North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

And that's without considering that there may be scope to make the refund subject to refund of any discounts received and no longer eligible - that should not be difficult to achieve for any railway that records membership against sales for computerised sales, but would I agree be an empty threat for an Edmonson Card purchase over the counter.

I agree that it's unwelcome but unlikely to break the bank

 

I'd keep the Whitby fares as they are, because people will pay that even if they grumble, .but I'd reduce them for Pickering-Grosmont because there is anecdotal evidence that the trains are not running full and people are baulking at the price and walking away. We want them to use the trains to get off and explore Goathland and Grosmont and what there is to see there. There's not a lot at Levisham, to be fair, so the priority needs to be to find ways of making it more attractive to stop there as well. It is possible to admire the scenery from any train, of course - but it does help to know what one is looking at or for! -so perhaps a future step would be to provide on-train PA, with GPS regulated timing to ensure that it corresponds to where the train actually is!, to allow a commentary on interesting locations to be provided - there's a lot of scope for that an it would be educational, so attractive to grant-awarding bodies.

 

From previous posts I understand the HRA have no legal powers and aren’t really in any position to do anything, so why worry about a paper tiger?
Jus’ Sayin’

 

I think the question is more about influence than power.

 

As a trade association of which membership is voluntary the HRA represents the interests of the heritage railway and tramway sector including activities such as using its contacts and influence to amend proposed legislation as alresdy mentioned in this thread. Its members sign up to a Code of Conduct designed to encourage best practice. It issues guidance on range of issues from engineering and technical through corporate governance and a lot in between ( such as volunteer management). It maintains effective links with industry regulators. Its conferences include presentations on current hot topics such as how to encourage director and trustee competence. Inevitably there will sometimes be requests for advice and assistance which is freely given by volunteers. There's no compulsion. Such involvement is by invitation and the members concerned are always free to exercise their own judgement.

 

Precisely my point. But it remains true that, through your position within HRA, you are in a significant position to influence others towards your views.

 

Of course!……but they don’t have to agree with them. In practice what I find is similar views being expressed to me without any prompting.

 

I'd like to return to the question of all the additional regulation and training, the spectre of which was raised earlier by our resident legal expert. First of all the anti-terrorism measures: Most of what is covered by these is surely already covered by fire precaution procedures, and we don't give all staff lengthy training sessions for what is arguably a greater risk, so why the concerns? The extra security cameras might be a cost concern, but the most likely places for an explosive device to be left are toilets, and I cannot see the patrons of these would welcome security cameras in these areas! And how often, now that wartime weekends have been abolished at the NYMR do we see crowds of 800 people on a platform? That is equivalent to two full to capacity trains being there at once! In short, I think these "concerns" are scaremongering tactics being used to justify a position.

Similarly with the position over potential refunds and cooling off periods. In practice a very limited number of staff will be affected, if at at all. I can't see the S & T, loco crews or C & W staff or even Guards and TTIs having to cope with such matters, for example, it will be booking office and backroom office staff, and I cannot see either this issue or the terrorism one requiring the expenditure of a lot of training or time and money to make the NYMR compliant. Please let's get real here!

 

Er, as I understand it that’s not what the law is, it’s 800 people anywhere on NYMR property the length of the line, or Kidderminster-Bridgnorth, or Leicester-Loughborough, etc. The lines each count as one venue…

Yes that’s bonkers…. See the problem? One area where the HRA can do some good with lobbying. Hopefully.

 

….

 

If that's the case there does need to be some lobbying, I agree, but in the end a degree of common sense will have to prevail, or louder voices than those of the heritage railways will become very raised! Where would the borders for limiting numbers be drawn for event management without the application of common sense? If it isn't, it's difficult to see how any public gathering could be staged - e.g. Glastonbury, even though it is spread over hundreds of acres! AIUI, though, the concerns were being expressed in terms of potential problems for the NYMR and my own feeling is that in this case they were over the top and scaremongering.

 

My explanation was that as noted in a recent post the 800 persons who may be present from time to time is over the whole railway or Worthy Farm for that matter. Whatever 60044 thinks is reasonable is totally irrelevant as the standard will be set by the Security Industry Authority.
The HRA has put huge effort into common sense amendments . That’s because it’s ahead of the game. Other hospitality sectors will be affected but it seems they have yet to wake up to the implications of the Bill. When they do it may be too late.

 

“Martyn’s Law” is a response to the Manchester Arena bombing. It addresses a genuine problem shown in the response there, but will cause many issues for voluntary organisations and events - I know that CAMRA are concerned about the impact on beer festivals.

However, I agree with the final sentence. The response to legislation like this will be conditioned by the underlying approach of the organisation affected. Those committed to the role of volunteers will look for how to make it work; those with other attitudes will follow the paths set by those attitudes.

 

It is safety legislation, so common sense does not have to prevail.
If common sense prevailed we would not have the whole Mk1 CDL debacle on the mainline, or all the misuse issues with level crossings and foot crossings.
Or when I had 18 months of pain following my desk being raised because staff 6ft and over "must have their desk height raised for safety reasons". That only ceased to be an issue when I "forgot" to flag it up in an office move (although it helped I was part of the team doing the move organisation)

 

So you simply take a couple of weeks to 'process' new memberships. Any benefits only become available after the membership process is completed.

 

I guess the issue is where you run a scheme on the way out along the lines “take up a membership today and we’ll offset (some of) your fare against the membership cost” - a kind of “try before you buy”.

I’ve seen very few heritage railways do that, but it is very common when you visit a National Trust or English Heritage property.

Tom

 

If your railway have enough staff to handle the details quickly it is probably workable. A far better option than waiting to receive the benefits, as I suspect that leads to people walking away.
And of course people join for different reasons. Our NT membership is basically so I can park for free in the NT car park at Corfe Viaduct and photograph trains.

 

Martyn’s Law is currently going through the House of Lords where the greatest opportunity to make sensible amendments exists. As an aside I suggested to one of the noble peers that all we are seeking are commonsense amendments. There was a wry smile with the observation that “we don’t do common sense here”. Having said that they are taking the implications for the heritage railway and tramway sector far more seriously than 60044 clearly thinks is appropriate.

 

How many aspects of the law are based on common sense? Traditionally, laws seem to have been made to protect favour the rich and lawyers have complied with that by making it very inaccessible to those without deep pockets. If the legislation we are discussing here s passed without first passing the common sense test I think that the British way of life, in terms of pastimes, will come shuddering an abrupt halt.........