believe the trains cover both their direct costs and a contribution to life cycle maintenance (and a contribution into infrastructure costs etc). What might be more marginal is the extent to which you recover the capital investment in overhauling a derelict vehicle for use in the train. That probably relies on some assumptions about how long you amortise those costs over. As an example, Car 54 supposedly cost £750k to restore. We'd normally reckon a 30 year life between major overhauls for a carriage, so at one level that is £50k per year of investment. On the other hand, after 30 years a considerable amount of that £750k investment will still remain. So it isn't an easy calculation. That probably applies across the whole of a heritage railway: you overhaul derelict things because - well, that's why you exist. What you then hope is that you can then continue to operate them cost effectively.

Tom

 

There is also the point that the cash income from operating profits helps sustain the railway as a whole. Not to be pushed too hard - I heard on Friday of a charitable enterprise that is both profitable and costing its parent organisation dearly due to the treatment of fixed costs - but nor to be ignored.

 

Indeed not. If we make, gross, say £1m in catering trains out of a gross railway income of £4.5m, then not running those trains just means the fixed costs of running the railway - infrastructure and so on - gets spread over a smaller base, without necessarily reducing that cost by much.

The whole business of trying to work out which trains are profitable and which aren't is fraught with difficulty, and that is before you start looking at intangibles like the extent to which running a busier service makes volunteering in roles like signalman or station staff more attractive, or provides additional opportunities for training loco crew or guards. The reductio ad absurdum might say "let's just run one train out and one back because that is all that is profitable" - and then find three years later you have to pay signalmen and station staff because no-one fancies those jobs just to sit around all day with nothing happening while they wait to signal the one train of the day.

Railways are systems and I think we ignore that at our peril.

Tom

 

We live in the Midlands and visits to the NYM area are all too rare - we’d only be there as part of a week’s holiday these days and need to pack in as much as possible. Both the Birch Hall Inn walk and Whitby are always on the agenda, but spending most of the day travelling from Pickering to Whitby and back on the train certainly isn’t. So we require flexibility, affordability (as pensioners) and ideally frequency too.
We now have the same problem with another favourite line, the WHR, which appears to have a similar scheduling policy, offering only full or half line returns, with returning on the same train pretty much your only option. Our requirement is the ability to take the train to a midway location, then walk, eat/drink and travel back, ideally by train, but otherwise bus. In recent years this has become nigh on impossible, so we do other things (particularly frustrating as I’m a member there too).

 

The Birch Hall and incline walks are still poplar, I think, but there are so many other possibilities that could be written up as guidebooks: circular walks from Levisham, Newtondale Halt or Goathland with different themes - different walks for different days. Perhaps orienteering-like walks, with clues for waypoints to find? None of these are the complete answer to falling traffic numbers, but perhaps part of it, and perhaps a way to engage a bit more with the clientele? Advertising and publicity!

 

Is not talking about a surplus pre Whitby somewhat like talking about M&S profits prior to the arrival of TK Max and similar or legacy supermarket profits before Aldi and Lidl arrived or the airline industry before 9/11 when most were dripping profits.
Stuff happens that changes the world, or the markets or peoples expectations.
Now Whitby is not of course a 9/11 style event, but Covid was and an ongoing war in Europe coupled to MAGA policy linked tariffs have seriously impacted the finances of potential customers and of course the railways costs. That is before you even get to infrastructure that is ex BR and now needs constant replacement somewhere.
From the best I can ascertain in 2014 visitors to the National Park area were around 9 million, as they were still in 2024. It is unclear how many were extra visitors were due in 2014 to the start of the TDF in Yorkshire.
So it seems the customer base is not changing much, but are peoples tastes either driven by cost or choice? Remember 10 years ago most railtours were full or close to and repeat bicentenaries such as WCME or DCE were also running far more often as well. I do not know but from watching and riding trains here on my local line on a normal day pax loads seem less than prior to Covid, which seems to align with the town being quieter other than peak summer holiday days. I am sure there is more the railway could do, and there has been a discussion about walkers, but I would suggest most serious walkers could work out walks for themselves, not sure what the take up would be as a "spur of the moment" thing. Even downhill way before we lost our mobility a walk from Goathland to Grosmont was never on the cards, even from a bird watching perspective.
Maybe you could increase "internal" ridership, but maybe people just want to go to and from Whitby in the main, however unpalatable you may personally find that. Extra internal services will increase costs of course or is this just another "run it and they will come" Wareham style dream?
Yesterday you mentioned "Heritage Events" not sure what you were really defining heritage as, but looking around a few railway events sites (and excluding pure enthusiast style events) looks like not much these days beyond the occasional wartime event or a Road to Rails type thing with old vehicles and maybe traction engines. Anything of course may help, but I suspect not a magic bullet.
The NYMR may be financially in a worse position than a lot of lines but I would argue the issues are far from unique or as easy to solve as you appear to believe by just ditching the leaders and paid staff.

 

You

You may well be right, but I would have thought that the inevitable conclusion from what you are suggesting is that the NYMR, as a business, must cut its costs if it is to survive - and if 40% or so of its costs are wages that's an obvious place to start looking. I think what I've been trying to say all along is that any recovery plan will not consist of a magic bullet - all aspects of the business will need to be addressed, but I do believe that at the core of that the railway needs to rediscover, and build on, its identity as a heritage railway.