North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I agree. The point of seeking additional demand for "internal" services is not to "detract from" the Whitby offering, but to expand other demand on the railway.

Just a note on costs. I would be very cautious about assuming that Whitby is expensive to operate. The railway doesn't have to bear the full costs of the infrastructure, and is therefore relatively proof against the risk of fixed costs. If I were to be concerned about the impact of operating to Whitby, it would be the way it constrains when trains may run, and therefore how the railway can make most efficient use of resources.

 

Thats why I said "the extra costs of .....". Retention tank toilets, for example, are mandatory now, and central locking becoming so, and installation and they incur installation and ongoing servicing costs that no other heritage railway is having to face yet. I would imagine that the NYMR's insurance costs are far higher now for those few extra miles of NR track, and the locomotive and carriage FTR requirements - and therefore costs (along with those of the TPWS systems etc.) are likely to have risen too - and that's just what I can think of quickly whilst typing! That's why a careful and detailed study is needed to make an accurate cost/benefit analysis. At the end of it, a realistic question might be whether passengers using the Pickering-Grosmont railway in effect subsidising those travelling on the Whitby, and is that morally right?

 

If the primary demand cannot support the railway, and if in fact it is perhaps damaging in some ways, then in fact hanging on to that business is an illusory comfort blanket.

 

Is that not a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy? You can't buy a traditional day rover on the NYMR-proper, so anyone wanting a "day on the railway" is pretty much railroaded into buying a Whitby ticket, even if they wish to get out somewhere else and explore. How many people would buy a Pickering - Grosmont day rover? You don't know, because you don't offer the opportunity.

Most railways in the country don't have a destination like Whitby at one end. There are a lot of "nowhere to nowhere" railways that nonetheless attract passengers based on their own attractiveness as a visitor destination. So why do you dismiss that as a possibility for the NYMR, and keep coming back to the mantra that "visitors only want to go to Whitby".

I think @35B is right in being worried about how that view delivers the charity's objectives. Your visitors are giving you a donation to "view the work of the charity" yet the work at your intermediate stations may as well not be there as you concentrate just on "get them [off the railway] to Whitby quick".

Coming back to finances: you have lost fairly consistently £500k per year for the last few years. From your own statements, the railway needs investment in infrastructure. So in financial terms, you need a cash boost of perhaps £750k - £1m per year at minimal additional cost of delivery. The Whitby trains are frequently asserted to be full, so there is little scope for delivering more cash there. So the core railway has to deliver that £750k - £1m boost. That's 20 - 25,000 £40 tickets - perhaps 100 - 125 per day for every day you operate.. That's tough, but not implausible given the scale of the railway. What's the plan?

Tom

 

I have a day out in the beautiful Yorkshire Dales in glorious sunshine and come back to a flurry of posts. Reading through the first few I was going to post pretty much along the lines of your last paragraph. I do not think that there is any evidence that the cost of operating the 6 miles to Whitby is expensive relative to the 18 miles of owned railway and this is not bleeding the railway to death. The additional equipment does have an additional cost but I would argue that there is little addition in maintenance and examinations and that use of retention tank toilets is probably a good thing to have in the 21st century. There are virtually no infrastructure costs involved, just the Grosmont ground frame. I don't know if actual figures exist (I hope that they do) but I suspect that the 6 miles to Whitby is a much cheaper bit of railway than the remaining 18 miles. Indeed, in earlier years it was suggested that suggested that it was a much cheaper option to run services over the 24 miles between Battersby and Whitby than between Pickering and Whitby.
With regard to meeting charitable purposes, at the recent HRA seminar there was a presentation by the railways CEO followed by a question and answer panel session. One of the comments made at that presentation was along the lines of can you see a time when the railways have heritage displays at stations but people don't use the train to access them and the answer was yes. Make of that what you will.

 

As the highly respected CEO of another heritage railway observed recently the traditional concept of five year plans or ten year strategies has gone out of the window. The rate and extent of change is such that about two years ahead is the most that can realistically be forecast and planned for. For how long will the burning of coal be allowed ( or perhaps how long will its import be permitted which would be a relatively easy thing to ban.) For how long will early generation diesel traction be free to operate? If these horror situations seem unthinkable just look at the latest proposals for the maritime sector including forced conversion of diesel engined canal boats to electric propulsion. The point is that a scenario in which the majority of visitors to a heritage railway will experience things like a meal in a static antique carriage or a simulated footplate experience is reasonably forseeable without actually travelling on steam or diesel heritage train .That may become an expensive privilege at best. No one , apart from some of the net zero zealots , wants to see that happen but in recognizing the threat the NYMR’s CEO is reflecting the concerns of many other leaders in the sector.

 

All of which is a distraction from the question of how NYMR finds additional income from operating the line it owns.

 

As the leader of another heritage railway I cannot say that I have given that much thought to the non availability of coal. The price of coal has been a concern, but this seems to have eased slightly. The more traditional concerns such as volunteer availability, keeping finances on an even keel and safety compliance have greater priority at the present time. Even if coal does not become available, one would hope that the alternatives being developed would come to the fore. It is a worry, but right now it is not the greatest worry that features.

regards

Matt

 

Quite. The longer term worries are real, but there isn’t a lot of point worrying about them, because the best defence to all future threats and potential threats is to run the today as well as possible. Heritage Railways exist and are enabled, supported and permitted to exist because people want them to. The important thing above all else is to keep involved as many people as possible, as shareholders, volunteers, members, passengers, passive line side wavers and remote supporters. Only by maximising every single audience an we hope to remain relevant and only by being relevant do we earn the rights to continue to exist.

 

I’d argue that a persuasive argument for heritage railways’ continued existence is their role as a glue that bonds local communities. Much is made of their contribution to local economies but their social contribution seems to be a feature that could be better emphasized as justification for their continued existence.

 

I agree. As an outsider I'd have thought one big question raised in the last hundred pages is the very simple one -- 'is the 2025 tariff right'? Or should it be more like £40 return to Whitby, £25 return to Grosmont and £20 return to Goathland with some family fares? Time will tell, but that's what I'd be nervous about. Will the market stand it?

 

It could. But that also relies on how the railway acts within that community - and if it largely bypasses communities, it does little to help itself.

Hear, hear. The late Bishop Mervyn Stockwood once said "We must all pray as though nothing we can do will make any difference. And we must do as though our prayers will make no difference".

More generally, risk management can inspire defeatism. I was in a recent meeting, where a risk flagged as Red/Red (i.e. critical impact, highly likely) came up in discussion. As we spoke, it became very clear that having a risk framed in those existential terms may have been true, but was inhibiting effective risk management by being framed in a way that made it seem as though nothing we could do would make any difference. Reframing it so that it was shorter term (the existential risk is measured in decades), and more precise, would allow the chance to take effective and prioritised management action.

It's perfectly reasonable to worry about the end of the world. But doing so in such sweeping terms that nothing we do could make any difference is a recipe for despair, not resolution.

 

Not losing £500k a year with an increasing maintenance backlog is a better justification of their continued existence…several still waiting for that answer …

 

If this is indicative of the quality of thinking by our heritage railway's CEOs then they are probably all doomed! But, I have to quibble with some of the assumptions inherent in it. Coal burning may or not become an issue, but we are already seeming railways trying out manufactured "biocoals" with varying degrees of success, and there is no real reason why they shouldn't improve with time. Alternatively, there is oil burning and although there is a drive to more electrification in the field of cars, I don't see much progress in terms of replacement of diesel powered trucks or rail vehicles on non-electrified lines. It will come and is undoubtedly a good thing but is years away, and by the time it arrives there will be other alternatives such as synthetic aviation fuel and bioethanol. As for first generation diesels and railcars, for DMUs at least I am reminded that they essentially used contemporary bus engines (?and gearboxes?) and so the possibility of replacing them with more modern units must exist. In essence, I don't seem the demise of heritage traction taking place within the next 20 years, and probably for a lot longer. The quoted comments are just hand-wringing to justify doing nothing at all.

 

How can it be a harder sell when the season hasn't started yet, what modelling or crystal ball was used to get this result? It would be a sensible solution a few months in or at the end of this season, but to guess is bizarre, if not unexpected.

 

Three things from me -
1. I don’t know why the idea of only running to Whitby in high season would be so easily dismissed. It seems logical to me, especially as, to be perfectly honestly Whitby out of season is a bit depressing.
I don’t believe that the sole reason for the success of this last event was the presence of 60007 - though she is a fine loco and way more interesting than say Britannia.
I genuinely think it’s the combination of offering a good length ride behind a steam engine, at a sensible price, and the fact that it’s a fairly weatherproof option at a time of year where outdoor activities can be easily spoiled. So there’s a model there to be used - even without the special
guest. Market it properly and I think people would come.

2. There does need to be a ticket option for a Pickering - Grosmont return at a price below the full Whitby return. I don’t see really what difference it makes if people are hopping on and off at intermediate stations.

3. The answer here is probably ‘no’ but… if Whitby demand is so high, could a Grosmont - Whitby shuttle operate between the NYMR full line and Northern services, which would indirectly connect to internal NYMR services? So for example, someone could jump on the train at Whitby late morning, go to Grosmont, have a break at the cafe then carry on to Pickering on the next internal service? That would boost both capacity out of Whitby and use of internal services, hopefully direct a few more people to Grosmont tea room and be sure the connection is indirect, avoid the issue of 300 people trying to change train at once?

 

31128 with the first Whitby departure of the season..............

 

60007 has a very loyal following, after her prolonged stint at the railway, and i cannot think of a better draw, bar Blue Peter at the moment.
Just after her overhaul, she came, and again, a very good time was had by all parties.

 

What a load of rubbish to say that the 12 month free return would be a harder sell because of the five day operation. Why? What's more amazing, though, is to say that the 12 month scheme would have continued otherwise. If that is true this only increases my opinion that the railway is being run by idiots. However, I don't think it is true as a bit more common sense has prevailed.

 

I'm afraid I don't share your opinion of Whitby out of season. It is a popular destination for day trips, especially by pensioners and trains remain reasonably well loaded out of season. The one caveat in that is the weather. Very few places are popular if it is raining. There's also the fact that you don't make money unless you are running trains. Having said that, the trains must make money and not cost the railway money to do so. It would be interesting to see the sums employed in making the decision not to run on Thursdays and Fridays.
Without sitting down with my sheet of graph paper I don't think there is any room for a Grosmont - Whitby shuttle within the constraints of the existing line capacity unless you do away with through trains and it is a known fact that people in general intending to travel the full distance do not like changing trains at Grosmont.