North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

A loco-hauled train can be a train. The original concept was that the loco could take varied traffic. Different types of carriages and different types of passenger making their different journeys.
Operating the Pullman like a fixed unit is not using its full potential.

 

I doubt if the Ffestiniog model is adaptable to the NYMR or most standard gauge heritage lines. Take the WHR out of the equation completely and just think about the FR: off the top of my head there are five passing loops on a thirteen-mile line. There's so much flexibility there and that also allows them to run differing services with different rolling stock. Woodland Wanderer typically uses the vintage set, and it's super quick and easy to shunt at Harbour Station.

Also, it's very well managed and despite being quite far off the beaten track it attracts volunteers because it's frankly one of the finest railways in the world. People will travel to be part of it. Maybe in that sense it actually has quite a bit in common with the NYMR...

I do think certain things could be borrowed. Take all this anecdotal love for the teaks, turn it into a named service that runs on a specific Grosmont departure each day. Do the research to see if people will pay more to travel on the teaks and make sure that train is always steam. If that takes the 12.35 path then on Moorlander days it can be combined with the diner. Then you have a very high value train that still requires only one steam loco.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting the Ffestiniog / WHR model is directly transferable to the NYMR, however, there are lessons to be learnt from what they have done (as also my Strathspey case study).
It is all about maximising use of resource, adding value to a product and eliminating waste - so when a train does leave you are earning as much money as possible from it.
Running a large, hired in A1 pacific on 4 or 5 half empty Mk1s does not fit that model. Add 3 high earning dining cars to the train and suddenly it starts to look a bit more viable. If those dining cars were previously to be hauled by a second steam engine that now remains unused, even better - you've saved a couple of £k and boosted revenue of steam engine 1.

Named services do work with the general public, as do themes. Why not have a gothic themed named train to Whitby? If it sparks some interest on social media so be it. If people suddenly start taking pics of the train and putting it on Instagram, even better.

 

Actually, yes I do, actually it (on your figures) has made a loss of £500. Where does your 19K of surplus come from, your analysis doesn't make sense (to me, at least!) The point is that the NYMR has consistently run up loses in recent seasons, and that's what we are trying to reduce

 

There are all sorts of possibilities when one starts to look at them - for instance I have been reading a book on folklore and mythology in England (well, skimming through it, actually) and have already found one that relates to the Whitby area - if others can be found perhaps that could form the basis of a tour to advertise? I'm not suggesting a guided tour, but a guidebook that could be sold or given out as part of a premium ticket package to provide interest along the way. The railway's "Guidelines" book sold well on trains, but really focused on the railway and its history, something with a wider scope could do as well, if not better, with very little upheaval! Probably not a lifesaver for the accounts, but affordable and likely to make a useful contribution!

 

Hire cost of £20k is covered by two events each making £19.5k, meaning £39k revenue vs. £20k cost.

You can account for it in two main ways:
1. Attribute the whole movement cost to the gala, and only variables to the marketed trains. That gives you a loss of £500 on the gala and a profit of £19k on the marketed trains.
2. Split the movement cost between the two (let's assume 50:50 for simplicity), which gives you a profit of £9.5k on each

Sharing the same basic objective, the accounting treatment will make a huge difference to how the events are understood, and therefore to how management decisions are made about which events can drive what profits. In this scenario, hiring for a gala is loss-making, but then using the hire for other events generates an overall profit.

I wouldn't necessarily have described it in the same language as @Jamessquared, but this kind of creativity, looking at how a single fixed cost can be made best use of, is an important part of how profit is generated.

For clarity, I acknowledge that the scenario is very simplistic, and that the analysis above excludes both variable cost and any substitution effects (as in the discussions about Thomas earlier this year). But it serves to demonstrate how the principle can work

 

I think that's an interesting idea, but I'm then interested in cost and benefit. Cost - there's an upfront cost to producing the booklets, which needs to be offset against the premium that's charged. Benefit - what is the product, and how much extra will people pay for it?

That benefit may come through higher prices, direct selling - or simply making more people travel because they sense better value.

 

I agree - but the differences are as important as the similarities. My own hunch is that part of the problem at NYMR is that it tried to take the Ffestiniog model, but didn't understand how the differences would affect how it would work, while lacking the flexibility that enables the Ffestiniog to make a success of what it does.

 

You may be right, but it was a hypothetical case, where some huge assumptions were made! I, for one, would want a lot more detail about the potential returns at each stage before recommending it - and this comes from someone who played a major role in setting up the Gresley 100 gala all those years ago, which ran over several weekends, though I have no contact with the NYMR management these days.)

 

Despite having decided to become more actively involved with the KWVR I do find myself continuing to come back to NYMR concerns and over recent days I think posts have largely been of a positive nature and most welsome. The principle dissenting voice seems to be taking a breather and it has allowed excellent ideas to come through.

I would however raise a note of caution in that despite many suggestions what must not be lost sight of is the dire financial position and the low morale of staff and volunteers. As @jnc put it a few days ago rearranging deckchairs into a more sensible configuration may look better but the ship continues on a downward trend. I'm not trying to be a wet blanket but if all the proposals made are to be implemented we need to remain afloat.

It seems that the Park Street plods are on a scrap drive to raise funds. Nothing wrong with that providing we don't sell both bathwater and babies but it does seem a distraction from more important and now vital issues.

For me there are three areas in which we need to be acting far more quickly as they all have significant financial implications.

Stape - It is that most useless of objects a combination of White Elephant and Red Herring and should never have been bought whatever the grant benefits were. I know the HLF have an involvement, I know the NYMR doesn't hold much equity but it is a drain on resources, an irrelevent sideline and nothing short of a pointless millstone. If the HLF stake is an obstacle then persuade the HLF to transfer their interest to the Station Hotel (sic).

Station Hotel - I'm at a disadvantage here as I don't know the exact basis on which the building was funded (by a specific bequest) and Park Street refuse to say - I've asked twice. What I do know is that it is now a wasting asset and is fast turning into a liability. Tne NYMR needs the money and, sadly, my conclusion would be to sell that too. That said I do think the wishes of the person who bequethed to the railway must be respected. Therefore if that legacy prevents it being sold then do something useful with it now rather than let it moulder away. It needs using in a way that generates revenue but as the railway can't afford to renovate ok - so go into partnership with a local developer, a housing association or holiday let entrepreneur. The Lettered Board about 200 yards away is a prime example of how a defunct Pickering pub is now earning it's owners a substantial income.

Adminstration Costs and Salaries - No apologies for returning to the basics because they won't go away. Recent accounts show a yearly cost of £2,700,000 or over a third of total turnover (£7.7 miliion). Sheer lunacy that 35 pence in every single pound earned is lost on pen pushers, pens, consultant pen-pushers, assistant pen-pushers, deputy assistant penpushers and a Chief Executive Pen-Pusher. If we could halve that figure the £1.35 million saved would wipe out the last three years losses and leave £200,000 over to help Bridge 42.

I'm not knocking the multitude of recent postings recomending this that and the other, I readily accept almost all ideas could make a contribution but let's dispose of the icebergs first and without any further delay or we are financially sunk.

 

I agree with all you say, and I suggested the sale of both the properties you mention in the past, as well as Mulberries as none of them seem to make a positive contribution to the balance sheet (and if the admin staff staff were slimmed down the extra office space in Mulberries probably wouldn't be needed!)- to raise funds, albeit as a way of raising the money to buy the Trout Farm car park as a safe income source. I did, though, try to divert this thread onto a more positive course of suggesting possibilities for changing and modifying the operations of the business to increase the footfall at the fare counter and I suggest that most of the subsequent posts have been in that vein. Probably most of them will fall on deaf ears or just wither away but if even just some of them get taken up I would like to think that will have been a positive outcome, and I really do think that it is something the NYMR needs just now.

 

Agreed, but I do see my points as positive suggestions in that all three either release much needed capital or dramatically cut costs.

As I made clear the forward-thinking nature of the other suggestions is welcome and the lack of dissent from certain quarters is another bonus.

All I'm pointing out is that for changes in catering, guide books, teak formations, timetables, fare structure or anything else all have one fundamental requirement - A firm base on which to provide them.

For every month that passes we spend another £225,ooo on admin costs (1/12th of £2.7 million). It's going to be a long, cold lonely winter.

 

Just wondering why you have suggested running the Teaks from Grosmont? I would have thought it far beter to run them from Pickering given that they can't run from the other main starting point of Whitby.
The idea of combining the diner and the Teaks is pretty much non-starter. the combined load would be too long for the platforms and loops and be beyond any of the current steam motive power

 

How do you intend operating the Pullmans, then? If you are wanting to serve food you need a kitchen car and you also need Jenny and therer's only one of those. If you put a pullman coach in each train you lose the ability to run dining trains without an awful lot of organisation and shunting and shunting is somethnig that has bee nminimised since the tragic death of Bob Lund. The dangers have also recently been highlighted following the publication of the Bluebell RAIB report.

 

Wait till ECJS RTO is finished- it will be fully compatible with the other teak carriages and could be run in conjunction with Gresley RB which has a decent-sized kitchen, to provide a dining service on teak specials! Not so much capacity (I think it offers 33 seats) but it is short and relatively light, and one of the TTOs could also be served from the RB.

 

With regard to the WHR, if you're a WHRS member, you get 10 free trips a year, so the cost shouldn't be an issue for the member. Yes it might be an issue for other people in the party who are not members, but membership costs less than a full return trip Porthmadog - Caernarfon. If you want a different kind of experience to the full trip, or the intermediate trips that are offered from Porthmadog to Beddgelert or from Caernarfon to Rhyd Ddu or Beddgelert, then you can still travel (for example) on a Porthmadog - Caernarfon train as far as Beddgelert, get off there and walk into and around the village, have lunch and a pint, and get the train back to Porthmadog - depart Porthmadog at 10.05, have over 5 hours in Beddgelert and get back to Porthmadog at 16.25. Or you could go to Rhyd Ddu and have 4 hours there - only one option for the pub rather than several in Beddgelert, but the option is there. Another one-pub option would be travel to Waunfawr, three hours for lunch but probably less options for walks. Similar outings are possible from Caernarfon - 3 hours in Beddgelert. On the FR there are several options for intermediate trips, and membership of the FRS is only £41 with the same 10 free trips, more trains per day and more days on which trains run. The possibilities are not that much less than they were before Covid.