North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Probably not, but the corollary of that is you should be fighting absolutely tooth and nail to hold on to the volunteers you have got. I agree with @35B that the value of volunteer time for a line like the NYMR is likely to be 7 figures if you were to replace it with paid staff (even on quite modest wages), so losing what volunteer support you have would be absolutely calamitous for a line that is already losing money. You'd have thought that a railway's management would be all over volunteer retention like a rash.

Tom

 

What is the senior leadership doing to engage with members and volunteers, how is it measuring success in attracting new people? How does it ensure that there is a friction free (as possible) transition from initial contact to committed volunteer? how is it measuring its progress?

If committed people feel they have to vent at all then something has gone wrong. Badly. No good kidding yourself that it is down to them not understanding what’s happening or are lamenting the past. Leadership’s role is to make sure they get past that if necessary.

The quoted platform comment is most telling. A culture of distrust and fear. If you cannot see that just one such example is a serious canary in a mine, then I suggest you might need to have a big rethink. Don’t blame the volunteers and paid staff. If they are unhappy figure out why and DO something about it.

 

I agree that if the NYMR is to function as a charity on as many days as possible with a relatively intense service it needs as many volunteers as it can get. 60044’s recent posts suggested a much diminished lower staffed operation without Whitby but all the signs are that would not be viable. In contrast they indicate the NYMR could survive without volunteers ,as some heritage railways do , but it would be a non charitable shadow of its current scale and something personally that I would resist with every sinew. As recent posts have pointed out volunteering is in decline both on heritage railways and elsewhere. That’s no reason to give up but recognising that its getting harder to attract and volunteers is just being realistic. I wholly support initiatives to encourage volunteers and persuade those already involved to continue. As a working volunteer why would I not? In also recognise the importance of encouraging members whilst at the same time recognising that critical financial support comes from the paying public. A railway could not exist without them unless it adopted the member subscription
“Golf Club” model. Idle curiosity suggested a membership fee of around £3k a year might work. Like a Golf Club it could run be for the benefit of its members but I really can’t imagine that anyone wants to go down that route!

 

Best post yet - please copy to the A1 Trust (and, no doubt, a number of other heritage organisations who seem to have forgotten how they grew to be where they are today, and without which they wouldn’t be in a position to wield the power they enjoy).

 

I reject the either/or model implied in that post.

Making volunteers feel valued, and encouraging them to feel fully involved, does not mean that a "golf club" model is required - they are stakeholders, and at least as worthy of consultation and involvement as any other stakeholders. But, focusing on language, I do find it interesting that you refer to "initiatives to encourage volunteers" and "persuade those already involved to continue". Those comments highlight the gap - if volunteers feel valued, the member -> donor -> volunteer progression doesn't need so many initiatives, while those who are already volunteer are much less likely to need to be encouraged to continue volunteering.

As a new parent, one of the key pieces of advice I was given was not to tell small children "don't", but to focus them on something else. That was nothing to do with being soft, but a wise recognition that if you say "don't touch the kettle", the focus of attention is the kettle. So please pardon me if I take cold comfort from your comment "I would resist with every sinew" about a shift from a volunteer based model. Not because I doubt you, but because the focus is on avoiding that shadow of its current scale - not on building it up to something better.

 

Just to pick up on the 'publicise third party comments' point, I assume this is a reference to the Tripadvisor reviews? I don't wish to denigrate this website, which I have enjoyed visiting for about 15 years, but it doesn't exactly get the footfall of Tripadvisor. The poor reviews of the railway there should be a concern to the management of the railway - ignoring them won't make them go away.

Sent from my SM-S926B using Tapatalk

 

Crikey, that's a left field shift even by your debating standards! "Members can't pay for the railway, let's float the canard that it is only worth having members if you have golf club level fees!"

As far as I can see, "Plan A" (the current NYMR corporate strategy) seems to be:

• Take as many people to Whitby as possible
• Make up any shortfall with grants from major grant-awarding bodies
• Rely on paid staff where possible, as volunteers are disproportionately expensive in management and training terms (due to the greater numbers needed)

But that plan is failing: the two sources of income aren't sufficient to cover the operating costs, so the railway is haemorrhaging money. Moreover, you can't "do more Whitby" because you don't have the rolling stock to run more trains. You can't cut operating costs by dieselisation firstly because you are already heavily down that route (so not much more cost to be extracted) and because your passengers are telling you in no uncertain terms they didn't come for a trip behind a diesel in freezing carriages. And the "white knight" approach (hoping for a big grant from someone) is fraught with risk, not least because in the recession that might be round the corner, it is likely the grant awarding bodies are themselves going to be stretched, with more demands for scarcer resources as every attraction in the country desperately tries to make ends meet.

At what point do you have to admit that plan A has failed? And what then is plan B?

Tom

 

If not already mentioned. Due to the severe fire risk, the service is all diesel tomorrow supplied by 31128, 37264 and 47077

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one to have noticed the tangentially irrelevant debating tactics! And I have been pointing out all along that living in expectation - or even hope!- of large grants that will help with operating losses is just ludicrous. It will be interesting to see what alternatives are put forward now, and hear whether the NYMR's paid grant seeking person has even generated enough revenue to cover their costs? Because if they haven't, why are they still in post?

 

Odds on a politicians answer at best and no response at worst ?

 

Thanks for the gen Jacob. Save me another run up to the Moors tomorrow. Here is 45596 at Goathland this afternoon looking great on a maroon set of coaches in the warm spring sunshine.

Peter

 

Yes the moors are tinder dry at the moment as shown in my picture below taken on Monday behind Bahamas (having already been delayed by some 45 minutes due to a previous lineside fire), so am not surprised that the service will become all diesel.

 

I quoted that comment from Tripadviser because it struck a chord with me. I was at the railway at half term for a trip in the railcar and I got into conversation with a member of paid staff. He was telling me various things and more than once said “If they knew I was talking to you I’d get the sack.” I also had back in February an anonymous e-mail from a member of staff which said " Hi Steve, I hope this message gets to you, I have had your email address passed on by a former colleague who tells me you are active on the preservation forums and taking part in some discussion regarding the situation on the NYMR. I’m not allowed to take part in these discussions as we have been told we have to remove ourselves from non-official social media and what we do is heavily monitored hence why this comes to you in a roundabout way." It then goes on to relate a lot more which I won't go into as it can help pinpoint the source and finished with "I understand that you are not currently volunteering, I hope that you will one day return to a better NYMR, in the meantime I implore you to do whatever you can to raise these issues with other supporters and members to try and force the changes that need to be made. Everything in this message can be backed up with evidence ....... I hope you and other supporters can do something to force the changes required to save this railway before it is too late."
There is certainly a feeling of fear amongst the paid staff who are doing their best to keep the railway running.

 

Some footage of 45596 on the NYMR, Sunday and today.

 

I'm not really surprised but it must have been a late decision as this evenings published loco roster shows 5428 and 926 out and about.

 

With tomorrow’s service being diesel hauled, and no prospect of rain until the weekend, is it safe to presume that Thursday’s service will also be diesel hauled only?

 

It is heartbreaking, and I mean that sincerely. Nobody should have to work in a climate like that, and of course in time they won’t. Good people will be lost.

All our railways face very challenging times. Previous recessions happened in times when volunteering was not also in recession, and before infrastructure (like locos and then carriages before) came towards the end of its life. However, that doesn’t excuse such a culture as that describes being permitted to be established.

I am totally convinced that not only are volunteers desirable, but they are essential to the future of the Moors. I cannot believe that there is a viable commercial future that eliminates them. And if if there was it wouldn’t be desirable (as others have already said).

It strikes me that some very very hard thinking is required, and possibly some people in leadership positions need to consider whether they continue to be the right people to lead the railway going forward. Maybe they are, but perhaps they may need some help and to listen to alternative voices.

 

Possibly/ probably….

 

Deleted

 

I question this statement. Do you mean to say that, had the NYMR not introduced Whitby services, it would be even less viable than it currently is? Or just that removing them now would be tantamount to suicide?


From what I understand, the railway’s timetable is more or less defined by when you can get into Whitby station, so whilst I’m not actually suggesting that the railway should cease running to Whitby, if it did so surely the railway would benefit from greater operational flexibility?

You can still run 3 passenger trains between Pickering and Grosmont meaning most likely more frequent departures for passengers to choose from and to move around between stations, no need to worry about having enough locos to run through to Whitby or changing from an internal-only loco to a Whitby certified one at Grosmont, and there’s more flexibility to run events that attract families and other non-enthusiast demographics?