North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I'm sure most already knew this was happening as I think it was mentioned on here before but DEPGs Class 47 47077 'North Star' has now arrived on the NYMR for a 2 year stay.

'North Star' arrives at the NYMR | North Yorkshire Moors Railway - NYMR

 

Is that 2 years from now or from when originally proposed?

 

That's probably already past.

 

Dismayed to see that in the 24 mile corridor between Pickering and Whitby social distancing remains on trains for 2022, with allocated seats to Whitby and reduced capacity internal services (presumably as 2021 for all but 4 days of the steam gala when covid magically goes away ).

Any other railways aiming to keep enthusiasts away whilst bombarding them with begging letters and raffle tickets in 2022 ?

 

Unless I've missed something I didn't think the Railway had announced the 2022 timetable/events yet?

 

Where is this information from please? Moors line indicates we are hoping to reintroduce a full coach of hop on hop off to provide the more traditional operating model.

In 2021 my experience was book to Whitby. Then for internal services you didn't get constrained to a particular service to return on. Also it was possible to get on the quieter services from Whitby at Grosmont to travel to Pickering during the day.

Sent from my M2003J15SC using Tapatalk

 

If you are looking at the book tickets page (which you cannot do at the moment) it has not been updated as it talks about legal requirements from 29 November 2021, which have of course been updated. The Covid page talks about regulations from back in the summer. It all just needs an update I suspect.

 

Oh dear is our friend @D7076 not correct? They’re never usually so quick to pull up other people about their mistakes.

 

Moorsline page 86 Travel for 2022/23.

The seating situation remains the same as the last two covid affected years. End to end services continue to be sold with pre booked seat selection and internal services will have limited capacity but with no seat allocation .

We hope you understand that until all restrictions regarding social distancing are lifted and that we are confident that we can fully protect you our staff and volunteers then some form of travel restrictions will need to be in place .

 

I thought I'd type out the relevant sections from Page 86 of the most recent Moorlander so that we can all read the same Hymn Sheet.
I feel that the Travel section could be worded differently as it almost seems to contradict the following sections.

Travel:
The Seating Situation remains the same as the last two Covid affected years: End to end services continue to be sold with pre-booked
seat selection and internal services will have limited capacity but with no seat allocation.
End to End Services:
Pickering to Whitby and Whitby to Pickering Excursions. We have added flexibility here with 'hop-on, hop-off' if you buy your ticket
at the booking office on the day you are travelling - but there islimited capacity for this.
Internal Services:
We have added Whitby to Goathland and Pickering to Goathland as excursions alongside our regular Pickering to Grosmont and
Grosmont to Pickering services.

 

I'm just wondering if I'm the only one who thinks the proposed new Articles of Association are defective?

The proposals include (19.3) "No person may be appointed or reappointed a Director by the voting members unless that person is recommended by the nominations Committee in accordance with any procedures and terms of reference that are agreed by the Directors from time to time".

In view of problems seen elsewhere in the heritage sector is such a rule really appropriate?

The Charity Commission model articles on which the NYMR say their proposals are based does include provision (35.2) for a member to propose a Director. By restricting Directors to only those approved by existing Directors it is hard to see how the members can exercise any real control.

The proposals also include (12.3) a quorum for general meetings of 15 which seems rather small.

 

I would not read it as you have, but stress I am not a member of the railway.
To me it just says it has to follow procedures approved by the directors.

 

I am a member, and have the voting form at my side. @Lineisclear might want to consider that I'm not sure I could do other than vote against something that defines the board as a closed shop, where members can only be those accepted by a nomination committee controlled by the sitting board. In a thriving organisation, it is a gratuitous limitation on members' rights; in any kind of scenario where organisational politics are a problem, it enshrines to them with power, more power shall be given.

I'm a trustee/director elsewhere, of an organisation serving a larger area, more people and with rather a larger balance sheet, and much more potential impact if it were to fail, and was not subject to any kind of selection process. The issues of competence that have previously been mentioned in context of ORR guidance, charity law, etc. have been dealt with through a careful process of induction; 5 months after election, I still very much consider myself a new boy.

 

I don't know which of the Plc and Trust has the safety case, LRO etc. on the NYMR, but assuming it's the Plc, does the ORR have much business being concerned about who gets elected as a Trustee of the Trust? I'm sure it'll have a view, but it doesn't seem to be to be as critical that they are "competent" in an ORR sense (I'm sure they're all perfectly competent in amore general sense!).

 

I think that would be for @Lineisclear to comment on; he has previously observed that such competence is important. Reading the biographies of the candidates, I'm not altogether sure I can see how they meet that test.

 

As a fellow members of the Moors. I too have had reservations as to the latest proposals to alter the way the "management "of the Moors is being orginised/run. So with a slightly heavy heart I've voted against the proposals. As is my consitutional right........

 

....................... for the time being, at least!

 

Welcome to the North Yorkshire Moors Mass transit system. Sod the enthusiasts , sod the roots of the line. Book your ride to Whitby or your single return journey. That's a few quid you won't be seeing thus year.

 

You're right that the PLC is the duty holder under ROGs and has primary responsibility for the safe operation of the railway. However it' a controlled subsidiary of the Trust that owns the railway's assets. The parent Trust is its only voting shareholder and controls the appointment of the subsidiary PLC's directors. The Trust also sets strategy and policies for the PLC and its annual objectives. It's far from an arms length relationship. The Trust has a significant degree of control and influence over the way the railway is run.

Concerns about board competence are not the exclusive preserve of the ORR . There is a need to justify the confidence of other key players such as potential grant funders, the charity's bank and its auditors. The core issue is whether trustees should be able to stand for election because they fancy having a go or because they are popular volunteers. In virtually any other role competence would be judged on the basis of experience, qualifications and aptitude, often involving interviews.

The process of recruiting volunteers to undertake roles involving ultimate responsibility for the whole £8million turnover charity, including its railway operations, surely requires at least the same degree of rigour as would be appropriate for far less demanding roles?

 

No, it would not. It’s a category error.

I am a trustee elsewhere, of a significantly larger organisation, and with frankly significantly more impact on those it serves. There are no pre-qualifications required to allow candidates to stand, but a lot of advice available if considering standing, plus support from existing trustees and senior paid staff.

The important difference is between a trustee role, and a managerial one - even in a volunteer centric organisation. There are legitimate concerns about how to recruit suitable trustees, where a nominations committee may well be of great value, but they need to be talent scouts, not a vetting body.

No competent railwayman would tie down the safety valves of a locomotive, yet an approach based on pure professionalisation of the trustee role in a membership organisation does precisely that. It denies the space for members who don’t fit the mould to offer themselves, and when (not if) something goes wrong, it will create the circumstances for an explosion.

Notwithstanding his distrust of popularity contests, I am genuinely staggered that @Lineisclear has not realised the dangerous pressures that such an environment can create from his experiences in Somerset.

As an armchair NYMR member, I have voted against this, and encourage any other member to do likewise. My deep regret is that I agree wholeheartedly with the core of his assessment that the calibre of the board of trustees is essential to maintaining confidence - yet cannot see how this approach can provide those supporters with the confidence that the board can rely upon the membership.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk