North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Although to be fair they are far from the only line that has published little or no service information for this year yet. How many non enthusiasts who may have a ride will be relying on a daily operation out of the summer school holidays?

 

The things is, this has become a "tradition" at the NYMR, We joke about it, but every year the timetable for the coming year seems to appear no more than a few hours before the service is due to start. For a tourism business, whether one views it as a heritage attraction or a Whitby park & ride operation, that is simply not good enough.

 

I was chatting to a board member today and I mentioned the lack of single tickets. Said person was surprised at this. I wonder if such things are discussed at board level or left to marketing to decide.

 

In the old days, before the Trust Board was reduced in numbers (or emasculated) such matters were the subject of long debates, presumably the sort of debate that so displeased Lineisclear, ut it came from people who had clear knowledge and understanding of the issues. Nowadays, I'm not sure that the Trust Board so carefully picked by the selection committee, has a clue what the issues are.

 

It ought not be the board that runs the railway. Pricing is a matter for the management within parameters agreed with the board.

Previous observations from me about communication and engagement and the willingness to listen, apply to the management as much as the board. (Just to be clear).

 

tbh, I'm not sure if the Trust Board ever actually issues instructions to the PLC nowadays. I think the setup now is "they are the professionals, let them do their job", but underlying that is an assumption that they know what they are doing. There's a catalogue of failed experiments now that suggests that in reality they do not, but I'm prepared to understand evidence to the contrary, if someone can provide it - but usually that "someone" provides a response that is best described as "tangential", referring to the legal responsibilities of the tewo separate bodies.......

 

Heritage Railway corporate structures is an area of considearable interest and change at the moment with many in the process of adopting or at least evaluating new ones. The core issue is which entity holds the crown jewels in the form of the operating licence either as a Light Railway Order or pursaunt to the Transport and Works Act. That's the entity that operates the railway and the body that would be primarily accountable to the likes of the ORR. RAIB H&SE etc. On the NYMR it's been the PLC since that controlled subsidiary was formed many years ago. The role of the owning Trust, led by its volunteer trustees, is to set broad annual objectives for the PLC and its management team in support of their accountability for achievement of the Trust's charitable purposes. The relationshiop between the two companies is covered by a Collaboration and Services Agreement. Essentially the PLC and its managememnt operate the railway as a charity day to day including decisons on timetables, fares etc but subject to those delivering the objectives set by the Trustees. The legal responsibilities of the two companies are an unavoidable fact of life that establish the responsbilities of the two boards and their accountabilities. They are far from tangential and could ultimately determine who faces the man or woman in a curly wig if things go wrong.

 

without wishing to be rude, everything about this post is both correct and wrong. The content is all correct. However as a piece of communication it lacks connection and humility and as a result comes across as arrogant and remote, it fails to answer the principal question and instead provides a lecture on some matters which it is pretty clear the questioner has already understood to a large degree. I share these thoughts in good faith because I feel @Lineisclear was trying to be helpful.
The central question not addressed was how the performance of the management was assessed and what mechanism exists for holding them to account if objectives are missed.

p.s I don’t necessarily think a full detailed answer should be here in NP, but it should be available to NYMR people.

 

Precisely. Any student of politics or business knows that there are both formal channels of communication and informal. Understanding both, and both how and how much the formal channels are used is important.

Something like fares policy (not levels) is both an operational management matter, and a strategic question to do with how management are fulfilling the strategic objectives set by the Trust.

 

I was indeed trying to be helpful by explaining who does what. Your central question is spot on so I won't duck it. All appointements to the PLC board are subject to approval by the Trustees. PLC directors and management are accountable to the Trustees for achivement of the Objectives. If the PLC board collectively, or individual managers, are not performing they can be sanctioned including, as has happened, under performing individuals leaving the railway. I remember only too well the confrontations and dysfunctional tension between the two boards from the era 60044 harks back to. Thankfully that's history replaced by the two companies working in harmony to a shared purpose. Is it perfect? No, there's always room for improvement but going back to a failed model is not the answer.

 

That's a helpful answer - to a degree! It sets out who should be doing what on either side of the two boards - but doesn't answer the question of whether it actually works in practice! What targets does the Trust Board actually set, for example? They are never published afaik and I have to say that in practice what now exists is a cosy duopoly where the PLC Board tells the Trust Board what it is going to do and the Trust Board nods sagely. Please tell me that I'm wrong, but if you do please quote some specific examples, rather than generalising.

It is ironic that you refer to the old setup as a failed system in comparison to the new one. I seem to recall that in many years under the old system there was an operating surplus, but has there ever been one since the new system came into play? Perhaps, sometimes, a little conflict is actually more productive than complete harmony!

 

As you would expect in currently challenging times the key target is delivering against the agreed budget and developing initiatives to put the NYMR on a sustainable financial footing. Management are also charged with developing measures to deliver that in the short term such as the revised Gift Aid recovery arrangements for the next season, the reduction in operating days and a leaner timetable. The target is to eliminate the operating deficit in 2025. I accepted in a previous post that the current situation isn't perfect. There is a risk of the PLC ruling the roost as 60044 suggests. However, as the old saying goes you don't own a dog and bark yourself. There a delicate balance betweeen the proper exercise of the Trustees' supervisory role and allowing the PLC and management get on with their jobs. If the pendulum swings too far in one direction that balance has to be re-established.
The quick answer about operating surpluses under the current system is Yes! There's ample evidence from the situation that other players in the sector find themselves in that recent operating lossses are due to other factors.

 

This part of your answer really encapsulates the issue I've been referring to: I don't actually believe that a proportion of the Trust Board are also PLC Board members and so can hardly be expected to admonish their own actions. You keep reminding us of collective responsibility, but there will clearly be conflict of interest if the two boards disagree!

It is time, in the NYMR's case, to stop using the excuse of "other factors". Other railways have faced the same issues, and have risen above them - Swanage, this year, for example - and the NYMR has benefited more than most from various museum assistance grants. It is time to grow up and adopt a more realistic and business-like approach. In the past the NYMR was one of the most financially successful lines, but it has frittered away that success. It is time for it to get back to being a tourist attraction in its own right and not just be content to feed visitors into Whitby for the benefit of businesses there rather than its own.

 

I'm very much in agreement that it is about time that the NYMR stopped blaming 'other factors', principally Covid. That excuse could be used in 2020 and perhaps into 2021 but the facts railways were having to live with were well known by 2022 and a pro-active board should have taken positive steps to overcome them; certainly by 2023 and on into 2024. It's also a fact that coal (and fuel) costs have dropped significantly since their peak.

 

@Lineisclear I wonder if I could ask you this… you talk about the financial challenges and the need to deliver within budget - rightly. And over the years I’ve heard so many Heritage Railway leaders talk about the fact that in order for a railway to be financially successful it needs to not just cater for enthusiasts but also find ways to attract the general public who might not otherwise come.

I appreciate the NYMR is slightly different in some ways given that Whitby is clearly an attraction to a huge proportion of the general population but if the NYMR really does need a boost in income, why have events such as the 40s Weekend (I’m deliberately avoiding wartime as I appreciate why that’s not done) been abandoned, and why does the railway not put on other events with a broader appeal, Christmas aside? Your steam galas are fantastic but are understandbly aimed mainly at enthusiasts; it seems a missed opportunity to bring in some cash and custom.

 

That’s a very fair question! Although it may vary slightly from one railway to another it seems to be generally accepted that the enthusiasts represent about 5% of the potential visitor market. An important 5% but clearly events that target that market segment alone will have limited potential. You’re right to point out that the NYMR is different because its core business involves taking people to a destination off the railway. That’s bound to affect the potential for special events. If they succeed in keeping visitors on the railway they are partially revenue abstractive if they entice visitors away from higher priced Whitby services. It’s a similar conundrum to the Wartime Weekend where the railway incurred all the costs but a lot of the money generated was spent elsewhere. The interesting opportunity is to attract visitors who would normally never dream of visiting a heritage railway. Special events that appeal to that constituency have the potential to deliver positive experiences that encourage such visitors to return. Some complain that the”disneyfication” typically involved in such an approach should be resisted but special events centered on popular characters may be a sensible way of building future support from the non enthusiast majortity.

 

Another answer that avoids the central issue! As you have said, the demand fo Whitby services are focused on two trains in the morning, and two trains back late in the afternoon. That leaves a lot of services throughout the rest of the day - they can either be abandoned or an effort made to encorage their use. At present I see very little being done to encourage their use, yet that are primarily what the NYMR is about - using the line for educational reasons (even if those educational purposes are delivered subliminally) - and I for one don't agree that "disneyfication" and themed characters are essential to deliver a message! A 1940s event without the overt wartime messages can deliver a significant message by subtly changing the theme away from a martial message, as has been achieved elsewhere. The NYMR management doesn't seem to think along those lines or see those possibilities, though.

 

COVID was 5 years ago this week when first diagnosed in York.

 

As I understand, the previous 1940s events were loss making for the NYMR, but who additionally took all the risk (think bad weather etc). Yes, they were successful in terms of numbers attending and for the businesses of Pickering, but when the NYMR stopped organising I didn’t see any other organisations in Pickering stepping forward to pick up the baton. Yes there was the nearby Eden Camp last year that organised (by all accounts) a successful 1940s event, but because of its location it would have effectively captured the majority of the associated secondary spend.

 

I don't think that the NYMR is blaming Covid itself but there surely can't be any doubt that the pre and post Covid economic environments are very different. When Covid gets mentioned it's typically a convenient way of distinquishing between the challenges facing businesses before 2019 and those applicable today. The NYMR is not unique. Many businesses in the hospitality sector, including a substantial number of heritage railways have reported operating losses. They result from a combination of reduced consumer spending on the leisure activities they offer (confirmed by the many independent data sources monitored by management) and huge cost inreases. Whilst it's true that coal prices have stabilised that's not the case for many materials and services on which the railway depends. There is also ample evidence that the hospitality sector will be hit hard by recent budget changes. It may be that the cost saving reduction in operating days and services would have been better implemented earlier but at least decisive action is now being taken.