North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Well ... yes

I'm not sure (and the author of that report is certainly free to correct me!) that any of the significant recommendations came to pass. Structurally, give or take the odd change in a charity's name, the overall WSR "family" still has the same structure, the same mix of support charities with minority shareholdings in an operating company, and the same strengths and weaknesses that such a structure confers. I think really the only significant change between now and five years ago is that as personalities within the organisation have changed, a lot of the heat has gone out of the arguments for reform. My sense is that that railway is considerably more harmonious than it was, but that is not the same as saying it has undergone any kind of structural reform; the organisations on the railway simply seem to work together better than previously.

There is an interesting comparison to be made between the two railways. In gross terms, the WSR is 10% longer in track length than the NYMR, and has twice as many stations to maintain. Yet in financial terms, it is half the size of the NYMR. So it would be very interesting to understand why the NYMR is a £7m per year organisation to run trains on 18 miles of their own track (and 6 miles of someone else's); yet the WSR is a £3m per year organisation to run trains on a line of at least comparable size.

I wouldn't want to push things too far, since the WSR itself is not without its own financial issues. But it is interesting that the two are comparably-sized railways, but not comparably-sized companies.

Tom

 

Where to begin? I'm sure that everyone following this thread will be largely aware of my views, but I'll sum them up by saying that the NYMR has forgotten its roots and history, and is paying less attention to being a heritage railway - and that is showing in its revenue which doesn't seem to be increasing year on year of late, and certainly isn't keeping costs with its running expenses; at the same time, the only expense it seems to be able to control is its maintenance budget - and then only by keeping up with maintenance. It hasn't dawned on its management why BR closed it, and why in the early stages of revival it was primarily run and managed by volunteers, but sadly it seems to alienating more and more of its volunteers and supporters, and there's a real and increasing risk of the supply of volunteers, and their supporter's money drawing up. They need to change their approach, but can they do it in time?

 

I think it's very telling that the word "historical" was dropped from the trust name.

Sawdust.

 

A question for Lineisclear, how many members of the trust board were volunteers on the railway before becoming directors of the trust, besides yourself?

Sawdust.

 

FYI voting is now open to members of the NYMR to vote for new Trustees of the Trust Board, with voting closing at 5pm on the 14th October, with the AGM set for 10am on the 18th October.

 

Those who volunteer to serve on the Trust Board are just as much working volunteers as those helping the railway in any other capacity. By my calculation in terms of having been a working volunteer in any other capacity before election the answer is all but two. In answer to your other question the dropping of the word historical has absolutely no significance. A company’s name does not establish its aims. In the case of the NYMR those are its registered charitable purposes. Shortening of the company name and getting charity commission consent to dispense with limited was just to achieve something less cumbersome.

 

You forget I served on trust board for twelve years and while the role may have changed a bit over time, I don't imagine that the meetings have got much shorter or less tedious over the last 25 years.

Sawdust.

 

I’m sure they weren’t a bundle of laughs then either!

 

They are indeed but, as far as I'm concerned, people should have been regular volunteers before being put up for Trust Board. It is my opinion that they should have an understanding of the ethos of the NYMR and what it means and not someone parachuted in with none of those qualifications. Again, in my opinion that is at the heart of what has gone wrong with the Railway and its management.

 

I think this is half true - outsiders with a genuine interest can add to a board, helping it go beyond being purely inward looking.

 

But understanding the ethos is paramount and you need to be part of it to do that.