North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Having caught up on posts made over the last week, and taking into account previous such discussions, which often seem to be focused on the teak carriages and Whitby running, I am interested in what those who are critical of current management and board decisions would like to see by way of changes in the operation of the railway, and what they think the positive impact of such changes would be?

Sent from my SM-S926B using Tapatalk

 

My conclusion is that the changes need to be less about what is done - NYMR is fundamentally constrained by the long single track sections and the capacity of the Grosmont-Whitby section - and more about how it is done.

My impression, reinforced strongly by the recent discussion on 76079*, is that the railway is fundamentally undercapitalised and continuing to make unsustainable losses. Those do require, pace @Lineisclear, difficult decisions about priorities which won't always be popular. However, what I then observe is that these unpopular decisions do not appear (and I note the caveats about the timeliness of historic accounts) to be turning the tide on profitability, while demand insofar as can be seen continues to decline.

What I then notice is that the governing bodies of the railway have spent a lot of time and energy on governance matters, but seemingly without taking the organisation with them. This is leading to some vociferous comments, but also what appears to be a lot of "silent quitting" amongst a regular refrain of comments from (ex-)volunteers about the terms on which they can work. While assertions are made about the ability of the new articles to draw new volunteers (notably to the lineside team), these don't seem to be quantified, and there's no rebuttal of the inference I and others draw that the impact of changes to the volunteer base is a loss of core committed volunteers. In an organisation that is already unusually highly dependent on paid staff, this is concerning.

I'd therefore like to see more focus on inclusive leadership, treating members and (especially) volunteers as the key stakeholders that they are, rather than a threat to the charitable status of the railway. The best heritage railways function a bit like families; my feeling is that NYMR is becoming more corporate in its nature. I work for a corporate; the bonds that make even good teams function in a corporate are fundamentally different to those in an effective volunteer organisation.

Finally, I'd like to see a clearer sense that the heritage of the railway is really valued. Forget the debates about whether Mk1s are or are not "heritage"**; there's something much more intangible that comes through in the spirit of the best heritage railways, and NYMR has never been brilliant at. When Gift Aid was brought in, comments were made about learning from Beamish - I'm afraid I laughed when I read that; NYMR has a long way to go to be in Beamish's league as a museum. It'd be great to get the teaks to Whitby on a regular basis, but simply drawing out more of the sense of the NYMR as an NER secondary line would go a long way.

* - I'd be interested in the basis for the £800k figure, especially if it is as seemed just the boiler work. That seems very high - I'm not sure whether that's about my expectations or something else.
** - my late grandmother's kitchen had lino and florescent light tubes; that was no more a "heritage" experience than an ex-BR charter MK1 in Inter City Special Train Unit moquette.

Edit (following reply by @Lineisclear) - insertion of 1st comment re. 76079 against 1st asterisk

 

Thoughtful and positive. Thank you. The only immediate observation is that teaks running to Whitby is not something the NYMR can do anything about. It’s challenging enough to keep Mark1’s running under the time limited ROGS exemption! P

 

Which is why teaks in Whitby were well down my list...

 

I had a trip with a coach operator from Leeds last summer with a one way trip on the NYMR.

The negative

From Whitby to Grosmont it was a diesel ( but I don't think I've ever had a class 25 before). 5428 was out of service.

The positives

It was a lovely day ---lucky.
The coach trip gave us four hours in Whitby---about right.
The train trip was effectively about £20-25 for a single, quite good value and we were in the front coach.
The trip up the bank behind 80136 was excellent,my steam highlight of 2024.
You could window hang.

 

The concerns of many volunteers, and not just the few on Nat Pres are many and varied. Much of this could be overcome by good, honest and regular communication. Volunteers perceive that they are a necessary nuisance by those in charge. Their concerns are not listened to and they are simply told 'it', whatever 'it' is, is nothing to do with them. They are seen as a disposable asset and can be dispensed with, as evidenced by the Levisham Wombles saga which was atrociously handled by those in charge. There is a well held belief that the railway employs too many people to little benefit and this is pulling the railway down. People are brought in from outside to fulfil these roles with no experience of volunteering and understanding the ethos of the volunteer. For example, when the previous Footplate Manager departed, his replacement had no knowledge of what was required of train crews at all levels, nor even railway operation. The railway is generally run for the convenience of the paid staff. For example, as mentioned in an earlier post, volunteers aren't wanted on shed at weekends because it would mean a member of paid staff being in to supervise them.

I can go on.

 

Don't count on being able to do that in the fullness of time. The Railway has a plan to restrict droplight opening.

 

I think it's fair to say that managing volunteers can be challenging, and in some respects more so than for paid staff. After all volunteers don't have to turn up or stay at work! Undoubtedly it helps if those responsible for managing them have some experience of volunteering and understand its ethos. Equally volunteers to need accept that in today's highly regulated world the freewheeling opportunity to enjoy their hobby that once characterised volunteering is now more constrained. Managers have to ensure compliance in a way that some volunteers may find irksome. In some cases it may be that the mere fact of volunteers being managed by a paid manager causes upset. Having to comply with the level of control that would be taken for granted in a day job can take the spontaniety and fun out of volunteering but that's not the fault of management. Blame our litigous risk averse regulated society. The Levisham debacle was a case in point. Both sides could, and should, have handled it better but the core issue was behaviour by a small number of volunteers that, had they been employees, would have justified summary dismissal. That was coupled with resistance to management control of their activities. Sadly others decided to leave in protest. It was not the NYMR's finest hour but the blame for that doesn't all lie on one side.

 

Without getting into whatever happened at Levisham, I wonder why it is that NYMR seems to have a particular issue with volunteer satisfaction. The issues you describe crop up frequently in discussions on NP and elsewhere, yet it is NYMR that seems to face particular challenges. I know Yorkshire folk have a reputation for a certain cussedness, but I am surprised that the problems appear so much more entrenched at NYMR than elsewhere.

If it takes two to tango, one wonders which partner is leading.

 

I actually think this point is relevant to the day job, at least if you are of a certain age.
It was one of the main drivers that I retired at 60, because the fun had gone out of the job, due to all the mindless ********* that it entailed. That is before you get to the modern era that (for reference only) I will refer to as the post me too world, that occured long after I had gone.
It does however make volunteering (for anything) a far less attractive proposition.

 

The problem is the assumption that negative posts on Nat Pres and elsewhere are a good measure of volunteer sentiment. There must be a disconnect somewhere as the response to the NYMR 's regular volunteer surveys suggests a very different picture. I don't doubt that there are those who are disatisfied, which should be cause for concern, but it would be a mistake to assume that social media posts give an accurate picture.

 

deleted

 

I was under the impression this would be between Grosmont and Whitby and vice versa ?

 

But if you've put something in the windows to restrict, they aren't going to remove at Grosmont are they?

 

After many years of designing customer surveys if the volunteer satisfaction surveys at the NYMR are anything like recent ones at my own line, they will not manage to uncover the real sentiment or underlying concerns. One of the most telling methods rarely available is the exit interview, volunteers tend to just drift off, but with some careful listening it is possible to discern common themes.

 

Afraid not. The irony of it is that between Grosmont & Whitby there are no lineside structures anywhere near the line but the risk assessments say Grosmont tunnel and the other train in Goathland station are too close to the train and people could hit their head so action has to be taken. Hopefully common sense will prevail but I’m sure someone will jump up and say the directors could be liable if this is ignored.

 

Which is what I’ve effectively done with the NYMR. My line manager does know my reasons and is sympathetic but there is little he can do. If things change for the better , I’ll happily go back but various people will have to change their approach for that to happen.
There is a long posting on the Facebook (unofficial) NYMR Volunteer Forum from another driver who has packed in. There are over a hundred subsequent posts from others, most of which are sympathetic.

 

I think it is essential the managers have been volunteers, not desirable, essential. For preference they should have been railway volunteers.

I don’t think many people actually see compliance as irksome. They may not understand it, and it may disrupt ways they have been used to working, but that is where the management should earn its keep. It’s about how you explain it. Compliance does not have to take the fun out of things. Frankly that’s indicative of management that would probably end up causing issues in any organisation.

@35B observed that a heritage railway interacts much like a family. How true that is. Now it may not have to be that way, but my goodness the transition will be painful (it may or may not be necessary, but it will
Not be easy).

As regards Levisham, if there were volunteers that had behaved that badly then they needed to be dealt with. That needed to be explained to others, and it needed to be seen to be fair. I accept that in such a case it would be a challenge. However, what strikes me is that trust was dented, and that steps need to be taken to address that. It’s not enough to just say “neither side behaved well”. The management don’t get that luxury.

Finally, appointing someone to manage the footplate who had no relevant experience was bound to cause issues, and is precisely the sort of thing to avoid if you want to ensure trust. Is that seriously true?

 

It’s easy to say that because, without seeing the results, no one can dispute that. My own response was pretty damning.

 

Agreed. Unless they tell you they’re leaving the nature of volunteering means it’s hard to know when to conduct a volunteer exit interview. Certainly regular surveys, imperfect though they may be, are likely to give a better indication than social media posts. It’s about survey design possibly with professional advice. However when you get well over 90% positive answers on high response rates to a straightforward question like “Do you intend to carry on volunteering at the NYMR ? “ it does suggest things are better than some imply. Of course that should trigger an interest in why something under 10% do not.