North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I wonder if @Lineisclear could help us, from his experience as a Trustee, by listing some of the items that are included in the large Administrative pot. I think it could help diffuse some comments.

 

I would find this counsel much more convincing if I observed signs that attempting to at least close the gap on trading returns were proving successful. While I'm sceptical about many of the ideas making more than a slight dent in the position, I recognise them for what they are.

Right now, what I observe is a desire to go for the premium market, not backed up by delivery of a premium product, and where the volume market is not being effectively nurtured. The result is a deepening budgetary hole and a growing sense of throwing ideas at the wall ("rockstars") in the hope that at least one of them will make a difference. I don't see a strategy and vision informing those choices, while I see the cash constraints actively undermining the ability to turn things round.

If I were the sort of donor with the money to make a dent in things (sadly, I'm not!), I'd be very cautious about whether my donation would help, or just temporarily plug a gap.

 

I think you should perhaps try to remember that this is a discussion forum, we're not a management lobby group (however much we would like to be!) so the chances are that the present management will not take a blind bit of notice of what we might write! I do hope, though, that with an incoming new Trust Board Chairman attitudes will gradually start to change and the merits of some of the ideas might be recognised and used. That's my thinking, at least.

 

There is a lot that is correct in what you have written, but some of it I would disagree with. The reality, though, is that the railway has to both improve its trading performance and cut its administration costs, neither of which you seem to have any useful thoughts on, but it will take success in both those areas to encourage significant external investment. Those issues need to be addressed as a matter of urgency, whether you like it or not; worse still, the CEO and her SMT do not either.

 

Especially as they now list 19 staff, up from 17 last year, under "marketing and administration".

 

While we wait for the AGM and some actual news, here is some music (on topic), to help pass the time.

Male vocal:

https://on.soundcloud.com/pjfSzjWcwcGqY4cDnJ

Female vocal:

https://on.soundcloud.com/BDk7rDq8z0CatB8KHQ

Sawdust.

 

Time to communicate better and make the NYMR somewhere people want to put their money secure in the knowledge it will be well spent. Better commercial offers, trying everything and engaging everyone might not of itself fix the need for “millions “, but it sure as heck makes it a damn sight more likely someone (or many someones) will find the cash. The alternative is to chuck in the towel now and accept that the problems can’t be fixed. Which might be true, but seems a bit defeatist.

 

Funny you should say that. Towels being chucked wasn't mentioned on Monday, all the other stuff was.
Patience is required, the AGM isn't very far away now.
Communications will be forthcoming.

Sawdust.

 

That is all reasonable as far as it goes but doesn't explain what you think needs to happen in order to bring in the required couple of million pounds additional income a year (or save that much from the outgoings). Many members contributing more each month than the standard annual membership fee looks to me like just another instance of "tinkering with the old unsustainable model"; helpful (if members can be motivated to do it) but not on the necessary scale.

 

I think you need to be careful assuming the £2.7m is all 'pen pushers'. Just a quick Google tells me lots of stuff I wouldn't have assumed is quite often thrown under administration costs due being required overheads.

Administration costs for a heritage railway normally encompass several categories:

1. Back-Office Overhead & Central Staffing

• Salaries and Wages: Compensation for core administrative staff, such as general managers, financial officers, human resources, booking office staff, and marketing personnel.
• Office Expenses: Utilities (heating, power, water) for non-station buildings, IT software licensing, server upkeep, internet, and office consumables.
• Marketing and Printing: The production of timetables, website hosting, ticket-booking system fees, leaflet distribution, and regional advertising campaigns.

2. Infrastructure & Permanent Way Maintenance

• Track & Structures: On a commercial railway, track access is an operating cost. However, because a heritage railway owns and manages its own infrastructure, the ongoing costs of keeping the permanent way safe and compliant fall under administration. This includes purchasing sleepers, ballast, and fencing, as well as fixing drainage or stabilizing embankments.
• Station Overheads: General maintenance, building repairs, painting, and upkeep of non-commercial station areas.

3. Engineering Fleet Management (The "Heavy" Overhauls)

• Locomotive & Rolling Stock Fleet Upkeep: While daily fuel (like coal or diesel) might sit closer to operations, the continuous heavy engineering required to keep historic rolling stock running safely sits in administration.
• Mandatory Overhauls: Contracted mechanical work or specialized boiler inspections—including the massive mandatory 10-year steam locomotive overhauls that cost hundreds of thousands of pounds—are regularly accounted for under this umbrella.

4. Regulatory, Governance, & Insurance Fees

• Regulatory Compliance: Fees paid to national regulators (such as the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) in the UK) to maintain a mandatory Safety Management System.
• Legal Fees & Permissions: Costs related to securing Transport and Works Act Orders for route extensions, boundary/land disputes, or safety inquiry representations.
• Insurances: Crucial and highly expensive public liability insurance, boiler insurance, and employer liability cover.

 

My mind is boggled! AI generated, I presume?

 

When you put it like that it looks like a bargain! There’s an additional admin cost looming which is the security management and systems required to comply with Martyn’s Law.

 

Credit where due: @echap had asked, up-thread a ways, for just that breakdown: "listing some of the items that are included in the large Administrative pot". Thanks for providing it.

Legally-required financial reports, sadly, often seem to me to accidentally hide (as in, not deliberately; I suspect they're so focused on putting in what's legally required, that that is where most of the attention/effort goes) a lot of useful information. Then again, the NYMR's current SMT's seeming desire to keep a lot of information to themselves, who knows? I mean, for an 'ordinary' business, such a breakdown of costs is probably useful intel for their competition; so an 'ordinary' business may indeed have a good reason for keeping such a breakdown private - and perhaps that bias is subconsciously absorbed by auditors, etc. But heritage lines are only slightly competing with each other - and often co-operate.

Noel

 

I seem to recall the accounts being far more detailed in the days of Philip Benham.

 

I think there could be a reason for 2 extra admin staff. The level of criticism has significantly increased in recent months and, because the CEO and team need to disregard all of that criticism, 17 staff are no longer sufficient to do all the ignoring required.

We now have 2 extra staff employed not to listen due to the higher level of complaints.

 

A cynical view, but perhaps it is true - there's certainly no no need for any extra staff to deal with the increasing level of business, but perhaps more are needed to make excuses for the ongoing losses.......

 

There was excellent coverage of the bungeeeee
e
e
e
e
e
jump, the other day from Larpool Viaduct.

The marketing lead certainly led.

It played well on Look North

 

This has overtones of more scaremongering the separate thread on Martyn's Law in the General Matters heading suggests that it is a matter that will not cost a fortune to implement. Furthermore, I believe the new Trust Chairman-elect may well have a rather better grasp of the practicalities of implementing it than possssibly @Lineisclear does!

 

I didn’t suggest it would cost a fortune to implement rather that ensuring compliance will be another administrative task. The cost depends on whether the likely number of people on site will exceed 800 at any point and on whether the ministerial assurance that each station can be assessed separately is accepted by the Security Industry Authority. What is crystal clear is that if that figure could be exceeded at any point especially during a Gala then the railway must appoint a Head of Security and adopt physical measures such as CCTV and security patrols . It’s unavoidable that will create additional administrative work. Even at the standard duty level things like traditional collections of luggage on platforms, milk churns etc. that could be easy hiding places will have to be addressed and there must be warning signage and announcements. As the author of the HRA Guidance Note on the new law and invited speaker on the subject at the HRA Autumn Conference I am suggestion a sense of proportion is appropriate but equally the culture change and administrative work that will be required should not be underestimated

 

I guess the important thing to realise is that “Head of Security” is presumably a function, not a role - in other words, you need to define who it is for an event, but don’t have to automatically recruit another paid manager . I’d imagine for many lines it can just be an additional responsibility for the Duty Ops Supervisor.

Tom