North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I do agree the maths is important. I'm certainly not suggesting just getting engines in for Driver Ex's, and the numbers have to work or at least cover off without detracting something else. I say the latter because these things have been known to bring in new supporters, donations and volunteers.

I use the NVR as the example because its not just about the Driver Ex, that's just part of it. For Pendennis they are bringing it in for December and January. So they needed an engine for the Santa's and are making the most of having it while its there. Its also doing a Fish & Chips evening and the Winter Warmers.

For the NYMR I'm just saying if you already have a engine coming, like the NYMR have had before with Gresley, Tornado, Bahamas and many others, there are other things you can do with them while they are already there.

Even if you just use that engine for a marketed diner train (that would likely already be running) you can charge more per seat. I've never seen the NYMR run the diner with a specific advertised engine. Though I have seen the diner with a big name on the front with the paying punters seemingly just getting it by luck and for no extra cost.

But also the Thursday and Friday element creates other opportunities. The NYMR tries to cram the current driver ex into the service schedule on open days. If they ran them on closed days like most railways do they are much more flexible and don't have to run full line. That means you can either limit the resource needed or add levels to the experience (light engine, or a couple of coaches, or a brake van, or a small goods train). All at different price levels.

Moving on a little, I did also note that the Worth Valley were doing crane experiences this year. Anyone know another railway that's been shouting a lot about having a steam crane recently?

Drive a Steam Crane - Keighley & Worth Valley Railway

 

I absolutely agree with you about looking for additional opportunities if the loco is already there. When we have had "star" locos in the past, such as Flying Scotsman, we have run many of things you suggest, such as additional dinning trains (both breakfast and evening) marketed around the named loco, photo events etc. If you are cute in how you do that, for example running them without requiring an additional steaming, you can increase the number of events over which to amortise the fixed costs such as transport without increasing cost base too much.

You do have to consider how logistics work out, and sometimes some things may not be possible. As an example, on our line we can typically do preparation, run three round trips and dispose within a single 12 hour duty. If you decided you wanted to run a breakfast Pullman before the main service, and an evening Pullman afterwards, you are now no longer within that 12 hours, so need an additional crew. Getting an additional loco crew for a "star" visitor probably isn't too much of an issue, but it might be more problematic if your contract with the loco owner is that they provide an owner's rep (likely to be chargeable) - now you are into paying two people (plus accommodation, meals allowance etc), rather than one, from the owner's side for that day of operation, and that assumes that the owning group can staff that requirement. In other words, the host railway may wish to use the loco for additional events over and above the "core" contracted services but which the owners can't support.

Absolutely worth exploring though, because if you can get it to work, it provides more revenue at a somewhat marginal cost, which is the holy grail in terms of defraying the large fixed costs of such a visitor.

Tom

 

If the loco has been brought in for a gala, then its transport costs should have been covered, so I don't think that recovering should really form part of the equation; the moment it does is when I think the plot has been lost! That at least makes the financials more attractive!

 

Hard disagree. Whatever the event that something is brought in for, there is a fixed cost for simply having it present. If you can spread that cost, then that helps overall profitability - not least by boosting the return the gala provides to the wider railway.

 

Look at it another way. If a loco is brought in for a gala and doesn't cover the cost of bringing, should it have been brought in the first place? Any additional use needs to be pure "surplus" (because we don't use the "....." word as a charity). If reliance is being placed on additional use to improve the financial viability of it being there I suggest the reasoning is flawed.

 

I'm taking an absolutely hard headedly commercial view. Your assertion assumes that the decision to hire is automatically attributable to a single event. It may not be - and the use of additional events within even a limited hire period may well help with overall profitability.

 

.... but then that additional use means it is being run at reduced profitability throughout its stay, and that makes it harder to justify bringing it it all sounds to me like running harder to stand still, which is not where the NYMR needs to be at. This is all hypothetical, though, without the actual figures to base whatever assumptions we are making - and that's making it start to sound like an enthusiast's agument, rather than the business one it ought to be!

 

You're confusing fixed and variable cost. The fixed cost is just that, and extracting more value from it is straightforward good value (provided you're not displacing other, wasting, assets). The variable cost of operation is what then determines the value overall - and whether stretching the loan will or will not be value.

 

I'm not an economist, but I think I can grasp the basics! IMHO it is necessary to cover the fixed costs, bringing a loco for whatever event at that event. Then, go on to generate (hopefully, additional) profit from subsequent use; that should be the goal, not trying to cover the fixed costs from additional use.

 

Perhaps a business-person, instead? There are standing jokes about academic economists who can't do math! (Business-people who can't make the numbers add up often wind up out of business!)

Noel

 

So in your flawed opinion if say the movement cost and any fixed hire fee for 60007 is £20000 but it only generates £19500 of excess income over variable costs for both the steam gala and it’s marketed trains it shouldn’t have been hired as each item would have lost £500 despite an total surplus of £19000 from its hire ?

I can think of many lines who spread loco hire costs over several events eg GCR and SpaVR for starters ,probably GWR too with 45110 this season ( should that not have been hired if total transport cost not covered by their May gala )?

 

The latest Ffestiniog magazine paints a very rosey economic picture, but also one that has taken a lot of hard work to achieve. They got a lot of stick for going for an 'Experience' model, but the reality is they now sell a similar product at many different price points. The expensive all line tickets maybe pushing £80, but there are other tickets below £30 & family tickets for around £50. They also have flexibility of being able to add additional trains if demand exists or sticking with a more minimal timetable. Full line trains on the WHR now only run 3 or 4 days a week, the majority are part journeys at cheaper prices.
Paul Lewin made much of the fact that the Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland can not afford to carry around fresh air, prior to Covid they estimated they were running trains thst had a capacity of well over 300,000 passengers a year, but actual figures were half that.
The current format aims to far more closely match trains to demand, so a service only departs if it is profitable. Looking at the amount of investment that continues to happen on the railway, its a format that is working at the moment.
No one is going to deny the Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland are in a high tourist areas and are quite different railways to the NYMR - but both are long railways with high infrastructure and maintenance costs. Running through National Parks. However, a quick glance at their latest glossy 'Whats going on' brochure to members and shareholders, suggests a management that is well on top of the current challenges and one that is not scared of adapting for the future. The article on ensuring their website and advertising is adapted & suitable for AI searches and Social Media was an eye opener. They have also invested heavily in measures to ensure steam could run through the heat wave this year, far less steam substitution than even last year.
I have visited 4 times this year and all trains have been well loaded. A summer day visit to Porthmadog will give you one of the busiest steam experiences anywhere, quite often 7 or 8 locos in steam and movements every 30 minutes.

 

Another railway I support is the Strathspey. A very different railway again, but one that has walked a financial tightrope - is in a high tourist area and runs through a national park.
Helped recently by a significant donation that has eased things financially (and enabled them to purchase an ex NYMR loco!), they had beforehand changed a number of things to ensure profitability.
Their standard timetable now relies on just one engine in steam, but longer trains. This includes standard, dining and an observation saloon on every service. Once again this allows tickets to be sold for the same train, but at multiple price points for the same service. It cuts the need for a second loco on dining trains and allowed an expansion of the dining train into afternoon teas etc.
The railway has always stated that they have never been in debt, only ever spends what they have and has over the years invested heavily in infrastructure, undercover accommodation for carriages & locos etc.
Another point, volunteers are in short supply up there. Increasingly train crew are paid to ensure all trains run and the engineering side has expanded so the railway is both self sufficient and can accept contract work.
To me, having different price points and promoting a premium offer is key. But for higher prices you need quality, in every area. The Ffestiniog stock for instance is always immaculate and their staff fantastic.

 

What interests me about this model is how transferable it is. Setting aside the obvious differences in managing steaming on narrow and standard gauge, I’m left wondering how staffing is managed given the remote location.

I suspect there are many lessons lurking in the undergrowth here, going way beyond the obvious

 

There is a basic premise here, a train shouldn't leave a station unless its going to make money. There are a number of different ways of achieving that, but selling tickets for the same train at multiple price points (but for different 'experiences') seems to make sense. The higher cost tickets help ensure profit (as costs remain similar), but likewise you don't alienate your base market by pricing them out.
If people think the Ffestiniog & WHR full line tickets are expensive, take a look at their 'Gold' prices! But their (luxurious) observation saloons and pullman coaches are always well filled. People are happy to pay if the experience is deemed worth it and it doesn't cost any extra to pull an observation saloon than a standard carriage. Premier Dining usually always sells out first on railtours..
One final thing, one aspect all these railways have in common is steam trains running through fantastic scenery. That concept has not gone out of fashion and Joe Public still loves it. The NYMR used to carry more passengers than any other heritage railway, its a good product and one that should still be very sellable. Whitby is still an amazing destination, the railway needs to understand what its identity is and how to get the most out of it. There are plenty of lessons to be learnt from others I feel.

 

I’m dubious about the idea that this can be transferred to the NYMR or, indeed, most heritage railways. Trains running short journeys the returning to their starting point would mean a very complicated timetable operationally. For example, a train from Pickering terminating at Goathland would require the loco to run round and return to Pickering which would prevent a train from leaving Grosmont until it was on its way and another train from Levisham leaving until the returning train reached there. It works on the FfR because the main operating hub (Porthmadog) is at a relative midpoint and can send trains in both directions. A long journey train can depart before a short journey and neither will interfere with each other. There is no long journey over the full length between Caernarfon and Blaenau. On the NYMR the traffic flows are from each end and short and long journeys will interfere with each other.
Isn’t it far simpler just to sell tickets for these short journeys and have trains running the full length of the line and let Joe Public travel on any train to do so?

 

Whilst I totally understand the economic necessities that drive this model, it’s also one that has deterred us from travelling, despite being a WHRS member. This also goes for the NYMR and other similar operations. A no options A-B-A train ride just doesn’t appeal, unless your talking about Shap / S&C. We want a day out which includes steam, but also a good walk, a pint, meal etc etc. This used to be possible on both the above lines, but very difficult now, and expensive too.
We’d much rather have a day pootling around on the KWVR or SVR, hopping in and off at will.
I realise we’re a small minority, but having put your heart and soul into these places it’s sad to lose that freedom.

 

Presumably a decision on whether or not to run any particular train will therefore be based upon advanced bookings, which does make me wonder how many potential 'last minute decision' passengers they miss out on. (I know of quite a few railways who love a rainy day as people come for a train ride rather than wander around other local outdoor attractions in the rain.)
Whether that works out as more or less profit is of course the key question. Certainly the Ffestiniog model must mean more predictable demand, and hence efficient use of expensive resources (Although as other have pointed out the actual running costs are but a small percentage of the overheads of running a train).

Edit: I also wonder at what point that decision is made? Day before? A couple of hours before?
Do those who pre-booked, get an automatic refund? Do railway staff contact them to persuade them to take a train at some other time/date?

 

The morning services will pretty much always run, with a decision to add afternoon services made in the days running up, or these can be sold 'on the day'. The Ffestiniog has done significant research into its market and has quite a deep understanding of predicting demand now. In summer peak nearly all morning and afternoon services will likely run. Its the shoulder season where demand will more likely be assessed more closely, with services added if they think they will sell.

 

This prompts a couple of thoughts.

The first, which is where my post was aimed, is about the ability to flex a service in response to demand. There are fundamental engineering constraints which become more restrictive with size, and any comparison of (say) Ffestiniog and NYMR needs to take them into account.

The second is about staffing. Ffestiniog have that model, but it presumably relies on a significant level of flexibility to add in extra services. That has implications for staffing, and how you manage the workforce. Understanding how Ffestiniog achieve that, and how that situation differs from NYMR, will be vital to making it work.

The "experience" model may not always work effectively - as others have observed, the implementation at Embsay has side effects which may be significant.

Edit. I also think there's an important question about how "going to make money" is understood. Some of that is about understanding the flows, and what will attract or deter potential customers (and I note that the Ffestiniog is fundamentally a "somewhere to nowhere" round trip, which is different to NYMR). But it's also about understanding the fixed and variable costs, and making sure that they're correctly apportioned. This is a black art, and getting it wrong will lead to either under-pricing or choking off viable demand. However, I've a strong suspicion that one of NYMR's challenges in recent years is that too much of the fixed cost is being treated as part of the variable cost per mile, and therefore depressing the ability to earn marginal revenue, for example when locos are already in steam.