North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

With respect, a function that has long been required in railways of all sizes and types. The use of titles is an insight into approach, and this kind of title change less suggests losing the plot than evolution into something rather corporate in nature.

 

Perhaps if you regard it as just a heritage railway. In practice it’s an £8million plus turnover Charity that by that measure is in top 2% of UK charities. Titles such CEO and Director of Corporate Services are common in the Charity sector but at the end of the day what matters is what they do and are they effective?

 

A post on WNXX Forum says the issues are not as bad as first feared - defo not a generator flashover.

 

That Post-Thatcher invention of the Management Class for you. Reading through her remit, I'm not sure what else you call it.

 

Arguably, a fleet of six is not enough - as the current position shows - there's no slack left in the system. Of course it's bad luck that they are two expected locos down, but bad luck always strikes at the weakest part of any system!

 

In truth it's a title bestowed as an ego boosting measure - not a new concept as anyone familiar with the G & S operetta "The Gondoliers" will realise!

 

At a certain level, names might not seem very important. The question though is whether grumbling about a name is actually a proxy for a wider disconnect between heritage railways and their core supporters: notably the volunteers. There seems to be a view from management and director level on many railways that goes along the lines “we have to act in a modern business-like manner to attract enough passengers to balance the books” but in the process forgets that the books are balanced at least in part by a large dollop of volunteer labour. So those volunteers are a critical constituency: what do they really think? After all, if you have to substitute a member of paid staff on a day because you can’t find a volunteer driver, straight away you probably need to find another half dozen passengers just to stand still financially.

In my time on heritage railways, I’ve seen lots of tasks that used to be volunteer-driven gradually become covered by paid staff. That not only drives cost into an organisation - which means you have to run harder just to stand still - but also inevitably can lead to a disconnect between what the railway is becoming and what it’s core supporters want it to be. I’d be the first to agree that if you don’t remain solvent, you have no future - but I perceive across several major railways a management-led view of modernisation as a route to increased revenue that risks costing more to deliver as supporters silently scale back their involvement. The very vocal activist discontent seen on the WSR is the exception: far more insidious is a silent disconnect with enthusiasts (donors) and volunteers.

I should make clear that I have no direct evidence that that is the case on the NYMR; simply perceiving straws in the wind across the whole sector.

Tom

 

The quid pro quo being of course that there have to be enough volunteers in the first place to be able to avert the use of paid staff.

I'd also suggest that the cost impact of paid staff may be understated - I was once advised that if I spent £10 on something, that would need an extra £100 in income to keep the profit margin the same.

 

Yes, and that is the $64million question. Are paid staff doing jobs that volunteers used to do because there aren't enough volunteers, or are there not enough volunteers because they have drifted away as they get excluded from more and more jobs? I genuinely don't know the answer.

As a little anecdote: on a heritage railway that I am familiar with, 15 years ago there were typically a handful of events each year, of which there were two big "enthusiast" galas (spring and autumn); and the Santa season. Of those, only the Santa season was significantly booked in advance, which in those days meant telephone, primarily, for which you needed office staff.

Now the same railway has some kind of event on many weekends: rail collectors fairs, Stem this, teddy bear that. The workload for all those events is more than could reasonably fall on the shoulders of an old-fashioned events committee, so you have paid staff - but at what point does it become self-fulfilling: you have to keep marketing hard and promoting all sorts of events to feed the multi-million pound beast you have become? Meantime, the enthusiast events just become two more things going on, not the biannual highlight they once were; and at the same time "no-one wants to volunteer to promote events any more".

My worry about the "professionalisation" of heritage attractions is that we might be looking down the wrong end of the telescope, and in the process not understanding why we seem to be running ever harder just to stand still.

To maintain profit margin (rather than just balance the books) - probably true.

Tom

 

Glad to hear it's not as bad as first thought! Although would appear it isn't quite repaired ready for service today - had a look on the webcam and it was 47077 on the 13:30 ex Grosmont rather than 37264 as booked on the loco roster.

 

I have suggested on the NYMR discussion group that it is time to think of different ways of staging peripheral (non-railway) events . Ideally you will have a reasonable sized field with no car parking allowed. Allow other groups (e.g local pony clubs for gymkhanas, car clubs, model traction engine clubs, civil war enactors, craft/food/drink fairs) to use the field free of charge for rallies, with the railway benefitting from visitors to the event having to use the train to visit the event. Obviously there will be complications over and above my simplistic idea, but the principle is to get outside bodies to do the organisation and provide an additional attraction.

 

I may have spoken too soon, appeared on the Grosmont cam a few minutes ago, and can just be seen visible in the distance on the Goathland cam - so presumably on a test run.

 

And in the NYMR's case, they have the added challenge of only being able to use a certain size of loco - Pacifics and 2-8-0/2-10-0s being too big to run to Whitby, whilst 4MT tanks and anything smaller won't have the water and haulage capacity to complete the diagram. So anything they use basically has to be a class 4, 5 or 6 tender locos with 2-6-0 or 4-6-0 wheel arrangements. Doesn't half narrow the field!

 

You could also argue that the class 4/ 5 locos aren't up to day in day out running up the steep gradients.

A standard 4 tank will probably pull more than a Black 5, the tractive effort is nearly the same without the weight of dragging a tender around. It also has the weight of the water of the wheels so will have better adhesion.

 

Which makes it a great same that 62005 is a West Highland engine rather than a Whitby one!

 

What is so bad about the most important (chief) maker of operational decisions (executive) officer of the company (you can work that one out) being called such?

 

We're talking about heritage railways here, what's wrong with sticking to heritage titles? GM seems to me to carry just as much gravitas as CEO.

 

GM is in most organisations way below a CEO.
The large Heritage Lines now need to look outwards and be understood by more than a few rail fans, however much we may not like it.

 

But....heritage railways aren't like a lot of other organisations because of their (mostly) volunteer workforce.
I don't think the NYMR (for example) would be expected (by outside bodies) to have a CEO, once it is recognised that they are a heritage operation

 

Nothing. But titles carry major implications, and when they change those implications come out into the open.