Five volunteers SUSPENDED from NYMR

[Johann Marsbar]

7 hours ago, john new said:

As my wife is a trustee of one of the, now two, local museums on the island fully concur regarding the deaccession policy. The problem I guess for many heritage museums across the board including heritage railways is were the exhibits/artefacts ever properly accessioned in the first place?

To gain Museum Accreditation many years back, we had to have a proper Accessions System in place and all of our objects, which dated back to the first vehicle obtained in 1964, had to be processed through that system, which meant, in practice, about 35 years worth of back-accessions had to processed in one block!   This entailed rather a lot of work at the time.

You can still find the odd item that the paperwork doesn't agree on (as I've found recently...) but generally, everything we have has the correct records in place and you have to "jump through all the hoops" of you want to get rid of anything, something we have started to do on a more regular basis recently.

[adb968008]

13 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I’m not so sure about a requirement to respect the desires of volunteers from many years ago, if this is at odds with the wider charitable objectives or what the organisation and those involved with it now need (which could have changed significantly in the intervening years).

I think here we differ.

if someone bequeaths something in their will to a preservation group for the benefit of the railway, the obligation exists indefinitely to maintain that obligation on the basis it was accepted.

 

Now how is that different should a founding group retire out and leave a railway in perpetuity to be a heritage attraction… only to see the incumbents rip up the track, leave a few heritage monuments, to maintain the charitable aims, and run a bicycle path instead?

 

Now I use that as an example that hasnt yet happened, but there may come a day when some preserved railways are turned to a completely different commercial business, yet still meet a charitable aim whilst being nothing close to what was intended…

 

i can certainly think of a few lines where commercial development potential opportunities exist, if they give up their original founding beliefs, and are divorced from the founding groups… its a matter of time before charity managers get tempted by the honey.

 

one example is a local school, its a 100 year old charity providing school education for poor children in the UK. Today its a hugely profitable charity running hospices for the elderly, which uses its revenues to fund schools in India, and its 1 remaining school in the UK to ensure it meets its founding principles…its a very long way from its roots and hugely profitable.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 1 by adb968008

[009 micro modeller]

14 hours ago, john new said:

As my wife is a trustee of one of the, now two, local museums on the island fully concur regarding the deaccession policy. The problem I guess for many heritage museums across the board including heritage railways is were the exhibits/artefacts ever properly accessioned in the first place?

Agree about if they were accessioned properly in the first place. Edit: or perhaps it’s to do with whether, in a ‘working’ environment they’re necessarily considered to be suitable for such a process

 

And (off-topic) just out of interest, I might have missed this in your previous posts but which island is it?

Edited January 1 by 009 micro modeller

[john new]

13 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Agree about if they were accessioned properly in the first place. Edit: or perhaps it’s to do with whether, in a ‘working’ environment they’re necessarily considered to be suitable for such a process

 

And (off-topic) just out of interest, I might have missed this in your previous posts but which island is it?

Portland, Dorset. It is in my location box. We now have the recently opened D-Day museum, the local museum plus Henry VIII's Castle which is English Heritage.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

if someone bequeaths something in their will to a preservation group for the benefit of the railway, the obligation exists indefinitely to maintain that obligation on the basis it was accepted.

How can an obligation exist indefinitely? What terms would need to be attached to acceptance of an item for this to have any legal effect. Surely as a minimum there would have to be a reversion clause.

 

In general, the recipient of a bequest can do whatever they want with it. This is, after all, one of the prime benefits of ownership.

[adb968008]

41 minutes ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

How can an obligation exist indefinitely? What terms would need to be attached to acceptance of an item for this to have any legal effect. Surely as a minimum there would have to be a reversion clause.

 

ask the Bluebell railway why its GWR 4-4-0 cannot wander freely. 73050 is isolated too. I believe 40106 comes with conditions attached.

 

Land has all kinds of obligations attached, look for things like Restrictive covenants.

 

it exists in all manner of agreements.

41 minutes ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

 

In general, the recipient of a bequest can do whatever they want with it. This is, after all, one of the prime benefits of ownership.

Try building an extension without permission.

Edited January 1 by adb968008

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

I think here we differ.

if someone bequeaths something in their will to a preservation group for the benefit of the railway, the obligation exists indefinitely to maintain that obligation on the basis it was accepted.

In theory, yes that obligation should be honoured. But what happens if, for instance, somebody donates something to a museum in their will and then 20 years later the museum ceases to exist, or combines with another one on a new site? Or even decides, by following normal regular collection review processes, that it would be better to loan or transfer the object elsewhere (as opposed to just selling it commercially as in the Dumbleton example, which is another matter) than have it sitting in a store somewhere? It’s probably why a lot of museums and similar organisations are now looking more carefully at the conditions attached to such donations at the point that they take them on.

 

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

Now how is that different should a founding group retire out and leave a railway in perpetuity to be a heritage attraction… only to see the incumbents rip up the track, leave a few heritage monuments, to maintain the charitable aims, and run a bicycle path instead?

In the NYMR example, it perhaps depends on the extent to which those involved were ‘founding’ rather than long-serving. More generally though, that bicycle path theoretical example seems to rely on a situation where the original aims were defined far too widely and vaguely to actually be meaningful.

 

Anyway, surely part of the point of setting up a formally-constituted society or charity rather than an informal group of individuals is to keep things working in the longer term, by giving the society/charity control over decision-making etc.? Sometimes it might be appropriate to slightly change the direction of the organisation, in consultation with various relevant groups (current members, local community representatives and so on). Why should such groups not be able to shape the direction of the organisation in the way that previous members and others did? I can think of a few civic museums in the UK that were set up originally, during the 19th century, with a very strong emphasis on education for the local community. They’ve continued to do this, but have obviously had to change the way they do so in order to do so effectively in a country that now has free primary and secondary education, and relatively high levels of participation in higher and further education, which it didn’t 160 years ago.

 

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

one example is a local school, its a 100 year old charity providing school education for poor children in the UK. Today its a hugely profitable charity running hospices for the elderly, which uses its revenues to fund schools in India, and its 1 remaining school in the UK to ensure it meets its founding principles…its a very long way from its roots and hugely profitable.

The idea of funding schools in India and elsewhere in some ways seems a fairly reasonable and logical expansion of their original work in the UK and it is still performing a charitable function, although if they’re running hospices on an entirely commercial basis to fund it that feels a bit ‘off’ somehow. And I don’t know if it applies in this case but a lot of (now fee-paying) private schools technically (and very tenuously and controversially) claim charitable status on a similar basis. But I tend to think the solution to that is better regulation and if necessary removing the charitable status of said schools, if they aren’t really providing any charitable or beneficial function. Somewhat related to this, there is significant research (visitor demographics by educational attainment level) suggesting that museums generally are super-serving the already educated, so in several cases they are working hard to improve and try new approaches, in contrast to the approach taken by most private schools run by ‘charities’ which often seems to be to just carry on and try and make as much money as possible.

 

Also, there’s usually a point where an organisation needs to do some commercial stuff to generate income for its less profitable but important charitable activities. Like a heritage railway taking on a filming contract, or a museum running a gift shop. It’s when people start doing these sorts of things seemingly as an end in themselves that I start to worry.

[Oldddudders]

But if the owner of a mobile asset bequeaths it in good order, with a caveat that the new owner maintain it accordingly, that could be difficult to 'enforce' when, say, the boiler ticket expires and telephone-number-cost repairs are required. 

[Jeremy Cumberland]

4 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Bluebell railway why its GWR 4-4-0 cannot wander freely. 73050 is isolated too. I believe 40106 comes with conditions attached.

Earl of Berkeley was acquired by the Bluebell by mutual agreement, as I understand, which is rather different from a bequest.

 

73050 is owned by the City of Peterborough, who can presumably do whatever they want with it. I expect the Class 40 Preservation Society (the owners of 40106) also have a free hand in what they do with the locomotive, having purchased it with their funds.

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, john new said:

Portland, Dorset. It is in my location box. We now have the recently opened D-Day museum, the local museum plus Henry VIII's Castle which is English Heritage.

That’s very interesting to hear, thank you. Sorry, I’m not sure the location box is displaying for me.

 

 

1 hour ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

How can an obligation exist indefinitely? What terms would need to be attached to acceptance of an item for this to have any legal effect. Surely as a minimum there would have to be a reversion clause.

 

In general, the recipient of a bequest can do whatever they want with it. This is, after all, one of the prime benefits of ownership.

Exactly. Although I thought the point in a lot of cases where locos etc. have been sold was that the obligation didn’t really have any legal effect, otherwise they wouldn’t have been able to be sold?

 

Again, it could have been better in an accredited museum following proper collections processes because it would have had to be de-accessioned properly, rather than just being sold off at will. But it’s also possible that it wouldn’t have been accessioned in the first place, if not considered suitable for their collection (not all donations to museums can be accepted). Which is why organisations increasingly look carefully at the conditions attached to donations. One solution might be to set up a separate charity, specifically to look after your artefact/loco/whatever in perpetuity, rather than donating it to anyone else. But is that worth it?

 

22 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

ask the Bluebell railway why its GWR 4-4-0 cannot wander freely. 73050 is isolated too. I believe 40106 comes with conditions attached.

 

But again, presumably they either don’t have a problem with the restrictions, or if they did they should have come to an agreement when they originally accepted?

[009 micro modeller]

5 minutes ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

73050 is owned by the City of Peterborough, who can presumably do whatever they want with it.

That’s an interesting one. How do they define ‘the City of Peterborough’? Even if you think it’s wise to let the local council (or whoever) decide what to do with it, what happens if the council gets reorganised out of existence?

[Jeremy Cumberland]

1 minute ago, 009 micro modeller said:

That’s an interesting one. How do they define ‘the City of Peterborough’? Even if you think it’s wise to let the local council (or whoever) decide what to do with it, what happens if the council gets reorganised out of existence?

It looks like it is owned by Peterborough City Council, a legal entity. If ever Peterborough City Council gets dissolved, split or merged with Ely, then whatever edict authorises the dissolution, split or merger will also say what happens to its assets.

[009 micro modeller]

3 minutes ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

It looks like it is owned by Peterborough City Council, a legal entity. If ever Peterborough City Council gets dissolved, split or merged with Ely, then whatever edict authorises the dissolution, split or merger will also say what happens to its assets.

I see also from quickly looking it up that it’s currently on a 99-year lease to the NVR, so that largely covers that (for now). Isn’t it also required to be preserved within Peterborough?

[Wheatley]

If you fix the details of the charitable aims too precisely then you run the risk of a future change of circumstances (eg a ban on coal fired locomotives) rendering  the organisation unable to legally function or become financially unviable leaving it to be wound up and its assets disposed of. 

 

All defunct local authorities will have a nominated residuary body (which may be its successor local authority) which takes on its outstanding legal obligations, set out in the legislation abolishing it.  See West Yorkshire Combined Authority, South Yorks Mayoral Combined Authority etc. Same as BRB Residuary. 

Edited January 1 by Wheatley

[Northmoor]

20 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

If you fix the details of the charitable aims too precisely then you run the risk of a future change of circumstances (eg a ban on coal fired locomotives) rendering  the organisation unable to legally function or become financially unviable leaving it to be wound up and its assets disposed of. 

 

All defunct local authorities will have a nominated residuary body (which may be its successor local authority) which takes on its outstanding legal obligations, set out in the legislation abolishing it.  See West Yorkshire Combined Authority, South Yorks Mayoral Combined Authority etc. Same as BRB Residuary. 

Therein lies the problem for some preserved railways.  I may not agree with how their managers manage - sometimes they seem to pick the worst possible option - but if the volunteers insist on still trying to achieve the ambition of 50+ years ago, despite it being overtaken by events and a completely unrealistic money pit, what should a good manager do?

 

As a hypothetical (and extreme) example, the Puddlecombe Steam RPS was founded in 1965 to, "Preserve the branch line, to operate and maintain the regular service trains for the community, using steam locomotives".  It would have driven itself to financial oblivion, so in most cases the managers have (and will use) the wit to propose changes to the Society's constitution.  But what if the long-serving volunteers - now mostly in at least their 70s - vote against anything which would permit diesel traction, or insist that the railway must operate almost empty trains first thing in the morning?  I assume this is the situation that the "Steam Only" Bluebell found itself in, but it seems to have navigated it OK.  So managers need to have the powers to make the organisation reflect economic reality.

[fulton]

I understood that if you leave something in your will to someone, it becomes theirs, you cannot add conditions, they can do with it as they please, different if it is loaned, a piece of ground near me as "loaned" on condition it was used for a hospital, a hundred years later the hospital closed, the land then reverted back to the desendants. I stand to be corrected by persons more knowlegable than myself.

[rab]

35 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Therein lies the problem for some preserved railways.  I may not agree with how their managers manage - sometimes they seem to pick the worst possible option - but if the volunteers insist on still trying to achieve the ambition of 50+ years ago, despite it being overtaken by events and a completely unrealistic money pit, what should a good manager do?

 

 

I think your reference to "being overtaken by events" is important in a situation like this.

You can plan as much as you like, you can consult and discuss with no end of experts,

but the outcome will only be as good as the information and knowledge available at the time.

 

Very often, when listening to someone ranting about "wrong"decisions  that were

made 50 or so years ago, I am reminded that hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

Without wanting to take this thread off in an alternative direction

in my opinion the Beeching plan is an example of this.

Decisions were made based on the situation at the time.

Yes if those decision makers knew then what we know now,

the outcome might have been very different.

 

(Of course if the outcome of Beeching had been different,

there might not be preserved railways today,

and we wouldn't be having this discussion)!

Edited January 1 by rab

[009 micro modeller]

2 hours ago, fulton said:

I understood that if you leave something in your will to someone, it becomes theirs, you cannot add conditions, they can do with it as they please, different if it is loaned, a piece of ground near me as "loaned" on condition it was used for a hospital, a hundred years later the hospital closed, the land then reverted back to the desendants. I stand to be corrected by persons more knowlegable than myself.

I think I remember reading about a railway where land was given but similarly supposed to revert to the previous owners if the line closed. IIRC it did so, subsequently causing a bit of an issue when the railway was later restored as a heritage line.

 

3 hours ago, Wheatley said:

If you fix the details of the charitable aims too precisely then you run the risk of a future change of circumstances (eg a ban on coal fired locomotives) rendering  the organisation unable to legally function or become financially unviable leaving it to be wound up and its assets disposed of. 

I agree, and even if you then vary the aims to take account of the new circumstances I think you generally still have to go through a relatively onerous process to change them. I think though that there’s a bit of a balance to be struck because you can equally define them so widely that it leaves open the opportunity for things like the ‘cycle path’ hypothetical scenario described by @adb968008 above. But even in that scenario the cycle path outcome, with a static museum or interpretation and restored structures along the route etc., is surely still preferable (from a heritage point of view) to the route of the railway being obliterated and built over, even if it’s much worse than the best/ideal solution (maintaining an operational railway)?
 

3 hours ago, Northmoor said:

As a hypothetical (and extreme) example, the Puddlecombe Steam RPS was founded in 1965 to, "Preserve the branch line, to operate and maintain the regular service trains for the community, using steam locomotives".  It would have driven itself to financial oblivion, so in most cases the managers have (and will use) the wit to propose changes to the Society's constitution.  But what if the long-serving volunteers - now mostly in at least their 70s - vote against anything which would permit diesel traction, or insist that the railway must operate almost empty trains first thing in the morning?  I assume this is the situation that the "Steam Only" Bluebell found itself in, but it seems to have navigated it OK.  So managers need to have the powers to make the organisation reflect economic reality.

That’s a great explanation, although I suppose technically they might be able to continue anyway, because they could interpret ‘regular’ as ‘to a proper timetable’ rather than ‘frequent, 5 to 7 days a week’, and using steam locomotives but not exclusively using them. It is a good hypothetical example because a lot of lines started out with vague ideas of running a public transport service but are now almost exclusively heritage-focused.

 

The second bit is interesting because it suggests an issue with conflicts between members’ wishes (and/or the charitable aims) and the immediate needs of the organisation. I’m not sure it’s something that’s limited to membership organisations though, but having pressure from members  may make it more noticeable. None of the heritage sector organisations I’ve worked or volunteered in have been based around trustees getting involved in every minor decision though - the trustees have more of an overseeing role and the day to day running and management of the organisation is appropriately left to those who are employed to do it.

[pheaton]

13 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I think I remember reading about a railway where land was given but similarly supposed to revert to the previous owners if the line closed. IIRC it did so, subsequently causing a bit of an issue when the railway was later restored as a heritage line.

 

I agree, and even if you then vary the aims to take account of the new circumstances I think you generally still have to go through a relatively onerous process to change them. I think though that there’s a bit of a balance to be struck because you can equally define them so widely that it leaves open the opportunity for things like the ‘cycle path’ hypothetical scenario described by @adb968008 above. But even in that scenario the cycle path outcome, with a static museum or interpretation and restored structures along the route etc., is surely still preferable (from a heritage point of view) to the route of the railway being obliterated and built over, even if it’s much worse than the best/ideal solution (maintaining an operational railway)?
 

That’s a great explanation, although I suppose technically they might be able to continue anyway, because they could interpret ‘regular’ as ‘to a proper timetable’ rather than ‘frequent, 5 to 7 days a week’, and using steam locomotives but not exclusively using them. It is a good hypothetical example because a lot of lines started out with vague ideas of running a public transport service but are now almost exclusively heritage-focused.

 

The second bit is interesting because it suggests an issue with conflicts between members’ wishes (and/or the charitable aims) and the immediate needs of the organisation. I’m not sure it’s something that’s limited to membership organisations though, but having pressure from members  may make it more noticeable. None of the heritage sector organisations I’ve worked or volunteered in have been based around trustees getting involved in every minor decision though - the trustees have more of an overseeing role and the day to day running and management of the organisation is appropriately left to those who are employed to do it.

 

Many railways will have a charitable arm, but they shouldnt be controlling because it can have detrimental effects on the flexibility of operations....

 

Depending on how they were setup a lot of railways have a 2 headed structure, one being a trust (but again not really having control over day to day operation) the other being a PLC or LTD company....however the trust will have an all assets debenture over the PLC, and what that means is...should the PLC or LTD company go insolvent then the trust is a preferred creditor, which protects the assets from liquidation (assuming the debt isn't to HMRC).

 

However it all depends on how the line was setup originally, and if this was done with leveraged funds then its not possible to go down that route until those debts are repaid....which is very difficult to do on a heritage line.

 

Members wishes...this is where it get contentious....a member is not necessarily a shareholder, and therefore has no official voting rights....again it all depends on how the constitution works....the problem with members voting..is that 9 times out of 10 they vote with there heart and not their head....and preservation as well all know can get very very militant!

 

i would say most railways are guilty of heart over head decisions i can think of a number of these at the GWSR, but you only learn from your mistakes....and i can see over the last few years the railway has had to make a number of cut backs to stay within their means....

 

As a loco owners rep i as the cmdg chairman am simply a tenant of the line, we are not permanent and like everything we just need to be prepared to move with the times... On the railways front they need to be able to do that with the minimum of delay and seeking the approval of membership will make that very difficult.

 

 

 

 

 

[009 micro modeller]

4 hours ago, pheaton said:

Depending on how they were setup a lot of railways have a 2 headed structure, one being a trust (but again not really having control over day to day operation) the other being a PLC or LTD company....however the trust will have an all assets debenture over the PLC, and what that means is...should the PLC or LTD company go insolvent then the trust is a preferred creditor, which protects the assets from liquidation (assuming the debt isn't to HMRC).

 

However it all depends on how the line was setup originally, and if this was done with leveraged funds then its not possible to go down that route until those debts are repaid....which is very difficult to do on a heritage line.

 

Members wishes...this is where it get contentious....a member is not necessarily a shareholder, and therefore has no official voting rights....again it all depends on how the constitution works....the problem with members voting..is that 9 times out of 10 they vote with there heart and not their head....and preservation as well all know can get very very militant!

I’m aware of the 2-headed limited company/trust structure used by several lines - it’s the PLC/shareholder bit that seems a bit weird in the context of the wider heritage sector. One of the museum organisations that I work for has two separate trusts, an ‘operations’ one and a ‘collections’ one - the latter exists only to own the collection and doesn’t take on any liability, so the collection is similarly protected if the operations trust collapses for any reason. There are I think a couple of subsidiary companies for very specific functions, but the main ‘operations’ trust is also a charitable trust (and, incidentally, eligible for Gift Aid) and not a PLC or similar.

 

Regarding shareholders - I gather there are some preserved railways where share issues have been used previously as a kind of donation (so those who bought shares were not really expecting a ‘return on their investment’ in a normal commercial/financial sense but do have voting rights). The contentious bit seems to be that a long-standing shareholder may have more control over the organisation than a member of a supporting group, who might have contributed vastly more to the line overall over the years through membership fees, paid annually rather than as a one-off share purchase (they might be a working member as well, and contribute through volunteering, but that’s probably a slightly different debate). But again, in the wider heritage sector it’s unusual to have a structure with shareholders; in a lot of cases this seems advantageous in terms of allowing the museum to perform some kind of social or charitable purpose.

 

Similarly, museum and heritage organisations might have members, and in some cases (like the National Trust) they do vote on matters or elect committee members or trustees in a similar way to heritage railway societies, but in other cases membership is just a way to engage more closely with the museum or to donate money in return for certain benefits, but doesn’t confer the ability to influence the direction of the organisation. You could argue that the latter model is less democratic, but if the organisation in question makes a huge effort to engage with and listen to an incredibly wide (but relevant) range of people then on one level it’s more democratic than an organisation that only listens to those able to pay for membership.

 

I’m also reminded in this context of some training I did on community engagement in a previous museum job, where we were asked what we saw as the museum’s main ‘community’. In that particular case it was primarily the local community, but obviously elsewhere it could be (to give one example) people who have worked in a particular industry related to the content of the museum. My concern in a museum organisation with a ‘voting membership’ structure would be that it sees this as its primary/only community and generally serves them, potentially to the exclusion of the other groups described above, or anyone else (and it could be self-perpetuating, in that if people do not feel welcome they don’t become members, and thus aren’t able to help make it more welcoming to people like them).

 

Almost all museums have volunteers, but generally they don’t have to be members. They aren’t generally treated as ‘unpaid staff’ exactly either, often having slightly different duties from paid staff or with a different emphasis.

 

I do realise that in a lot of cases the reasons for the way heritage railways are structured are historic, relating to the circumstances in which they were set up sometimes several decades ago. However, it is perhaps a bit odd that nowadays more of them don’t adopt structures and ways of operating that are more typical of the heritage sector generally and which generally work. Some of the latter types of ‘more typical’ museum organisation have similarly complex and expensive operations, after all - in some cases they even operate railways!

[rodent279]

Think maybe as "enthusiasts", we need to recognise that we are being priced out by the buying power of 2+2 taking a trip on a steam train, or those after a more up market luxury dining experience.  Those seem to be the things that sell, and make money, and those are the things that a "professional" setup lends itself well to delivering. There's not much money in providing seats for rivet counters like me who just want a plain old ride on a plain old train, without all the froth of bums on seats hype. I think the days of traditional preserved railways are numbered, more and more they will have to present themselves as attractions, like theme parks, or experience days. Looking at the NYMR website, it is clearly geared to the "day out" market, the normals who want an experience,  there's not much appealing to the enthusiasts there.

[jjb1970]

I used to be employed by a company owned by what at the time was said to be the UK's largest charity by income. The charitable trust had the usual grandiose mission statements about saving the world but their operating companies were as cut throat as any PLCs (interestingly, few outside the sector know Lloyd's Register is a not for profit). 

 

On the profile of visitors, I think 'normals' are much more demanding than enthusiasts. When I go to a museum or preserved operation I am drawn by the exhibits and I can see through a bit of ramshackle organization and heath robinson organization. Normals expect (demand) high standards of organization and presentation and a slick experience, which does require a pretty high standard of operational management.

[Phil Parker]

"Normals" expect clean toilets and somewhere nice to buy food - if these are right, then repeat visits are on the cards. The train ride is part of the experience, but according to a TR manager I talked to, they aren't that fussed about what is on the front. A well-stocked gift shop is also very much part of the package.

 

Enthusiasts will turn up planning to take a lot of photos, which must include no people, or anything that hints it's not 1952 in shot. For this, they will bring their own sandwiches (the ones in the cafe are far too expensive), then thumb (but not buy) the books in the gift shop, because these aren't being discounted either.

 

Days out, especially the grey pound, are what keeps preserved railways running. Grumpy old blokes, less so. That's why the WHR built a station at Caernarfon that is basically a milking parlour for "normal" visitors, despite the howls of protest from enthusiasts. Those Garratts cost several thousand pounds to get out of the shed.

[rab]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

Think maybe as "enthusiasts", we need to recognise that we are being priced out by the buying power of 2+2 taking a trip on a steam train, or those after a more up market luxury dining experience.  Those seem to be the things that sell, and make money, and those are the things that a "professional" setup lends itself well to delivering. There's not much money in providing seats for rivet counters like me who just want a plain old ride on a plain old train, without all the froth of bums on seats hype. I think the days of traditional preserved railways are numbered, more and more they will have to present themselves as attractions, like theme parks, or experience days. Looking at the NYMR website, it is clearly geared to the "day out" market, the normals who want an experience,  there's not much appealing to the enthusiasts there.

Not sure I agree there.

 

I spent a very enjoyable day on a local preserved railway last week.

I had "plain old rides on a plain old train" for a reasonable price

Extras for the 2+2 where there if wanted.

 

I would suggest what is pushing prices up in preserved railways

is running costs, (fuel etc) and wages.

[Cwmtwrch]

I've never really understood preserved railways, nor travelled on them much. I'm old enough to have travelled behind steam in normal service on BR, and they just don't [and, being practical, can't] recreate what I knew as a young teenager. My local one used to be interesting for second hand books in the shop, and old magazines, but the former is now aimed at the child market and the latter have gone. All very understandable, but my only reason for going there now is for a cup of tea in the cafe on the very rare times I'm in the area. Realistically the 2+2 market is all there is which is likely to provide an income which will keep them afloat, and that is likely to be a problem any time the economy gets into trouble...

Edited January 3 by Cwmtwrch
spelling