Talyllyn Finances

A question that caused the RNLI significant issues a few years ago, when the then very high level of reserves were contrasted in the press with the vigour of their collecting.

 

It was a letter in the Talyllyn News - September 1968 from memory, but my set (from No1) is not immediately to hand for me to check. The letter was of course actually written by Tom who had fallen out recently with the TRPS over the rebuilding of Abergynolwyn. The Nant Gwernol proposal never progressed beyond a very rough sketch by Clough Williams-Ellis which is now in the Talyllyn Archive at Dolgellau Record Office.

 

You are right about the letter, which caused a stir at the following AGM. IIRC Tom Rolt wasn't present, and only came back "into the fold" some years later. I can't access my copy of the Talyllyn News at the moment either, but I recall that she also lamented the loss of the Abergynolwyn winding house, ignoring the fact that it was impossible to provide sufficient clearance for a passenger railway, and it was in a very dangerous state.
IMHO the "new" Aber station was a very fitting terminus but rather spoiled when the loop was moved and the platform lengthened for the extension to Nant Gwernol. The large block post also seems a bit OTT.
Back to the subject, there is nothing wrong with the current operation that an increase of about 30,000 more passengers per year wouldn't put right. In the meantime the TR has sufficient supporters who cherish the railway enough to keep it going financially. In this respect it is much better placed than some other operations that will undoubtedly face similar problems at some time in the future.

 

what was the rationale of the extension anyway? Just because it was there?
It seems to me with my hindsight that the winding house and the incline would be far better than the extra section of track which would make an easy walk I imagine to the foot of the next incline with the odd slate truck posed on the retained track alongside the footpath.

 

I'm sure I've have read somewhere that the principal reason was that the scenery on the extension was considered to be the best on the railway. I seem to recall reading some time ago, on another forum, that the railway did consider extending beyond Nant Gwernol all the way to Talyllyn Lake at one point. Needless to say, it would have been extremely difficult and expensive and so the proposal never got very far, but one can see the logic: it would give the TR a meaningful destination, which is really the biggest thing that it currently lacks.

On another note, I have just received the latest newsletter from the Ruislip Lido Railway, where I used to volunteer. I have been very interested to read about changes to the timetable which have been made this summer. In order to ease pressure on the volunteer crews, and aid timekeeping, one train a day has been cut from the timetable, and the time saved used to extend station dwell times. This change has achieved its objectives, and revenue has remained steady because trains are now more likely to run full.

Obviously the RLR is a very different operation to the TR, but it does prove the point that, if done intelligently, cutting back services can sometimes be helpful.

 

I understand about the scenery but that could be seen better on foot and the winding house and incline (s) would give that meaningful destination.

 

Yes, because it was there, which I suspect is the motivation for many extensions. I suspect few extensions are decided upon based on realistic cashflow projections. Also of course, although the idea probably started to germinate once the preserved operation was on a stable footing, at the time of the NG project, the Ffestiniog Llyn Ystradau deviation was in full swing and there was a certain amount of feeling left out of the exciting goings-on further north.

 

I don't agree with Reading General on the above post but even if I did, "it's a bit late now" springs to mind.

I don't know the TR well - only been on it once and that was 25 years ago, much to my shame - but I do like the idea above of extending it to Talyllyn Lake (though I completely understand why that's unlikely to ever happen!).

More realistically, one thing that occurs to me about this lengthy refreshment stop though is that not everyone is going to want it, but those who do probably only have time for a cup of tea and not much else. Why not cut out the refreshment stop but include a 'free' cup of tea there with the fare (which could increase by say £1 to pay for it), thus everyone wins because either (a) they pay for a cup of tea that they don't bother to collect, saving the TR money, or (b) they get off, encouraged by the idea of a free cuppa, and have an even longer break, returning on a later train and are probably thus encouraged to buy something else at the cafe too while they wait.

 

Based on the 2015 passenger figures quoted by Steam Railway, that would be quite an increase!

Nevertheless, I think you have hit the nail on the head - there is a pretty large minimum cost of any preserved railway existing in anything like its current form that no manner of service cuts will reduce in any meaningful way, that can't be cut by any achievable improvements in efficiency (even if there is a massacre of 'sacred cows') and which need a minimum certain level of business to cover those costs. Differing service levels have differing actual direct costs of delivery, but will produce a 'Gross Profit' (or shouldn't be run!) over avoidable costs to contribute towards covering this fixed cost. The trick is getting the level of service, and pricing, right so as to attract the necessary level of revenue. Price up too much, and the actual total income falls - what is important is that the Income achieved produces, o0ver the year, the required contribution to cover the fixed costs and such investment as is being funded by operations.

This is why we are all being bombarded with 'Black Friday' promotions (how can 'Black Friday offers last for 14 days......???? ) - it is better to take £100,000 at 20% Gross Profit than £60,000 at 25%! If you can accommodate the passengers and reach the Income levels needed on a daily basis, you haven't 'sold yourself short' by under-pricing, and have generated much goodwill (important for 'charity' type organisations) and excellent 'word of mouth' than if you got more per head but took less.

And of course, certainly when I started as a volunteer, the volunteers want to run trains and we used to enjoy being busy. That seems to be something that has been lost with some very vocal volunteers complaining about too much being expected of them and wanting services built round what they want to do, not what their railway needs. We are back to the 'easy life' brigade, for whom service cuts, price rises and 'making more by doing less' is a constant mantra and who fail to realise it is in reality an impossible dream!

Steven

 

There was at one time which could be 100+ years ago of connecting the Talyllyn railway to the Corris railway with an electric railway and when I find out the book with this in I will put more information about this.

 

The idea of extending to Nant Gwernol was there from the very start of the TRPS (1951), and there was no more enthusiastic advocate than Tom Rolt. It was held up in part by the need to get the existing line into anything like a stable condition, but also because there was considerable doubt about the ownership of the mineral extension beyond Abergynolwyn.
It took the TR's Hon. Solicitor George Tibbitts years to unravel the mysteries of Haydn Jones's affairs, discovering with some surprise that he neither owned the formation or paid any rent to use it! I attended most of the Tywyn and Midland area AGM's in the sixties and George was always eagerly asked what progress he had made. His frustrated reply was that most of his work must remain confidential but he was discovering many "dead-ends" in trying to find the legal owners.

Tom Rolt joked that he would install a bust of George at Nant Gwernol station in recognition of his lonely efforts on behalf of the railway. He eventually did "find the key to the lock", but sadly died before the extension was built.
Other than that, yes - it was done "because it was there", although it was generally thought that access to the Nant Gwernol ravine offered a far more attractive destination than Abergynolwyn station.

 

Extending to Nant Gwernol was a target for the TRPS right from 1951. It took nearly 20 years to sort out the land ownership issues though. The statutory railway only extends to just east of Abergynolwyn station.

 

there's nothing to disagree with, I'm interested in what happened, not what should happen.

 

It has never been seriously considered. It is just another of those WIBN ideas so beloved of armchair enthusiasts

 

Somewhere in your (and my) pile of old Talyllyn News copies Michael, there is an article by John Bate in response to the perennial suggestions to extend to the lake. He concluded (from memory) that striking off the eventual Nant Gwernol extension near the station would involve a viaduct that would make the one at Dolgoch look insignificant and the necessary reverse curves would be severe. Unless unacceptable down gradients were used the line would end up high on the hillside with a view of, but no access to, Talyllyn Lake. The "sensible" option for getting a railway to the lake would be to strike off the existing line near Rhydyronen and run up the valley floor through Abergynolwyn village - a completely different railway in fact! His conclusion was along the lines of "We've got enough on our hands without pipe-dreaming"!
The electric tram scheme over the pass from Corris to Talyllyn mentioned by a previous poster was proposed(I think) by the Corris's then Manager J.R. Dix. Anyone who has driven the road from Corris to the lake won't be surprised that nothing became of it.

 

Thank you for that, I had a vague memory that the difficulties were something along those lines.

 

How about we let the TR management work on turning round the finances?
If anyone has a helpful suggestion (i.e. one which doesn't involve scrapping the locos, moving the railway or using a time machine) then I am sure they would be happy to hear it. Especially if you actually have any experience in running railways or other tourist attractions in remote areas. Why not join the TRPS and help turn things round?

 

As I have already said, it sounds from the recent AGM report that the Talyllyn management have analysed the problem carefully and are some pretty solid and realistic ideas as to how to tackle the issue - and I say that as somebody with 'a bit' of actual experience of such matters, and not a bad track record either!

Steven

 

Wrong type of volunteers? Not sure where one can go with this concept - sounds a bit "holier than thou".

 

Well, I have heard that phrase used by a long serving volunteer, although for a different reason (though some people might fall into both descriptions!)

Whilst in any organisations that uses volunteers, there will be tasks that can happily be done in the manner, and timescale, that a willing volunteer wishes, in almost all such organisations, there are tasks that need doing as the activities of the organisation, including relevant legal provisions, require. Hopefully, people will volunteer to do what is needed of them, not expect what is needed to be adapted to suit. Railways are quite regimented by things like the Rule Book and Timetables and the tasks of operating especially must recognise compliance with these is paramount, as well providing good 'customer service'. Legal requirements can also intervene, and it may be (hopefully not) that a volunteer has to say 'I am only doing this in a way that fulfills my legal responsibilities' if it is suggested otherwise.

My comment actually can cut both ways - I start by saying that volunteers like to run trains - should excess trains that don't cover their costs be run just so that some volunteers can work them? Conversely, should profitable activities be cut become some volunteers don't like working them? Compromise and respect for all concerned, with reasons being explained (and listened to!) should avoid any ill will but all too often, I sadly fear this isn't the case.

Steven