North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I think you might be a bit out of date with your calculations - IIRC the NYMR have raised ordinary membership to £60-00/yr. Doesn't seem to have transformed the finances, though..... I don't know what effect it has had on volunteers coming forward, though. I suspect that the dire "Moors line" advertorial that is now forced upon the membership will probably have had ac just as adverse effect - for anyone rarely visiting it is all they get for their subs, and quite frankly it is barely worth reading, but as it is printed on non-absorbent paper it is not a lot of use for anything else!

 

While I was on TB, membership was falling worryingly low, eventually we insisted a tear off form was included on the annual timetable leaflet.

It doesn't even include a timetable anymore.

Sawdust.

 

A good few years ago @Lineisclear asked on another forum what the purpose of the NYMR was. I responded by saying that its prime purpose was for volunteers to enjoy their hobby. I was quickly told that I was wrong and the railways prime purpose was, as stated in the Mem & Arts. I still think that, practically, I was right as those that want to play trains need a railway to do so and that is ther NYMR. Heritage railways are possibly also unique because those volunteers are looking for someone to pay for their hobby in the form of Joe Public. This has generally worked well since 1951 and I think that there is still life in that model. It's ironic that you are suggesting volunteers paying in a similar way to a golf club but it is not that long ago that the NYMR senior management were advocating that volunteers shouldn't be fee paying members of the Trust in an attempt to be more inclusive. There was actually a bit of a backlash from volunteers at that idea so the compromise was that you needn't be to volunteer but wouldn't have free membership of the Trust.
As I said, I think that there is still life in the old model. I also think that one of the errors made by the SMT has been to price the railway out of a large part of its market. Being a fully paid up Yorkshireman, if I went to the booking office today to obtain a ticket, my first reaction on being asked to pay would be 'Ow much! (Note the exclamation mark, it isn't a question.) I don't think I'm alone in that thought. Let's look at a coulple of sums. The Railway needs to be looking at £10m turnover. If we take an annual passenger figure of 300k that works out at £33.33/person, which is a much more realistic fare for Joe Public. Now, I know that not all passengers are adults but that was a simple calculation and we are looking for turnover to reach that £10m, not fares so it is a round figure spent/person. There's car parking for many people and there will also be discretionary spend in the cafes and shops. There are also premium services where fares are much higher than that, such as diners, galas and footplate experience which contribute to that required turnover.
The question then becomes whether 300,000 passengers is achievable. There are essentially three trains a day which fill well; the 10.00 off Whitby and the 09.20 & 12.00 out of Pickering. 300-400 passengers/train (and more) used to be a regular occurrence on these so 1200 passengers day ought to be an achievable target with perhaps an additional 200 coming from the non-Whitby services (10.55 with the teaks, for one, and diners for another). To get that 300,000 passengers would require about 250 days running/year or 8½ months. There was a time when the railway more or less did this with half term running and Santa/New Year services (back in the days of Philip Benham as GM). In recent years, the number of operating days have been substsantially reduced to extend the life of infrastructure and equipment but the railway needs to get back to that level. I believe that Philip Benham's philosophy was that you only make money when you are running trains but those trains had to be profitable. That's not hard to achieve as, as Tom has said, direct operational costs are not that much. Philip used to produce a spreadsheet giving great detail into every bit of operating a train service so you knew exactly how much it cost to run a train. The civil engineers could have ther £½m to relay half a mile of track or repair a bridge over the winter but the price was that the line had to be open for the half term so that trains could run. Similarly the MPD had to have locos available in exchange for their money.
I don't think that approach was far wrong.

 

I think the NYMR's social media ban is rather damaging.
One man on here seems to defend the boards at every turn. But why not have others from the management boards engaging with critics?

The lack of transparency in publishing passenger statistics, event takings etc., is hard to fathom. Cynics may say they have something to hide. I hope not.

Did Thomas make more than 10 days of ordinary running? We don't know.
Would 10 days of ordinary running at peak time attract 300 full ticket sales in a day?
If so, the turnover could be £115,000 over ten days. At 400 tickets per day, it would be £154,000. So the Thomas event needed to have made at least as much to have been a success. Did it?

How much extra money does the new Santa arrangement bring in? Do we know?
Has it improved takings?

Since Chris Price stood up at the AGM and said that running trains doesn't make money, the
money problems have got worse.
Having 'Not for profit' as a strapline doesn't help.

 

The next time I see Chris, I’ll ask him about the context of his “trains don’t make money” comment.

it could be that Chris was making a general comment as to the NYMR’s level of train services compared which passenger numbers and therefore income. Or it could be that he was the wrong person in the wrong job!

 

Regarding the (overly complicated) fare structure, I find it quite baffling that it's cheaper for two adults and four children to travel in the middle of the school holidays, what should be the busiest time of the year, for less than two adults travelling on a wet Tuesday in October (£105.70 for 2A+4C peak vs £107.70 for 2A off-peak).

 

To be clear I actually agree with you about the primary purpose, and my thought excercise was actually demonstrating that it wasn’t a very attractive model to charge golf club fees. I don’t think that is practical, but the thought exercise has value in helping to focus on what can work and what is important. I

 

I think he was making the general point that income earned from operating a train service did not, in general, cover the costs of operating train service. There might be a few exceptions, Snowdon Mountain Railways, Vale of Rheidol, Dartmouth, but most rely on ancillary income or members donations even if it is pretty well hidden e.g. locos that are not owned by a railway financed by the ownership groups.

Many of what we might have seen in the past as our premier lines are possibly at risk as they are longer lines and more interesting to operate but in the current market place it may be the shorter, simpler lines may the better option I have not been to the KWVR for a long time and I might not find it the most interesting line to work on but these days being able to run 4 or 5 return services a day with only one loco in steam but be attractive to the bean counters.

I am getting on a bit now but over my time I have seen various trends. When I was young the railway I volunteered had loads of student volunteers over the summer as they were on student grants. When they stopped there was an influx of early retirees on good pensions. Latterly as it has become expensive to restore locos but many railways have received generous legacies from early volunteers. I am not sure what is going to step in next to keep the heritage sector going

 

That's an insighful post that identifies some core issues. In one sense Steve's assertion is right. For many volunteers the concept is that the public will pay enough for them to enjoy their hobby. The problem is that if the railway is run with that as its core objective it couldn't be a charity. Its trustees would be allowing the charity to be run in the interests of its volunteer/members which would be a breach of their most fundamental duty. It's the old issue of wanting the benefits of charitable status while paying lip service to what that involves.
The other assumption is "run trains and the paying public will come". Calculations are suggested on the basis of 300k passengers but are such numbers realistically achievable? Even if they were in the past it's far from clear that with the cost of living squeeze on discretionary spend the consumer demand is there. That's the core issue. The public in sufficient numbers are no longer subsidising the railway the members want to see continue and the volunteers want to enjoy supporting. If that public dependency model no longer works what's the alternative?

 

I’ve said it before, I do wish you would stop making assertions like this as though it is established fact. I’ve never met a single volunteer (and no one on here has suggested it either) who thinks this way. Yes, running trains contributes a lot to the running costs, but I don’t think any volunteer thinks that running trains will pay all the bills.

Again, no one has suggested any such thing. In fact posters have been very clear that in order to increase passenger numbers, the product has to be right, delivered at the right time and at the right price. This seems to be a particular problem with the current management.
Steve’s numbers were an example. As a former chairman you could’ve released the actual numbers or directed the plc to do so. It’s a bit hypocritical to criticise Steve for estimating numbers when you were part of the group that blocked the actual numbers from being published.

To go back to a point Tom made yesterday, you are very keen to tell us why things won’t work, why we are all wrong about the management etc, but we’ve yet to hear how, if you were ceo, you would start fixing things.

 

I refer you to Steve's post about the purpose of the railway.

 

That does not contradict any of my points above

 

Steve is probably one of the finest exponents of the clash between egoism and altruism!

A Volunteer supports the Railway with their labour (altruism) in return the Railway allows them to do what they enjoy (egoism).
I think Steve does himself an injustice by suggesting he only volunteered at NYMR to drive steam engines; he also did a lot of training and mutual improvement for other volunteers.

The Railway wouldn’t exist without volunteers….

 

I don’t agree with this assertion, because to be correct two things would need to true. First that volunteers are not at least a part of the community which charitable objects seek to serve. Second that ipso facto the interests of members and volunteers would be in conflict with the charitable objects and the wider community expectation. Clearly neither is correct.

It is not difficult or conflicting for Trustees to align volunteer interests and the wider community interest, because they are, fundamentally aligned in both wanting the railway to exist, and in wanting to enjoy that asset.

Whilst you are correct that Trustees have to ensure this alignment, the problem is not that what volunteers and members want is in conflict with the objects of the charity, but that the Trust is incapable and unwilling to explain itself and not addressing concerns of its most important stakeholders. Should this continue it would perhaps be the trustees that were guilty of not running the charity in line with the objects and the best interests of the community.

 

That's another example of "please stop expressing ideas that I disagree with!" This is supposed to be a discussion forum!
However, the idea in question came from Steve. He could not have been clearer. In his long held view the prime purpose of the NYMR (and other heritage railways) is for the volunteers to enjoy their hobby whatever form that takes. As he suggested the traditional approach is that Joe Public will pay for it. Tom has emphasized on many occasions that in may cases cost cutting is not a viable option. In essence you can't cost cut your way to sustainability. Some pruning of headcount might help but in terms of the sums required the effect would be marginal.
The post then assumes it's possible to increase passenger numbers. Actually I question whether that's a meaningful number. Surely what matters is total visitor revenue? I asked the simple question but unsurprisingly no answer. If the visitor economy is such that visitor revenue can't be increased what's the alternative? The great success of the recent Gala confirms that there's an enthusiast market for steam but what about day to day services targeted at Joe Public? The assumption that there's sufficient demand to increase visitor revenue may well be flawed in which case what's plan B?
I made clear my view that members and volunteers are going to have to face reality. If the public is no longer able to underpin the financials of heritage railways those who want to see their railways survive will have to put their hands deeper in their pockets.

 

As has been pointed out, Steve's motivation does not conflict with the charitable objectives of the trust, because he is a part of the community and it helps the railway to exist. I would also bet a pound to a penny that Steve has given money voluntarily to the railway's appeals and spends money in the railway's outlets. Members and volunteers will donate willingly to appeals for projects that align with their interest but force them to pay more to be able to participate and you will see their numbers decline.
As with fares, market forces will apply and a kind of Laffer/Chuffer curve will come into effect, in that you can make something more expensive but the result is you raise less overall.
The NYMR cannot exist without volunteers and members, it also can't exist without paid staff but there has to be a balance or passengers and members will walk, as I did eight years ago and I still haven't spent one penny on the railway since. However the Gresley carriage that I put hundreds of hours into and thousands pounds into is still earning money for the NYMR after more than twenty years with no financial benefit to myself, in fact I was worse off because I had done that, so that is the other side of the coin, Steve could actually use the time he gives to the NYMR to enrich himself but he doesn't.
Finally I will add during my time on TB railway operations broke even or made a small profit, secondary spend on shops and catering made the difference. Yes times have changed but those are the rules that ones cloth should be cut to suit. Anything else is living beyond ones means.

Sawdust.

 

Having read the past goodness knows how many pages, may I offer by 2 penn'orth?
Whatever the points of view expressed, I think I can safely say we want the Railway to prosper. I agree that staff numbers need to be looked at, but numbers of operational staff should be safeguarded as a priority.
The older generation of volunteers or members who can no longer visit should be nurtured and encouraged to leave a legacy, especially should they be liable for inheritance tax. I know of one old person who passed away recently who lived like a hermit but left a 6 figure sum to his chosen recipients. Leaving money to charity could reduce this tax burden at no cost to the individual. Perhaps we should publicise this more, possibly through an improved Moors Line magazine!
Regarding the Line itself, some hard realities need to be faced. There is at least one person on here who questions Whitby running and the question has to be asked; is it a net earner for the NYMR? I don't know the answer and would like to see it continue if possible but who knows?
The older generation of enthusiast is dying out, we live in a rapidly changing world, so let's hope the NYMR can be saved.

 

I do think you write rubbish! - or, at least, use very selective interpretations of what others say to make their point. Providing enjoyment for volunteers is the primary reason why most heritage railways get established in the first place, but surely no-one not even you, is suggesting that once they are established they cannot then continue to provide all the usual charitable benefits to the public, at the expense of those benefits continuing to be delivered by the same volunteers whilst they continue to enjoy themselves. What has happened at the NYMR is that the enjoyment of the volunteers has been downplayed and underexploited in favour of simply paying staff to take their place, and some simple facts of life have been brushed aside, namely that volunteers may cost a little, but they are a whole lot cheaper than an employee, that they may not be able to put in the hours that an employee does, but that tends to be balanced out by the fact that there are usually a lot more of them and by the fact that most of them will be dipping into their own pockets to support the railway. I don't think the NYMR has ever had a positive attitude to encouraging volunteers, quite the reverse in more recent times. The second half of the potential slogan "here's what you can do for us, but here's what we can do for you in exchange"

 

I agree with the Laffer Curve point but of course it works in both directions. Make something cheaper and revenue will decrease unless the reduction attracts sufficient additional paying passengers to at least compensate. One of the reasons incidentally that I suggest passenger numbers are not a helpful measure of performance. Railway operations breaking even or making a small profit in the past was against the prevailing circumstances at the time including the health of the visitor economy and cost dynamics including regulation. As others have pointed out the railway of today has to survive in a very different world.
I draw on my personal experince as a volunteer signalman. Of course I help the financial performance of a railway by giving my time for free but I also get the opportunity to experience something extraordinary that people would expect to pay handsomely for. For instance just look at what's charged for a footplate experience. As long as the public continue to pay enough to keep the show on the road it's fine to focus on the value of the work volunteers do for free. However if that changes, as seems increasingly likely, would I be prepared to pay more for the opportunity to do something I love? That may be the choice in future.