North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

That depends on whether the diesel gala is subject to the five day exclusion. That may make more sense than to include all the Autumn Steam Gala. Validity of the 12 months free return is from date of first use so quite a few will be expired by the Steam Gala.

 

Perhaps you could expand further and explain why you have made this statement, and what has actually been done to encourage non-Whitby return visits?

 

The statement in the most recent accounts (ie for the 2023 year) about Gift Aid is as follows:



It’s clear from that statement that the trustees consider the secondary spend as a benefit of the annual pass model. That’s interesting given that much of the discussion about secondary spend is, as you suggest, that the NYMR doesn’t benefit due to passengers making that spend in Whitby. The words also seem to suggest that repeat usage is in itself a benefit (presumably because of the opportunities for secondary spend). It is therefore somewhat perplexing to me why the NYMR has moved away from a model that only a year ago they saw as providing significant benefits.

The 23.5% uplift in revenue is a bit of an assumption to credit that to the Gift Aid model. I think there is an element of 2022 being a comparatively poor year (still recovering from covid etc) and therefore at least the possibility that 2023 would have seen an uplift in revenues regardless of the model chosen.

Tom

 

That would make better sense and was argued for last year but apparently fell on deaf ears.

So perhaps Fri/Sat diesel gala and Fri/Sat/Sun for the steam gala.

 

Wasn’t 2022 a poor year because almost uniquely amongst SG lines (yet again ) NYMR continued to encourage /insist on pre booked outward journeys on trains for covid reasons ,so turned customers away when the computer said no but eyeballs said yes ?
I would suggest that since covid the line has lurched from one disastrous business model of ticketing to another every season .

 

Agree. It seems to be a bit of a stretch to associate "strong secondary spend" with repeat visits - how in practice can the PLC identify who is buying what (including the counter-intuitive statistic that guide books tend to be purchased on a repeat visit, but who knows what the author of this stuff was really trying to say)? I am also struggling to understand what "strong repeat visits" are. Trying to give it some meaning, I assume it is trying to express that some GA users (apparently a "strong" cohort either in numbers of users or number of free journeys taken by a lesser but particularly muscular cohort of GA ticket holders), have taken advantage of one or more free tickets. (Arguably, success is zero repeat visits which involve train travel). Perhaps if "strong" and "strongly" were banned in the writing of the annual report (and the NYMR is in good, or rather, bad corporate company in over-working this adjective/adverb), the trustees could apply themselves to coming up with more acccurate descriptions by actually analysing the data and what they are trying to convey?

 

See my post 4972. If someone usually travels several times a year, and many do, then the Railway is missing out on the income from the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and more visits. Don't suggest secondary spend because, if it is going to happen, it would happen in any case.

 

Not for the first time, you seem to be at odds with your own directors then

(See post 4983).

Tom

 

That's another problem for the NYMR as the Exemption from Clause 5 of the RSR 1999 states: "(vii) the Company must ensure that passenger loadings do not exceed the total seating capacity available within the relevant Rolling Stock;"
With regard to the 5 day week, there is no problem as the Gift Aid rules don't require the railway to be open 7 days/week, just allow free access when they are open.

 

I've been at odds with the directors ever since I realised what they were doing and what was happening to the railway. Funnily enough, I'm not alone in that amongst volunteers and paid staff on the ground, as distinct to the higher echelons.

 

I find myself in the same situation with the A1 Trust @Steve

 

The question then is not whether the railway misses out on that income, but whether the additional income from Gift Aid exceeds the income that they would have paid without benefit of the repeat visits. A lot of people paying more may outweigh a smaller number paying less.

The challenge is in getting to a sense of the numbers that would allow interpretation of the actual answer to that; a challenge compounded by shifts in how the railway chooses to present its case.

 

That's certainly unfortunate. I do like the occasional ride in pre-Nationalization corridor coaches on the few heritage railways that have them. It makes a change from the ubiquitous BR Mk1s.

But if I've correctly understood previous forum discussion, the LNER carriages are not approved for running to Whitby, which seems to have increasingly become the main focus of NYMR operations. That implies that the LNER stock is less well suited than previously to NYMR requirements. As suggested by some other posts, that in turn prompts the question of whether they would be better employed elsewhere.

Looking at the LNERCA web-site, they seem to have a rake of 6 Gresley bogie corridor carriages, plus some vans and a GNR saloon. While some other heritage railways might welcome 1 or 2 of these vehicles, would any be able to accept and usefully employ an additional full rake of 6 coaches? That will take up considerable extra siding space, never mind maintenance costs. Perhaps the GCR, if and when it extends regular operation over its northern section to Ruddington? But I'm not sure how far in the future that might be.

An alternative approach might be to see whether the LNER carrages could be swapped with Mk 1s from other heritage railways, which could then be transferred to the NYMR and be available for Whitby operation? Such a move would of course be dependent on the views both of the NYMR and the other railway(s) as well as the LNERCA, all of whom would have number of factors to consider.

 

Sounds expensive if mainline capable Mk1's are required. Surely cheaper to hire in some of the many WCRC vehicles currently deteriorating at Carnforth?

 

Although it is commendable that Lineisclear comes on here to comment, most of his comments fall into the "head in the sand" or "bunker mentality category. I asked for some explanation and justification of his comment in relation to one of my posts:

Me: You might visit an attraction twice if there were good reasons for doing so. Going to Whitby might be one, and that more or less sells itself, but as I keep saying, the real advertising and development focus has to be on making the railway itself a worthy attraction in its own right, which at the moment doesn't seem to be the case in either way.

Linesclear: I suggest that point has been taken.

Now, I think my point was simple and straightforwardly put, but there has been no reply to it.Someone ese has said that the railway's strategy is now almost wholly focused on Whitby, and I think it cannot be denied that is true, but I think it is extremely important to ask whether that is the best strategy for the long term future of the railway as a heritage railway? To my mind the NYMR is being reduced to becoming a sideshow to the "Whitby experience". Lineisclear has mentioned several time the need to meet charitable objectives, but I question whether the principle charitable objective of running the railway as a registered museum is being ignored along the way and is actually dying out. What we are seeing is a "British Railways" management style where there is an absolute focus on costs and profitability and the rationalisation (i.e. discarding) of anything that actually goes to make a visit interesting. I don't expect Lineisclear to answer this other than by making some tangential claims about Gift Aid revenue, but how do other readers feel about all this? Do you want to see a stripped back railway with morning steam-hauled services to Whitby and returns in the afternoon, with a diesel or DMU service for the rest of the day, for example?

 

I may disappoint 60044 by steeing clear of Gift Aid important though that is . I may further disappouint by agreeing that providing reasons to attract visitors the the section of the NYMR between Pickering and Grosmont is highly desirable both financially and in terms of delivery of charitable purposes. A number of further initiatives are being developed with that aim.
Where I suspect we may disagree is there's a strong hint that the attraction 60044 wants to re- create is something that appeals to him. His preference for pre war, north eastern authenticity is clear. However offering potential customes what you think they ought to appreciate, rather than what they want, is a risky strategy. 60044 seems to wish that they didn't want to flock to Whitby but that's what the demand is for. If visitors can be persuaded to prefer heritage attractions on the 18 1/2 mile section that's fine as long as that generates more than any surplus from running the extra 6 1/2 miles to the seaside.
60044' s laudable aim is to encourage more paying visitors to the NYMR. Possibly the best opportunity of doing that is to appeal to those who would never normally consider visiting a heritage railway. They're unlikely to come because it's true to its heritage roots but could be attracted for what 60044 might criticise as the wrong reasons whether that's headline visits by characters like Peppa Pig, light spectaculars, Harry Potter themed events or food festivals etc. The trick is to attract a new cadre of visitors for reasons that may have little or nothing to do with railway heritage and ensure they have a good time. Then there's a good opportunity that their eyes will be opened to the more traditional heritage railway experiences that can be enjoyed on subsequent visits.

 

It is challenging to think who else could make regular use of a 6-coach set. I'd love to see them at Embsay but siding space would be a challenge and probably only 5 would be needed at a time (though having a spare is no bad thing) - but also they've enough on their hands with their MK1 refurbs and the two Midland coaches.

 

ISTR that Embsay had 2? teaks from one of the regional control trains in the 80's.
Ray.

 

I don't think there would be any objection from the many supporters to events such as you have mentioned. Other railways do it. The trick is to balance these family events with the core aims that its supporters wish to see.
With regard to the LNER coaches, IMHO, these are undoubtedly a jewel in the railways crown and senior management should be doing their best to make them and keep them serviceable for joe public and enthusiasts to enjoy. Over the years I have heard many comments from visitors about them, all of which have been positive and admiring. On more than one occasion I have been asked if there is a supplement to ride in them. The Valley is justly proud of its LMS, LNER & GWR trains and keeps them in service even though that is much harder to do than with Mk.1 stock. The Bluebell similarly cherishes its older coaches, as do other lines. Again, IMHO it comes down to two main things,; they are less convenient than a Mk.1 from an operational point and the NYMR never likes spending money on something it doesn't own, even when it has an obligation, both contractual and moral, to do so.

 

They did actually have four Gresley teak carriages, all of them now with the LNERCA! They also had some LMS carriages from Northern Ireland, I think, which haven't had anything done to them. The Gresleys have all been restored and are in running order, apart from the one restored at Embsay which became the Ryedale Bar on the NYMR and is currently undergoing overhaul.