Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Neil Down

HORSE TRAMS

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, woolley said:

I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. Coachloads of people every week come over to travel the railways. They do most definitely provide an incentive to travel to the Island. The combination of Victorian transport systems on the Island is unique in the world and the people who come for the first time are totally enchanted by what they find here. We seem to have a lot of people who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I find it astonishing that some see no value whatsoever in the wealth of treasures that we are so lucky to have.

What is needed is much better marketing, and FAR less pen pushers attached to the services who raise the costs without adding any value. As far as the operational staff at the coal face is concerned, if anything there is too much casual cheap labour and not enough of the decades of experience that was once there. They got rid of lots of people in a very short space of time and brought in seasonal contracts without guaranteed hours. They lost an awful lot of operational knowledge in so doing.

It isn't 'simply wrong' if it takes in only 50% of what it takes to run - that one fact makes my statement simply correct not simply wrong.

As I said, if people want to support this sort of stuff with taxpayers money for nostalgic or heritage reasons then I am not necessarily against that - but it is then for those proposing this spending out of taxation to make their claim for funds in the usual manner just as would be the case with any other proposed public spending.

£2million a year loss on the trains, £10million every five years, £20M in a decade - these are not small numbers - by all means state your case and seek public support for your ideals - I have nothing against altruistic dreams but the burden of convincing lays with the claimant not with the taxpayer.

Starting off your argument with "I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. Coachloads of people every week come over to travel the railways." and then saying that "We just need more coach loads" simply does not stack up as a business case that you could put to a bank manager or investor.

How about an approach more along the lines of;

I know that the trains do not make financial sense but I believe that they should nevertheless be supported because.................

It might just produce a better reception.

Edited by Manximus Aururaneus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Sultan: I never get hot under the collar on here. Or at least not for a very long time now. There really is no point. I just laugh when I see people indulging in such behaviour. I've just reread my post you cited and I really think you are imagining heat there. I'm just asking the "research, evidence, invest" protagonists for some pointers. That's all. Or do we just give up?

From your above comment concerning pensioners and middle aged men, I can only conclude that you never actually see the passengers on the trains and trams. They come from the widest cross section of age and type profiles.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

 

I know that the trains do not make financial sense but I believe that they should nevertheless be supported because.................

 

..............of the wider benefit to the economy as a visitor destination. We need things that set us apart as part of the total offering. Otherwise, why should anyone bother to set foot on the ferry or plane to come here?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, woolley said:

..............of the wider benefit to the economy as a visitor destination. We need things that set us apart as part of the total offering. Otherwise, why should anyone bother to set foot on the ferry or plane to come here?

Now I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that point of view - but the 'total offering' needs at least some profit centres! Trams trains and horses all lose money, as do (allegedly) many Victorian type hotels. I have my own suspicions about the TT too but that's another story.

Shuffling coach loads of the masses between a raft of loss-making attractions may make the place look a bit busier - but is it actually doing as well as it might with a hell of a lot less public sector interference? 

I could (and would) consider a leisure-sector type business here were it not for the fact that the more I look, the more I see a very few vested interests (brewery, government) stitching things up to make sure that any income goes to them - so I keep my hands in my pockets until I see a change in attitude (but I'm not holding my breath). I came across to the Island taking the 'Where you can' statement at face value, but the more I look.....................

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never take things at face value. Especially government slogans. We had a good one once: "You'll look forward to going back."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, woolley said:

@ Sultan: I never get hot under the collar on here. Or at least not for a very long time now. There really is no point. I just laugh when I see people indulging in such behaviour. I've just reread my post you cited and I really think you are imagining heat there. I'm just asking the "research, evidence, invest" protagonists for some pointers. That's all. Or do we just give up?

Sorry you sounded somewhat hot, my mistake. Do we give up on what? The stuff makes us huge loses and year by year less and less people are in the demographic who care whether we have horse trams or not. I drive across the prom daily and so I do see the type of people who are on the trams and their age group. I also doubt that anyone outside of a few social misfits ever go “Let’s go to the IOM so I can ride on a load of Victorian junk”. It’s just something to do when your here. If it wasn’t here people would just do something else. The Victorians would be laughing at us if they could see us now. They were forward thinking and innovative. Once something was outside of its working life they’d rip it out and put something better and more efficient in. That’s the way the economy worked. That’s why the funicular railways came out, and the train line to Peel and Ramsey, and the lift to the Falcon Cliff etc. it was all past it’s sell-by date and no longer needed as better and more efficient things came along. One of the main things the IOM needs to do to show it’s a modern forward thinking place for people to come to live and work in is to rip that sad old traffic-blocking nags show out and replace it with a modern electric tram system that people would use daily. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

It isn't 'simply wrong' if it takes in only 50% of what it takes to run - that one fact makes my statement simply correct not simply wrong.

As I said, if people want to support this sort of stuff with taxpayers money for nostalgic or heritage reasons then I am not necessarily against that - but it is then for those proposing this spending out of taxation to make their claim for funds in the usual manner just as would be the case with any other proposed public spending.

£2million a year loss on the trains, £10million every five years, £20M in a decade - these are not small numbers - by all means state your case and seek public support for your ideals - I have nothing against altruistic dreams but the burden of convincing lays with the claimant not with the taxpayer.

Starting off your argument with "I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. Coachloads of people every week come over to travel the railways." and then saying that "We just need more coach loads" simply does not stack up as a business case that you could put to a bank manager or investor.

How about an approach more along the lines of;

I know that the trains do not make financial sense but I believe that they should nevertheless be supported because.................

It might just produce a better reception.

 

15 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

Now I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that point of view - but the 'total offering' needs at least some profit centres! Trams trains and horses all lose money, as do (allegedly) many Victorian type hotels. I have my own suspicions about the TT too but that's another story.

Shuffling coach loads of the masses between a raft of loss-making attractions may make the place look a bit busier - but is it actually doing as well as it might with a hell of a lot less public sector interference? 

I could (and would) consider a leisure-sector type business here were it not for the fact that the more I look, the more I see a very few vested interests (brewery, government) stitching things up to make sure that any income goes to them - so I keep my hands in my pockets until I see a change in attitude (but I'm not holding my breath). I came across to the Island taking the 'Where you can' statement at face value, but the more I look.....................

Most excellent posts, and a very good appraisal of the picture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, woolley said:

Never take things at face value. Especially government slogans. We had a good one once: "You'll look forward to going back."

It's great shame - and actually does a lot of damage to the Island economically.

I'm pretty much retired with investments or businesses under management these days so I don't get stressed about it - but our original ideas of cashing in across to invest over here have pretty much been shelved due to sheer frustration with the attitude - oh well. I used the example of us spending almost £10k a year to park a boat in Scotland when we would much rather it be based over here - but with the state of the way that the harbours are run......... C'est la Vie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

It's great shame - and actually does a lot of damage to the Island economically.

I'm pretty much retired with investments or businesses under management these days so I don't get stressed about it - but our original ideas of cashing in across to invest over here have pretty much been shelved due to sheer frustration with the attitude - oh well. I used the example of us spending almost £10k a year to park a boat in Scotland when we would much rather it be based over here - but with the state of the way that the harbours are run......... C'est la Vie.

I am similar, although I made my investments largely here having moved over for a love of the Island when I was much younger. Diversified more recently and taken more of a back seat. Actually, I found the government very helpful back in the day, but in those times they had more money than they knew what to do with. Or they thought that they did and that's why we are where we are now.

I was never in the tourist sector though. It always struck me that there are far easier and more agreeable ways to make money. I do however see the delight in people who come here for the first time, and I think that if you could bottle that enthusiasm and sell it more widely then you have a winner. I see our railways as part of that package.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Sorry you sounded somewhat hot, my mistake. Do we give up on what? The stuff makes us huge loses and year by year less and less people are in the demographic who care whether we have horse trams or not. I drive across the prom daily and so I do see the type of people who are on the trams and their age group.

It is an oldies feature that’s for sure. Even if you did a virtual or interactive horse tram feature for the kids instead it would still be bloody boring. Come and experience what it’s like traveling at 2mph along a prom that looks like a bombsite. A 30 minute fully interactive 3D experience! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MrPB said:

It is an oldies feature that’s for sure. Even if you did a virtual or interactive horse tram feature for the kids instead it would still be bloody boring. Come and experience what it’s like traveling at 2mph along a prom that looks like a bombsite. A 30 minute fully interactive 3D experience! 

You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs though. You have to wait and see what the finished job looks like. It isn't 2mph either. I would challenge you to keep up with one at walking pace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, woolley said:

You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs though. You have to wait and see what the finished job looks like. It isn't 2mph either. I would challenge you to keep up with one at walking pace!

Watching paint dry might make a better interactive experience for the kids to be honest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, woolley said:

I do however see the delight in people who come here for the first time

Agreed. But it's the first time. And they quickly see all there is to see, bar annuals such as the TT that diehard people return for. After that you've seen it all and it wasn't cheap to do it so where shall we go next time?

Maybe it was one occasion but I was down Banks Circus on Wednesday morning last @ 10am and the train departed for PE with very few on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

 One of the main things the IOM needs to do to show it’s a modern forward thinking place for people to come to live and work in is to rip that sad old traffic-blocking nags show out and replace it with a modern electric tram system that people would use daily. 

You mean a system to different areas of the town similar to Metrolink in Manchester or the Tyne and Wear Metro to serve local commuters and shoppers? We just don't have the critical mass of population for it. And if you are proposing just doing it along the prom that would be a very limited catchment area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

It isn't 'simply wrong' if it takes in only 50% of what it takes to run - that one fact makes my statement simply correct not simply wrong.

As I said, if people want to support this sort of stuff with taxpayers money for nostalgic or heritage reasons then I am not necessarily against that - but it is then for those proposing this spending out of taxation to make their claim for funds in the usual manner just as would be the case with any other proposed public spending.

£2million a year loss on the trains, £10million every five years, £20M in a decade - these are not small numbers - by all means state your case and seek public support for your ideals - I have nothing against altruistic dreams but the burden of convincing lays with the claimant not with the taxpayer.

Starting off your argument with "I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. Coachloads of people every week come over to travel the railways." and then saying that "We just need more coach loads" simply does not stack up as a business case that you could put to a bank manager or investor.

How about an approach more along the lines of;

I know that the trains do not make financial sense but I believe that they should nevertheless be supported because.................

It might just produce a better reception.

Where this argument falls down is that for 50% of the population it's not their heritage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...