North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

With all the fixed transport costs incurred and busy on Thursday is it time to consider running the event over 8 days ie repeat next Thursday onwards in future years ?

 

If you recall in 2005 there was an event that lasted nearly a month or so all in, largely driven by LNERCA and with transport costs mostly covered by a HLF grant.
So yes why not.
Sawdust.

 

Not

Not sure steam galas are a very good correlation of suggesting steams sells on a daily basis.
The purpose of those attending would be mainly because they are steam enthusiasts.
It is a sort of self fulfilling prophecy.

 

Historically, the evidence has proved that there is a link. Ordinary people also prefer steam over diesel.

Sawdust.

 

After the angst and acrimony expressed on here recently it was a delight to see photos and videos of the first day of the Autumn Steam Gala. Even though we may disagree on some things it’s a reminder of the fundamental cause that unites us. Sadly domestic reasons mean I can’t be at the Gala this year but I’m proud to be associated with the NYMR. Can we all, at least, celebrate that shared desire to see it succeed?

 

I was being slightly facetious in the last sentence, but the abundance of steam today will have been a relatively unusual phenomenon for those close to the railway this summer.

Odd, I know, but most normals think of it as a steam railway. They're quite disappointed when diesel after diesel turn up instead of steam. All this will affect the bottom line.
If 20 people are put off on each of the 0920, 1000, and 12xx each day over the season, that equals more than £500,000 in lost revenue.

 

I think everyone posting on this thread has a desire to see the railway succeed and prosper well into the future. There’s no doubt about that. That’s why they are posting on here and looking for change. And that change has to be far more than becoming a CCBS. It has to become better managed with a more sustainable level of staffing and give Joe Public what it expects and not what is easiest for those running the railway.

 

All the brown signs indicating the way to the NYMR (and other heritage railways) simply say ‘Steam Railway’. Nuff said. That’s what Joe Public want and expect.

 

You don't even necessarily have to sell assets. As an example, you could sell a functional Mark 1 coach for £25k and use the proceeds to pay down some debt and everyone would notice. But if you forwent £1,000 of maintenance on each of a fleet of 25 carriages, it would have the same financial impact but would probably go unremarked - for a while.

Deferred maintenance is a ticking time bomb under a large part of the industry (not just the NYMR) since everything is fine right until it isn't, and a bridge issue or a lack of carriages suddenly means you can't run a service, or can only run a curtailed one. Hence my earlier point comparing two hypothetical railways, one with a large debt but pristine p/way, and one that is debt free but where the only things holding the rails together is the woodworm linking arms - they are actually both in debt, but only one of them has it really crystallised in the annual accounts.

Tom

 

Like everything in life there is a balance to be struck. At the moment the NYMR is neither debt free or in possession of a pristine pway and that is the crux of the problem.

Sawdust.

 

100% agree with @Jamessquared. The problems with deferring maintenance are; that the debt accrued becomes invisible to management as well the accounts; It also has a nasty habit of crystallising at the least convenient time often in an unpredictable way; the debt when it does appear is very likely to be very large, very immediate and very difficult to service.

In the example Tom gave if all the woodworm go on strike at the same time you’re left without permanent way and so no longer have the opportunity to earn money to repair.

In my opinion there are two very risky maintenance deferrals. PW and structures, because track will hide problems for a very long time, eg bridge 24. And carriages. It’s comparatively easy to hire locos. Try hiring half a dozen coaches in a go. It is very difficult and very expensive and generally very short term only.

We know the NYMR has had and will have infrastructure needs (lots of them). A comment @Steve made a few posts ago about numbers of carriages suggests maybe that area might be similar (though it could just be a planned reduction in the fleet to reflect falling numbers - let’s hope so). And there is less debt than there was, but still a lot. That’s a lot of plates in the air and it only takes one to fall to have a genuine crisis. Worrying.

 

As an example, my memory is that @Jamessquared's home railway suffered this, with significant vehicle and track maintenance having to be funded after the completion of an extension.

 

You seem to be saying that people who are interested in the fate of the NYMR have a choice between i) supporting the current management, and ii) seeing the line fail, financially. Unfortunately (and very sadly), it's not clear that such a choice really exists; the line may well fail, even if people do support the current management. (Certainly, many people already have that assessment, as I will point out below.)

Is that really a fair assessment? Well, from outside, and with admittedly incomplete knowledge, it's hard to say with certainty, but there are some very troubling signs. Over the heritage rail world in general, the theme has been that 'successful' lines recognize that they aren't 'ordinary' businesses, and act accordingly; and also understand that they have to keep an extremely sharp eye, and rein, on their expenditures. (I expect many of us can think of examples of the latter at other lines.) The current management of the NYMR (at all levels) has signally failed at both.

One might argue that they have now learned from their mistakes, and will do better in future - but the possibility exists that they have not really fully taken these points on board; and also (and equally calamitously) that they have now dug the original hole into which they landed (and admittedly there was one) so much deeper that there is now no escaping it. (They seem to have been unfamiliar with the First Law of Holes.)

And so we see many people, ones with more knowledge of the line than me, effectively 'voting with their feet', and deciding that legacies left to the line would only be 'good money after bad' - because they now feel that the line is facing failure, no matter what they do. That is pretty much a death knell for the line (and let me emphasize that I take no pleasure at all in pointing this out - in fact, just the opposite; but reality must be faced). Without significant financial support (donated, not loaned) from the outside, the line cannot long go on.

As @35B rightly, and acutely, points out, at the root of this there is the reality that there has been a collapse of confidence in the line's current management - a collapse that is the direct cause of the withdrawal of that financial support. When such a collapse of confidence happens, it is extremely difficult to reverse.

At that point, I was very tempted to repeat Leo Amery's apposite injunction for such circumstances, but that would probably just be too theatrical, and possibly overblown, for me to do.

Noel

 

88

I'm an advocate for change but what's usually suggested is more tinkering with the traditional model. Take for example the suggestion of a "more sustainable level of staffing" which is really a nice way of saying get rid of quite a few paid staff. How?.....without racking up huge cash liabilities for redundancy pay (if you can demonstrate redundancy) or even worse, wrongful dismissal? Natural wastage takes a long time and can result in the loss of essentail resource. Similarly there's no doubt that Joe Public wants to see steam but its fuel has suffered cost increases of around 300% for a product that in many cases is of inferior quality. The NYMR financial model depends on large numbers of paying passengers generating a surplus over the hugely increased costs of operating and maintaining eighteeen and a half miles of ageing infrastructure. At the same time cost of living pressures on discretionary spend, especially soaring fuel costs and higher personal taxation, are compounded by deterrents such as the overnight tourist levy. Consequently it's likely that paying visitor numbers will decline. Sure some initiatives, such as the Autumn Gala will attract more visitors but no amount of wishful thinking and harking back to a different economic climate is going to achieve the fundamental change required.
As others have pointed out the options are basically increase income substantially (whether from operations, events, grants or membership) or cut costs. Tom has highlighted the serious consequences of deferred spend. Others have suggested that fares are already too high. Grants are now harder to obtain under the new Subsisdy Control regime and come with strings attached. As suggested the net financial benefit from cutting labour cost will be small at best. So what realistic change options are there? My personal view is that the fundamantal change the whole sector will have to address sooner or later ( and the NYMR is just a bell weather indicator ) is that those who care about their railways and want to see them continue are going to have to be much more realistic about their level of financial support. Whilst it's true that members tend to be major contributors to appeals and leavers of legacies it's also the case on the NYMR and elsewhere that their current net membership contributions are a tiny fraction of the costs of running their railways. Important though legacies are ( and I get that they depend on positive sentimement towards the railway) their impact is, fortunately, unpredictable so not a solution to day to day budgeting challenges. Significantly higher membership financial support may be the change that is necessary to provide salvation for the sector. How best to encourage that seems to me to be the core issue.

 

So your business plan is.... Change nothing. Sack no one. Go bust.

 

I don't disagree with any of the individual points you raise. But I think that the cumulative effect is to absolve the leadership of the NYMR over the last few years of responsibility, as though the problems at NYMR are somehow entirely external. The comparison with Kier Starmer's premiership echoes strongly, in that this appeal to external circumstances combines with a progressive loss of support as people lose confidence that the leadership is capable of making substantive change - or even addressing the issues.

Instead, what I see is a leadership that has lost the ability to appeal to target audiences, spends heavily on events that barely break even, and is chasing new opportunities - all while gradually losing credibility and influence within the base of the railway.

I would far rather see leadership that focuses on making the small changes that would deliver a change of atmosphere, so that success breeds success. So rather than saying "but the gala is an exception", let's see the gala used as an opportunity to celebrate success and drive change. Reductions in the wage bill may not achieve much, but the saying "every little counts" is a truism. And if that also allows greater use of volunteers, so much the better.

@jnc declined to cite Leo Amery; I'd also thought similar. Personally, the comparison that comes to mind is with Lord of the Rings, and the change in Rohan when Grima Wormtongue was expelled. Not because I see any individual as like Grima, but because that insidious drip, drip, drip of "we can't" undermines the ability to do what can be done.

The comparison with the Spa Valley has been oft made. What really impresses me, and is a lesson for NYMR to learn from, is the honest portrait of good and bad, sharing in both the successes and the challenges.

 

Well said sir! @35B

 

The biggest problem with the natural wastage plan isn’t redundancy, wrongful dismissal claims or how long it takes, the problem with NYMR natural wastage is that they keep recruiting.
How do you justify a new head of commercial, events lead, content creator, marketing officer, auditor, events manager, director of commercial all since the last redundancies? What’s the wage bill for those roles? Probably more than you saved through the last round of job cuts. What about the 2?? consultant contractors on top wedges? I know of 2 but there could be more.
Will there be more job cuts? More than likely but I bet it’s lower paid staff meaning the manager to worker balance goes even more out of kilter.
Your income is down, grant funding is harder to get, infrastructure costs are way more than budgeted but yet you keep spending and make excuses about how hard it is to cut! You now have a Spanish division and I believe that one of the new director roles is based 300 miles away from the railway and the railway picks up the bill for travel and accommodation. With this kind of business plan I don’t understand why anyone would be worried.

 

No! Absolutely not. It would be to make whatever change is necessary to encourage those who support the railway to make realistic financial investments in it

 

This morning I have had an email refuting how passenger figures were calculated during the Benham era.

Sawdust.