North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I have answered the first part separately, but I didn't respond to the last couple of lines, so here goes. I chose to use the phrase "my way or highway" because I really do not believe that the present NYMR senior management is showing any openness to change. Rather, they seem to be gradually closing down the diversity of the offering (eliminating special events that have, and still could be, successful) and yet trying to reintroduce outmoded events that really require a lot of thought and investment to bring them up to date, with a consequent lack of success - "meeting its costs" is scarcely a resounding vote of confidence - none of which really justifies the use of the phrase "Fortunately, those with responsibility for charting the NYMR's future are more open minded".

 

You’ve been a consistent advocate of that approach and in the spirit of inclusivity it ought to be given a fair hearing. My point is that the decision on what to offer should be made on hard marketing data rather than personal opinion.

 

What is the data, not what is your interpretation of it but what metrics and how is it obtained?
I am reminded of a sketch in John Finnemore's Souvenir Programme, which is a radio advert for a day out at an old bus and train museum, which is sold as being "Fun for some of the Family".
The truth is different family members want different things from their day out and some of what 60044 describes will help provide that. There is a danger that common denominators in heritage railway offerings make the experience ubiquitous and customers will go to the nearest, shorter and cheaper heritage railway instead of the NYMR. For all we know this is already happening.
It's not necessarily what the people travelling consider important so much as why people who aren't traveling don't.

Sawdust.

 

We have different views on this subject. in my opinion the vast majority of people will want to go to either Whitby or Goathland and that is what needs to be catered for. Trying to entice people to go to Levisham, Newtondale or Grosmont will always be difficult. Yes, there will be those who want to use Newtondale as a starting point for a long walk and there will be those who want to go to Grosmont to have a look round the sheds but they will always be a relative minority. Grosmont became a non-preferred destination when it was no longer the terminus and I suspect a significant number of people actually going there do not travel on the Railway.
To me, the biggest thing that the NYMR has to do is get the price right. Get that to hit the sweet spot and providing steam locos and the attractions of Whitby and Goathland will do most of the rest, aided by a spattering of special events, which may or may not be site specific. e.g. Brass band concerts at Levisham. (Remember them?) Doing that though, is only part of the solution of ensuring the Railway's survival; it has to get away from the folly that paid staff is the solution to its problems. The railway originally closed because it was not viable with paid staff and only reopened because they could largely be replaced by volunteers. That hasn't changed.

 

There's no argument from me on that last point! - and scarcely little on the other preceding ones. Price is obviously key, and there seems to have been been little understanding of that in management circles. Sawdust has made a valuable point about the marketing surveys really only canvassing those who did visit - with them it's more a question of finding out whether they were satisfied with their visit and, if not, why? It is really those who decided not to visit or who have not yet decided to visit that there really needs to be an attempt to access and find out why they are not coming, then use that information to try to attract them. None of this seems to me to be advanced marketing concepts, but none seem to have been explored. Sadly, that suggests to me a management with its head so far up its a**e that it can't see anything at all.

 

Management has access to, and uses, a range of marketing data far wider than simple marketing surveys.

 

I think we must acknowledge the differences in the locations and areas of different preserved lines.

At the NYMR, there is clearly a lot of traffic with people wanting a day out in Whitby. Therefore, it only makes sense to cater for these people and maximise capacity in this seemingly lucrative area. Maybe it should even be seen as lucky that the NYMR has such an appeal in the local area to draw on for custom? The attraction of Whitby somewhat explains the fewer number of family events at the NYMR. The NYMR can draw on other factors (i.e. Whitby) to motivate people to visit. This increases visitor numbers. I understand that the situation is somewhat comparable at Swanage, where lots of visitors use the railway to travel between the car park at Norden, the Castle in Corfe, and the seaside in Swanage.

If we take a step back and look at other preserved lines, such as the Bluebell which I am most familiar with, almost every single visitor must be motivated by the line itself or offerings it has on as special events. There is no Whitby. East Grinstead is the only place with houses within a mile from the station. People only visit for the steam train, or for the gala, or the unicorns, or the Pullman, or the ice skating, etc etc etc.

The NYMR approach will be different, because of the different surroundings. It would be bonkers not to make the most of the custom which Whitby can generate. However, as other lines demonstrate, there is scope to grow. How many more visitors could be encouraged by hiring some unicorns at Levisham for a few hundered quid? I suspect, as my own eyes have shown me, many dozens if not hundereds. Taking a leaf out of the books of other lines could be a lucrative way to boost visitor numbers, whilst at the same time bearing in mind the individual situations of every heritage railway.

 

If they do, they are clearly not making the right use of it, or it is the wrong information, as the continuing deficits are- or are you advocating simply accepting these in expectation of grants and bequests to offset them - and at the same to me accepting that the bequests and in particular, which should be being used to fund development of the railway will continue to be used to shore up the unsustainable wage bills?

 

Good observations, but don't focus too much on the 'business' part of the NYMR. The NYMR as a whole is much more than that - like most heritage lines - and it's as a whole that the NYMR will succeed or fail.

Noel

 

I think enticing people to get out at intermediate stations will always be difficult, unless there is an absolutely compelling reason to get out there. (Such as Highley on the Severn Valley). If someone gets out and the station occupies them for 20 minutes, it's a tough sell if the service frequency is every 90 minutes. You'd better hope there is a good cafe! Of course, you could increase the frequency, but that comes with costs, both the direct operational ones and the need to have more rolling stock available for traffic at any one time.

I'm struck though by two recent comments:

The second comment says to me that if Whitby is the prime destination, then it would be folly not to try to serve it - even though the additional length and mainline requirements add complexity - and therefore cost - to the operation.

But the first comment raises the question - "is that true all year round?"

There is a tendency on heritage lines to assume that because the line exists, it should all be used. So we tend to start writing timetables that go end to end, and the only questions come down to how many round trips per day, with what gap between them. But that doesn't have to be true. For example, is Whitby the prime destination all year? Or is it the prime destination for perhaps 3 - 4 months, but less so in the shoulder seasons? If so, why not recast the timetable to avoid it at certain parts of the year. In maintenance terms, that would take pressure off the need to keep the Whitby-compatible stock running, giving time for maintenance while other non-Whitby stock and locos were used. And secondly, freed from the constraint of fitting into the Northern Rail timetable, you could be more creative on the "core" part of the railway.

The second thought is - even if going to Whitby - do all trains need to go there? Could you, for example, start a train from Pickering shortly after the main Whitby service has left, and turn it round at Goathland before the Whitby train got back? That might open up possibilities for shorter- trips.

I guess the point is not to throw away Whitby, but to explore how a more layered service might work - layered through the year, and layered through the day on peak days. The NYMR does strike me as quite monotone in its service offering: everything is based around Whitby, which is great for those who want to do that, but leaves nothing for those who want a ride but don't want the full fat whole day out experience.

(Amongst the longer heritage railways, I believe the SVR and Ffestiniog both have trains that don't traverse the whole line interwoven into the core whole-line service; and I've often wondered if a similar Minehead - Watchet shuttle would work at the West Somerset).

Tom

 

One of the problems with running to Whitby is that neither the number or timing of available paths is in the NYMR's control, so everything has to be fitted around them. That is not intended to be either pro or anti Whitby, just a statement of the situation.

Sawdust.

 

Quite. And hence my thought is - do you have to go there all the time? If you remove that constraint, it opens up possibilities on the core timetable, and opens up the available rolling stock and locos; and also provides breathing space to keep the Whitby stock maintained.

So the question is not "Whitby or not Whitby" in the rather binary way it is often presented, but rather does it make sense to limit Whitby running to periods of the year when there is clearly the traffic, but then concentrate on other services when there isn't sufficient volume in the Whitby traffic? It feels like there is a lot to gain; and on the flip side, a lot to lose running to Whitby except when you are doing so with full, large, trains.

Tom

 

We keep seeing the old mantra of unsustainble wage bills being trotted out but not what can realistically be done about it! The trite answer is replace them with volunteers but employment law makes that a hugely expensive option even if suitable volunteers were ready to step into the breach. Even 60044 has accepted in the past that natural wastage offers the best hope but that takes a long time and the ones that leave may not be the ones you can manage without. The NYMR cannot exist without its volunteers but equally it can't function without a large complement of paid staff. Continued bleating about an exceesive wage bill corrodes their morale and risks encouraging the outcome that no one wants to see.
It's not as if the NYMR is the only heritage railway racking up continued operating losses or finding it difficult to recruit volunteers. There are numerous high profile examples who are also trying to answer the question "How can we create new sources of substantial income". Innovations such as the Ffestiniog/Welsh Highland approach to timetabling and the Severn Valley's intiative with commuter services are attempts to answer that. It seems likely that many others , including the NYMR, will have to come up with radical new ideas that are not variants of what worked in a very different cost and regulatory environment.

 

What you describe is essentially two separate operations using the same infrastructure - which is the current situation, where there are Whitby services and NYMR-only (internal) services. The problem is that the Whitby services are constrained by the need to dovetail into the EVL timetable, where there is currently little or no flexibility, and that in turn means that the internal services, of necessity, have to be fitted in around them. That really sets the tone on a line with a very long centre section and hence few opportunities for trains to cross. We have discussed this situation before, and I don't think there are many options for change there.

What can be done, though s change the marketing approach. Now that the teak train is gradually returning to service and increasing capacity, it needs to be marketed as the star attraction for, say, a ca. midday departure as a 1920s/30s train for its ambiance and atmoshere - use the buffet cat to sell 1930s style cocktails and upmarket snack food, encourage p

I'll leave others to deal with a lot of this, but other railways have experienced losses, but have been adapting to reduce them and find new ways of attracting business. I really cannot see that the NYMR has made much of an effort at adapting what it does and developing serious ways of developing business - actually quite the opposite in canning various special events. As far employment goes, natural wastage is probably the most feasible practical approach, but clearly it is not being applied. As soon as someone leaves, an advert for their replacement appears. For some senior roles, where difficulties have been found attracting suitable candidates, perhaps a scheme where the role is shared with one or more railways could be explored, and volunteers used as partial replacements, with the load on a volunteer reduced to a partial role and make it more attractive to someone who still has an outside life.......
passengers

 

Large operating losses can not be sustained for very long. If it is a choice of reducing the number of paid staff now, if the trend has not been eliminated in the next set of accounts or risking the entire staff losing their jobs and losing much else besides, then I know which option I would pick.
Even if the losses are reduced to zero, how is defective track going to be replaced, how is. worn out pointwork to be renewed, locos overhauled, signal boxes be maintained?
At the end of the day, the nymr does not exist to make money (or create employment). No it makes money and employees people in order to exist. But it has to generate enough money to cover the lion's share of the repair bills. In my experience grants and fundraising has only ever filled a tiny part of the total costs. Where grants should be used as they mostly have been is in major capital projects not in day to day expenses.

Sawdust.

 

I suspect that if you were to analyse the Nymr route and ignore the network rail cost issues. You'd operate Whitby to Goathland and abandon or selectively operate the Goathland to Pickering section. It's an awful lot of railway at the bottom of the valley to reach a (not unpleasant) small market town pop. 6000.

 

The railway existed for many decades operating between Grosmont and Pickering with no Whitby service, moving huge numbers of people. Whitby may be the most popular chunk of the service now (I have no idea but this thread always suggests so) but basing everything around those six miles of non-NYMR railway feels like a misstep, especially when it means no steam for the line itself. (Today for example one of five Pickering turns are steam, according to the roster, and 44806 spends most of the afternoon hanging around in Whitby.)

There's tons of evidence that a steam railway running from Grosmont to Pickering is in itself an attraction - the attraction. It's a bit bizarre that Whitby has become the focal point.

 

The Trust membership were persuaded to back Whitby operations because high expenditure on the NYMR's own infrastructure was foreseen, and it was anticipated that the extension to Whitby would increase the annual surplus to help fund them. That is why I and others have questioned what it cost (and continues to cost)to meet all the complications and requirements of running to Whitby. I'm not sure that there is any evidence to suggest that Whitby operations have resulted in an upsurge in the Trust or Plc's annual surpluses since they began If there is any financial evidence (since that was the reason for doing it in the first place!) it would seem to be purely anecdotal.

 

It may well have been back in the days when all railways had to offer was a train ride.

The market for all attractions has changed, not so sure people just purely want repeatable rides all the time especially since Covid. Really the only major destination on the "classic" NYMR would be Goathland, and to me that may even be somewhat marginal these days.