West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I wholly agree. The "return for a year" model had a lot of hidden costs, especially around access to things like galas. The "+10%" model, to which NYMR have moved, is a less attractive option to visitors, and looks an awful like a price hike. All of these then have their own practical operational challenges.

Whether we're talking about Gift Aid, or about residents' discounts, the key issue is how data can inform those choices.

 

True, though it’s worth noting that Gift Aid in effect leverages four times the value in altruistic donation from the public which might otherwise not be made, and if it didn’t exist the Government may come under pressure to fill the gap. So it is probably worth spending £1 of Government money to generate £5 of net public benefit, though I agree the Treasury is not an institution renowned for clear-headed long-term financial analysis!

Tom

 

I quite agree Tom, gift-aid on fares is not necessarily a silver bullet on its own, but there is also the issue of probably the biggest source of friction on the railway of the past few years, and that is that the supporting charities are extremely limited in the support that they can give to the Plc. I appreciate that, in part, this was due to the limitations imposed by their charitable objectives, but never-the-less, unless I am mistaken, the S&D group were evicted from their Washford site basically because they were unable to support the Plc when it went out with its begging bowl the last time there was a huge black hole in the accounts. A complete review of the structure of the WSR bodies to resolve this, and allow the gift aid to be claimed on fares, would seem to me to a no-brainer in light of the most recent financial results.

 

Perhaps that 75% is more like 70% or perhaps 60% however one thing is certain, a zero percent uplift on any figure is always zero.

 

That assumes that you don't get a compensating reduction in demand as the perceived prices rise (and the NYMR example appears to suggest in the absence of detailed figures that the "giveaway" component trashed cashflow later in the season).

 

Oh, I don't disagree, I think some kind of wholesale structural reform on the WSR would bring many benefits - I just caution against throwing all eggs into the Gift Aid basket! The other benefits may in the long term prove rather more beneficial.

Well, yes, though I suspect the actual number is likely to be considerably less than £400k.

But my wider point is that it seems to me quite frequently WSR folk are rather predisposed to a kind of "knight in shining armour" syndrome, i.e. that somewhere there is a single solution that will solve all problems. (A few years ago there was much talk of a pot of gold over the rainbow at Hinkley Point). The reality is that there are probably many incremental improvements that can be made - let's face it, which railway couldn't? - but there is no substitute for the hard work of making many small improvements. Pinning all your hops on a single answer (such as "Gift Aid on fares") is likely to leave you disappointed.

Tom

 

Just as this thread used to be recommended reading for discussions of principle, I suggest the NYMR thread occupies that (sad) place now. The message that comes out from that is that that success is borne of lots of little things, not a few big things - and that structural change is not an end in itself, but a means to an end.

 

It's not a single answer at all in that you have to get the pennies rolling in through the tills. Without that, all bets are off. Not picking up the 25% free bonus is just good housekeeping however ..........

 

That's where we might diverge in view. I'm not so sure it is as clear-cut as that, as a reading of the NYMR thread (especially a couple of years back) may show. The headline looks good, but model 1 (free return within a year) appears to have had a significant impact on cash flow in year 2 of its operation, and also places significant limitations on your ability to organise special events, which are often the lifeblood of many railways; while model 2 (10% uplift over the standard fare for GA passengers) essentially looks to most people like a price hike with no corresponding benefit.

I think what the NYMR are, and more importantly aren't, saying about Gift Aid is quite telling. After the first year of operation, there was a lot of communication about how successful it was, providing a £400k income. In year 3, there was a change of model to the 10% uplift, and no statement about how much Gift Aid was realised in the previous year, from which my natural assumption was - less. Now, in the 2026 accounts (covering 2025 trading) there is a section entitled "Key Success Measures for 2026" that says:

Tickets with the “plus 10%” Gift Aid on fares model deliver similar or greater revenue than the previous year. No increase in income is assumed despite the 10% uplift on those paying the donation fare.​

(My emphasis)​

Now, I might be over-interpreting it, but reading between the lines, it doesn't look to me like the scheme is a shining success, at least not in terms of providing a "free" revenue boost. The bit I put in bold is very interesting - either the uptake of the "donation" fare is very small, or else the additional revenue collected is being offset by a decrease in passengers due to the percieved higher price. Gift Aid is only mentioned twice in the 2025 accounts report, once as above and once to explain that the model had changed (from "free return" to "donation fare"). I get very strong vibes of a dog that went bounding out in year 1 and has returned in year 3 with its tail between its legs.

It might be possible to get the Gift Aid model to work on a heritage railway, but I believe it is not the "free hit" that many believe. At the very least I'm with @35B in thinking any decision needs to be really grounded in hard data.

Tom

 

I'd focus on the simple bit discussed ad nauseam previously about getting the Gift Aid uplift on donations. Fares are a different issue, and should be considered downstream.

 

https://www.facebook.com/lauri.marb...nny-jp-a-true-gentleman-and/2347679042721166/

 

It isn’t as simple as that, as the NYMR has found. With Gift Aid you have two choices; give a 12 month ‘ticket’ or charge 10% more than the standard fare in order to Gift Aid the fare. The first couple of years the NYMR opted for the former and suddenly found they were effectively carrying a lot of people for free*. People who would perhaps travel three or four times a year and pay for a ticket each time now only paid once. They’ve now gone over to the alternative arrangement and get relatively little take up of Gift Aided tickets. If they got 75% I’m sure they’d be happy but the vibes I get is it’s a lot less.

* I’m told one person has travelled over 100 times on his 12 month ticket.

 

My instinctive reaction is that the picture is more complicated than appears, and that the take-up also relates to issues over the absolute level of fares, and the value of the tokens given with the uplift*.

* - this is not about the financial amount on them, which is HMRC driven, but the limited value they offer for anyone travelling early/late to Whitby. The only reason I'd GA my fare is that there's a small advantage to me as a higher rate taxpayer. By definition, I suspect I'm in a minority

 

As you say, the limited ‘gift’ you get when paying the higher rate fare is only of value if you actually want to purchase something in the shop or buffet and invariably ends up with you paying more. If I’m offered a 12 month admission I’ll readily gift aid but if asked to pay the higher fare/admission and gift aid I’m afraid I decline.

 

I have followed the discussion with interest. Some interesting and sensible comments.

If you reduce my assumptions to 50% 50% and 50%, the WSR would still get an extra £118,750 on the P/L and cash in hand.

It will be known that I am acting as project manager for the Swanage Railway’s governance change project and their operating company achieved charitable status part-way through this season and have reaped a very useful sum in gift-aid. (It is not my place to reveal how much but no doubt the figure will be in the public domain in due course.)

Plainly it’s not a panacea, nor the only reason why charitable status is a good idea, but it’s an important consideration and even a measley £118,750 would have helped the figures previously identified.

Robin

 

Erlestoke Manor has been adorned with a smokebox wreath this morning for the 10:15 departure from Bishops Lydeard. A nice touch. <BJ>

 

Whilst the NYMR example is probably the most documented on this forum I'm not sure how good an example it is, except for how not to do it. If for example they had not tried the 12 month free pass I suspect they would have had more success than they have had with the latter option (which is similar to the National Trust and others). But going from offering a 12 month pass to then asking for extra fare but giving you less for it frankly just annoyed much of the customer base resulting in low take up of the extra donation required.

I also think if they had stuck with the 12 month ticket for longer the Gift Aid value would have started to balance out, but the first year was always going to be a high year with that system starting from scratch. The problem they had was they normalised it in the accounts and then expected it every year. When it didn't come through in year 2 they were shocked, and in a panic changed the system again.

As with grants things like Gift Aid should be the icing on the cake, not the base line requirement to keep the wheels turning. At the end of the day it is a Government scheme that could be reformed or stopped altogether in theory at any budget. I certainly wouldn't want to be the one relying on it.

 

I think Gift Aid is more secure than you allow - if it were abolished, there’d be a massive funding gap for charities.

 

The 10% can be clearly stated as a donation contained within the published ticket price so I looked at my ticket to the excellent Bovingdon Tank Museum. The amount charged to me is the standard entrance fee as published on their website while the ticket stub has information on tax advice for gift aid etc. There is a legal requirement to state a donation element in the entry fee, therefore it is straightforward to reduce the base cost for compliance purposes and automatically add it back on an opt-out basis. The tank museum do not split it out in their summary of charges on the receipt and I'm sure they will happily provide any advice. A legally appropriate sign may suffice and with a bit of thought, could be placed somewhere that is unobtrusive but compliant.

 

As previously said, the devil is in the detail