North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Given that the stolen lead hasn't been replaced on Pickering station roof, I don't think many will object to CCTV being installed and with the IT infrastructure existing on the railway now, probably not hard to implement.

Sawdust.

 

The bit I pasted was yes, but there were a lot of results including links to other railways matching the general message that admin is used to put any required to run overheads under. Not what i would have thought but I have seen this sort of thing before with accounts.

 

I would have expected rolling stock and PWay maintenance to be itemised separately. If all this is "administration" why don't they just back to basics and lump everything together as "cost of sales" and a second line against it as "income" . Accounts made very basic - simples! (but only marginally less informative than what they have done!) They employ a team of accountancy people, and an expensive FD to produce this?

 

The question is, Did it raise any useful amount of money?

 

The accounts submitted to Companies House and on the public register only have to comply with FRS102 rules (google it). The annual accounts are a snapshot of the state of the company’s finances on the day of publication.

The breakdown of expenditure between staff salaries, ballast, coal, brake blocks, electricity, photocopier toner, and everything else it takes to run a railway company; are detailed in the management accounts. These days the management accounts will be done on financial software or online platforms eg Sage, Xero, QuickBooks, etc.

I’m sure the usual suspects on here, those who are critical of the leadership and senior management of NYMR; would dearly love to have access to he management accounts!
That won’t happen, unless you become a member of staff in the accounts department, a member of the SMT, a trustee or director.

 

A fellow member as Chris of “the General Managers’s *Curry Club”, your erstwhile Operations Director MG, has a view that for a preserved railway to survive surrounded by a declining volunteer base in part caused by changes to civil service et al retirement ages, and constantly increasing costs, the ideal length is no more than 5 or 6 miles so that it can run a reasonably frequent service with one train for most of the year.

* of course they are not General Managers these days, they are CEOs.

 

This is the same entity which managed to turn a 'loan' into a 'profit' - and all within accounting rules!

It's probably worth remembering that the publicly presented accounts of a company are intended only to give outsiders an accurate impression of whether the company is succeeding, or failing, financially - not to provide enough information to allow an outsider to work out how, or where, a company which is failing financially is doing so.

Noel

 

Or did the initial expectation just bounce?

 

I’m not sure that railway preservation needs to repeat the managed decline of the post-Beeching era.

Without losing sight of the brass tacks, I suggest a little more of the John Prideaux and Chris Green mentality, and a little less of BR HQ c.1970 is called for.

More seriously, that position may well have merit, but it somewhat ignores the minor point that there is an existing railway, and that people are deeply committed to it.

 

Only the cheque.

Was in the pub last night with the usual group of NYMR old lags and it seems that the current xarriage availability is only 19 in service and he wondered why.

The answer? So that our "enhanced" administration staff (now numbering 19) can manage one each.

 

I don’t think Matt was suggesting closing down every preserved railway longer than 6 miles!

But it’s obvious that the overall costs of running KWVR or Swanage Railway are bound to be lower than NYMR or WSR.

You are quite right about John Prideux. In the recession in the early 1990s, Intercity was under pressure to cut services to save costs.
Dr Prideux’s reply was “if you cut 10% of services, you cut more than 10% of revenue, and save a fraction of that in costs”.
Intercity embarked on an aggressive marketing and advertising campaign to boost ridership. Which worked.

 

Which is what many of us have been saying - and it could/should work for the NYMR. I think it should also be remembered that the NYMR is rare among standard gauge lines in running through a national park, and providing visitor access to a big swathe of it. It represents so much to the local economy that the thought of it closing - or even being truncated - would destroy much of that. The type of subsidy needed to avoid that would probably be a fraction of the cost in road repairs, congestion and accidents in the roads used in place of it, so maybe there should be lobbying to keep it in the transport policy and budget to support it.

 

I agree with your observation on contribution to the local economy but, daft though it may seem, I doubt that would justify what would almost certainly be a breach by any public granting entity of recent Subsisdy Control legislation.

 

Always with the negative waves!

 

Simply clarification of the reason why support, such as you suggest sensibly, is almost certainly something no public body can now provide beyond the limit set in the Subsidy Control Act (£350k cumulatively over three years from all public entities).

 

I love the Kelly's Heroes quotation, but he might have a point.

Noel

 

Isn't that about equal to the arts council funding?
If that is more than the figure you quote, then it can be sidestepped by calling it something else.

Sawdust.

 

Sounds like what I recall for de minimis rule - which I think applies mostly to entities trading within the EU single market. As the UK is no longer in the UK I'm surprised it still applies. I've had a quick scan through the subsidy control act of 1922 and the opening paragraphs suggest to me that actually it wouldn't be applicable:

(1)In this Act, “subsidy” means financial assistance which—

(a)is given, directly or indirectly, from public resources by a public authority,

(b)confers an economic advantage on one or more enterprises,

(c)is specific, that is, is such that it benefits one or more enterprises over one or more other enterprises with respect to the production of goods or the provision of services, and

(d)has, or is capable of having, an effect on—

(i)competition or investment within the United Kingdom,

(ii)trade between the United Kingdom and a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, or

(iii)investment as between the United Kingdom and a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.

 

Following the severe limits imposed the Subsidy Control Act 2025 ( not 1922!)an exception was introduced for some Arts and Culture grants but it’s a fairly tight one. HRA Guidance on this has been published for its members. 60044’s suggestion was akin to a subsidy based on the NYMR’s potential as an alternative to road transport to access the National Park. That would be subject to the latest Subsidy Control Rules which it is the responsibility of the grantor to comply with.

 

The test is now whether it has any effect on local or regional competition ( such as buses/ coaches etc).