North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Exactly, I’m not recommending anyone replicate it, I just really appreciate what they do in a landscape where tbh they get knocked a lot by other enthusiasts IMO. The DSR is not to everyone’s taste, but on its own terms it’s great.

In fact, I’m almost worried that the NYMR might be skating too close to trying to be/end up their end of the spectrum…

 

Given the pathing problems, might a supplementary vintage bus service provide an alternative? It could be trialled relatively cheaply using hired vehicles.

 

We regularly run round at Medstead where the station is 1:320 through the platforms but if you run round more than 4 the loco will be on the 1:60 when you buffer up. Ok 1:49 is steeper, but I am more interested in the platform gradient. I’m not familiar enough with the Goathland layout, but mere proximity of a gradient doesn’t immediately jump out as a problem, and in any case one way out of the problem would be a 08 that shunt released the set. Most things are achievable with enough imagination

 

This is the timetable from a couple of years ago. 2025 is slightly different in terms of times, principly becasue of an increased journey time between Levisham and Goathland due to an extended PWS. However, the essence of the T/T remains the same, as do the stock diagrams. The shaded areas are those where Northern trains are in section. Those have also altered slightly but not significantly since I drew up the diagram. The 12.35 ex Whitby (12.50 in this diagram) is the one that tends to run with few passenger aboard. Hopefully, this will better illustrate the problems.

 

I strongly suspect this is the age old difference of Passenger Journeys versus actual visitors. Most transport operators count and report journeys so a passenger buying a return ticket counts as two passenger journeys at which time the quoted figures halve and look more realistic.

 

Why are the two new bridges at Goathland subject to 5 mph restrictions? Shortly after there's a culvert with another 5 mph restriction and near Raindale a mile(!) of 10 mph. It's not good.
Does anyone have an answer?
How many passengers travelled in 2023 and then in 2024?
Were the new Santa Specials more lucrative than the previous ones?
Will delay repay(!) apply to standard 2025 services?

In the past these sort of figures and information were shared. Now it seems they are secrets.

With so much information available from the new online booking systems and more data than ever, the silence seems very odd.

 

Very illustrative. Thanks. Definitely tricky.

 

For very many years railways were required to provide certain information annually to HMRI and they required passenger journeys in that information. A good few years ago they asked the HRA to take on the task and report cumulatively for heritage railways. Because heritage railways included a whole host of different entities from the largest railways to small museums with demonstration lines, it was decided to standardise on visitor numbers. It is now the norm for heritage railways to report on this basis. Whether the information is still collected, I don’t know, though.

 

The two new bridges at Goathland were never fully completed in terms of civil works as some retaining walls were required and the track realigning. That’s still to be done. The 5mph at Fen Bog is due to the alignment constantly moving and requiring regular remedial works and has now become permanent. The long restriction is due to condition of track, which it is planned to renew next year. You must guess why it wasn’t done this year.
The other statistics you’ve queried appear to be well kept secrets.

 

I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means, more of a cynical realist actually, but I suspect that when figures do not appear it isn't because they are simply disappointing - its more more likely they are sufficiently disastrous to reflect badly on managerial decisions and choices. I'm happy to be proved wrong but what are the chances of the figures being released? As a Director of a listed company, I was told by an experienced old hand that the mantra for bad news should "disclose, disclose, disclose!", as holding it back did far worse long term damage that trying to hide it, but I very much doubt whether there's a similar old hand on the PLC Board providing sage advice.

 

Delay repay as applicable to TOCS on the national network is not mandatory for heritage railway services. However, passengers are still consumers entering into a contract so consumer protection legislation applies. The applicable terms and conditions can be found on the NYMR's web site (just search for Terms and Conditions) . These include the right to modest compensation, or refunds in extreme cases, in line with the railway's statutory obligations to consumers

 

As a consumer, I don’t have a problem with that as an approach. What puzzles me is that NYMR has chosen to move away from the normal railway position that the service has been provided if it runs, and accept a degree of liability if there are problems. That is not, as far as I am aware, a statutory obligation and must impact both expected returns and income accounting. That seems bold for an organisation not in the peak of financial health, and where “delay repay” type arrangements are of limited marketing value.

 

See section 56 0f the Consumer Rights Act 2015. In effect what the T and C's do is set quite high thresholds for obligatory compensation or refunds which might otherwise be substantially lower.

 

Understood, but I’m curious as to why NYMR are seemingly leading the industry on this.

I presume the reference to Section 56 is based on the timetable being treated as an obligation under Section 50, and hence the T&C change being a stop loss arrangement.

If so, and while as a consumer I tend to agree with the principle, I’m not aware that this has been tested in law in the context of heritage railways. That brings me back to whether a precedent is being set.

 

Probably not but of course heritage railways are just one type of service provider. I suspect that others in the sector either aren't aware of thir obligations or just hope that passengers won't bother. As Delay/Repay for TOCS is now the norm it's reasonable to assume that expectations will be raised. After all some visitors are surprised to discover that most heritage railways are not normal commercial businesses. The aggrieved passenger still has to make a claim. I'd be concerned for Booking Office staff and TTI's in particular if the response to that is "Don't know" or, even worse, "Don't be silly, this isn't the national network". It's for individaul railways to decide but if such claims become more likely isn't it wise to have ground rules established?

 

Sorry, I didn't reply to your point about setting a precedent. That's set by the relevant legislation. If a precedent is being set it's one of complying with, and seeking to limit exposure to, obligations that already exist.

 

I’d agree it’s wise to have ground rules established, and I’m familiar with the advantages that service credit and liquidated damage provisions provide to both customer and supplier.

The interpretation of the 2015 Act has been debated elsewhere on NP, especially regarding railtour traction, and it appears as though no precedent for the enforcement or interpretation of the legislation yet exists in the sector.

Delay Repay resolved a long standing anomaly in that customers purchased tickets on the basis of a timetable, but the terms of contract then specifically excluded that timetable from assessment of whether the contract had been performed.

There is legitimate argument around the degree to which performance should be assessed against timetable, which is resolved through the thresholds on Delay Repay.

On a heritage railway, though, I’d suggest that there’s a strong case for saying that the timetable is not part of the contract, as the dependency on time is much less than, say, for a journey to an airport.

What intrigues me is not this move so much as a significant sectoral precedent being set by a single operator.

 

The Mid Hants Railway Ltd does not guarantee that the trains will arrive or depart at the times stated and reserves the right to cancel, alter or suspend any train without notice, or to substitute a different engine should this be necessary for whatever reason.

I am not aware that this has ever been seen as an unfair term.

 

The NYMR does the same.

 

My own non-lawyer opinion is that this would not stand up in court against a claim under CRA 2015. The offered service would be caught under the Act, and the question would be whether the exclusion was acceptable. I strongly suspect that railtour operators are aware of this and taking some care to avoid a senior court setting a binding precedent.

For normal operations on a heritage railway, I’d regard that as fair but with a risk to be managed carefully in the event of a complaint. That might differ if specific traction were offered as the reason for operations (e.g. 60007), but could I suspect be addressed with a partial discount - as happened