North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Video on Youtube showing the scaffolding that is now in place on the bridge (not my video, just thought it might be of interest).

 

The latest Moors Line has arrived, I've only had a quick look through but I did notice a 'DID YOU KNOW' comment stating "Every year, Bridge 42 carries an impressive 250,000 passengers across its span." I recall on here, mention being made previously that passenger figures appear to be a closely guarded secret, so maybe this is the closest we are going to get to them?

I was, perhaps wrongly in some people's eyes, amused that while there is mention of the Internal Communications and Engagement Awards which Moors Line has been 'shortlisted' for (and I use the inverted commas deliberately), elsewhere there is a correction to the previous Moors Line, where it appears they got the title of the King wrong. And there's an interesting picture of a Still boiler on page 59! Best Internal Communications?

 

250,000 paying pax, or 125,ooo paying pax twice?

 

Crane in action at the bridge today I understand. Certainly the fair weather should help.

Jon

 

No signs of any of the propping yet, though. (Which all rests, per the circulated drawings, on 4 piers in the riverbed.) I wonder how long it will take to put that all in, once they get going on it?

Noel

 

The crane is there to lower the heavy timbers that will form the foundations for the propping. I can see that there will be logistics problems in having too many large vehicles in the village at the level crossing so I guess it will be a case of get the crane set up then bring in the first lorry once everything is ready to drop them in. Even getting the crane into position is not going to be a five minute job.

 

It's not a Stills boiler; its TTO 43654. Can't you read?

I note that, when Moors Line was first re-vamped a couple of years ago, the names of the paid editorial team that replaced volunteer editor John Hunt was proudly mentioned on the back page. They are now all anonymous. I wonder why?

 

It's interesting that in the last two sets (and possibly more - I didn't look) of NYMR Trust accounts, there is a the identical statement:

"The Trust's Heritage Railway Service is the busiest in Britain, carrying prior to the Covid downturn up to 300,000 passengers over a total or more than 60,000 train miles each year."

(My emphasis).
​

Now, there is no compulsion on the railway to publish its visitor numbers in the annual report. But this does sound a bit disingenuous, as though the railway is simulaneously trying to make out it is still at heart a 300,000 passenger per year attraction, while also putting in the comment about Covid to explain why it isn;t there at the moment, to an undisclosed extent. No doubt trading conditions changed significantly since then, but when all is said and done, it was 6 years ago: at some point, you have to look at how you are doing now.

Looking at the most recent PLC accounts, the income from "Railway Operations" is £4.3m (2024/25 figures, the most recent available, but I think realistically covering calendar year 2024). In the absence of any other clarification, I assume that figure is primarily fare income. If the "250,000 passengers" figure is correct, then it makes the income per passenger around £17: a long way from the headline fare of £50. One assumes that, amongst others, children travelling on "kids for a quid" deals are counted as full passengers, but even there, a 2+2 family paying around £100 is still in effect paying £25 per person. So either the 250k figure is inflated, or considerable numbers of people are travelling at a discount - probably a bit of both. It is difficult to make comparisons with other railways because comparable figures aren't easily available, but a fare income per passenger of 1/3 of the headline feels rather low, even accepting that considerable numbers (for example children, coach parties etc) will inevitably be travelling at something of a discount.

That's actually a good point (the relevance of which has just dawned on me!) If "250,000 passengers passing over Bridge 42" is actually 125,000 making the double journey, it makes the fare income more explicable, but is a particularly deceptive way of reporting the passenger numbers, and would be disguising a calamitous loss from the pre-Covid figure. In the FY 2019/20 accounts, the last set pre-Covid, the annual report includes the statement "we provide around 300,000 visitors every year with the opportunity to experience and learn about the history and development of railways" - which is pretty unequivocal that it is the number of people, not journeys.

Tom

 

Surely the gradual move towards online bookings should be at least sustaining fare revenue? If passengers are paying in advance, even with an online discount, the railway is guaranteed the income. Compared with people walking past booking offices and not having tickets checked by non-existent Ticket Inspectors.

 

For many years heritage railways had to report their visitor numbers and other statistics to the Railway Inspectorate. Eventually the HRA was tasked with doing this and provided collated information to the ORR as it had become. Since the death of Bill Hillier, who used to do it for the HRA, this seems to have fallen by the wayside. Visitor numbers was seen as a better parameter than the traditional passenger journeys that the pre-nationalisation and even pre-grouping railways were required to submit. If the NYMR are now quoting passenger journeys then I suggest that their visitor numbers have very much fallen behind in recent times and they are significantly less than other leading railways.
Whichever way you look at it, though, the bandied numbers don’t gel with the published accounts, as Tom has also suggested. The NYMR approach to information sharing compares very badly with that of Johnny at the SpVR.

 

Perhaps the HRA might be persuaded to introduce a new annual award for "The most bare-faced positive manipulation of dodgy data", with the first winners likely go to the NYMR for" their consistent misleading statements of passenger numbers"?

 

There's also a reasonable amount of traffic doing single journeys between Grosmont and Goathland and walking the return. They'll be adding to the passenger numbers but not making a huge impact on income.

I also wonder how/if dining passenger numbers are included it in all? Roughly 150 dining trains per year, around 100 seats on each train (up to 140 if seats in the brake are sold and if the GW saloon is included). They're generally full or close to it, so somewhere between 15-20,000 dining passengers per year, probably at the lower end of that range. 15,000 passengers or 30,000 journeys?

 

Dining passengers should be included. It should include anyone who travels on a train. One of the reasons why such information was collected was to enable the ORR to assess risk and target their meagre resources accordingly. A line that carries a lot of passengers is considerd to be a greater potential risk than one that only carries a small number. I know that is very arguable but they have to base their inspections on something; they cannot visit every line every year. A poor record of incidents is another.

 

Of course there are hundreds of such awards run by trade media and (having in a previous professional life been involved in running a few of them), I hate to break this to the delighted NYMR membership secretary, but they're really not worth the paper they're written on, irrespective of how much flannel and flattery the publication lays out.

Their primary purpose is to generate revenue for the publication. 'Shortlist' a business for an award (because everyone is shallow enough to want to show off that they have won an award, woohoo!) , charge them a premium price for a table of 10 at a glitzy ceremony - which of course they should attend just in case they win. And then the ad sales team swings into action, because of course it would be best to 'maximise coverage' for the business if they also pay for an advert to go alongside the coverage in said publication. Kerching.

My small business regularly receives emails from trade publications I've never heard of congratulating me for being 'nominated' or 'shortlisted' for some award. Without exception, every one goes in the trash. Been there, done that.

 

I haven’t had my coffee yet, so I might be missing the obvious, but why are visitor numbers seen as a better measure than passenger numbers?
If I “visit” a railway by entering the ticket office, shop, cafe or museum, am I considered a visitor even if I don’t buy anything or travel on a train? There is no evidence that I was ever there.
Does that not leave the statistics wide open to abuse?
Happy to hear any explanations!

 

Meanwhile a header on the website warns would be visitors :

Please note: The Autocar has very limited seating.

New loco working today;

BR Class 57 37264

 

It surely depends on what you are trying to measure.

Visitor numbers are a good metric for the number of people at the railway. By including people who enter the premises, you capture the full reach of the railway and, bearing in mind that bodies like ORR use such data to prioritise visits, get a view of the scale of risk. For example, if I visit GCR, at two of the stations I have to use a foot crossing to get to the platform, while at a third I may well go down to the loco yard.

Passenger numbers are a similar metric, but narrower - and the ratio between the two may vary (e.g. SVR has the Engine Shed at Highley, which is a visitor attraction in its own right).

Passenger journeys are a further, different, metric which is really about the number of seats that are occupied - and where one passenger making a return journey constitutes 2 passenger journeys.

All rely to some extent on manual data collection, and all can be gamed a certain amount. What would be desirable is consistency and clarity in reporting. At NYMR, the opacity on visitor numbers (however measured) taken together with the increasing focus on passenger journey numbers, undermine confidence in the picture being painted.

Personally, my preference would be visitor numbers for the absolute visitor numbers, plus passenger miles (i.e. passenger journeys * mileage travelled) to give a view of the intensity of use.

 

Please tell me that this is your typo

 

I asked about the wisdom of using the Autocar, an excellent example of preservation of course, earlier in the thread.

"The Autocar has very limited seating" let's look at what that implies. To anyone reading the website it says if you turn up you might not get a seat, or even be let on standing. It says this isn't a steam loco, which is what 90% of visitors want. It says we're running a railway but not providing enough capacity. It says don't bother booking. It says not our fault if you can't get on.

To enthusiasts it confirms NYMR are hiring in trains despite the fact we're £500,000 short of being able to fund essential repairs to a single bridge.

To our beloved CEO and her marketing team it says aren't we good at marketing. Please pay us more money.

Will no one rid us of our turbulent priestess?

 

Getting back to the Railway proper.
The crane for the bridge work arrived and was set up at Grosmont yesterday. Also, all the scaffolding is in place.
In view of the settled weather, here's hoping they can crack on without any interruptions.