North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Both part time roles, 16-24 hours a week. I'm guessing the lead is going to be on an hourly rate higher than the assistant. Even at the bottom end of the hours worked and at minimum wage, that's over 20 grand being spent on two new roles. If they're both working 24 hours a week, then it's a minimum of £30k a year, probably closer to £35,000, quite possibly £40,000 Seriously? A line that's haemorrhaging money is creating jobs like this?!

Also why would you bother volunteering...

https://www.nymr.co.uk/pullman-steward-vv

...when the same position is available as a paid job?

https://www.nymr.co.uk/paid-seasonal-vacancies-pullman-dining-train-stewards

Also, not a good look to have adverts still up in the middle of August that had a closing date at the end of February!

 

Would hazard a guess the interpretation roles are fully grant funded - been the case with similar roles at several other museums and heritage railway.

 

'Ba-da-bing.' Most heritage lines can't expect to be operated as anything like normal businesses, with paid staff. The overall environment just isn't there to allow that. They have to operate somewhere in a 'gray zone', with some paid staff (although some lines, like the Spa Valley, manage without any), and volunteers for the rest. The people running heritage lines have to acknowledge that their line is in that zone - and has to be prepared to live that way.

Where exactly the boundary lies will vary i) from line to line, depending on their financial circumstances, and ii) over time, as the financial environment changes. It will take an attentive and responsive management to keep a weather eye (as sailors say) on the prevailing financial situation, and adjust that boundary as needed - painful as such adjustments might be, for those affected; perhaps an argument for habitually running on the 'sparse' side of that boundary, precisely to minimize how often such painful steps have to be taken.

Of course, there will also be a demand for money to be spent on needed capital things - repairs, and the facilities (buildings) and equipment needed to allow volunteers to be as productive as possible - their time is not an unlimited resource. Money spent on paid staff wages is money not available for capital needs.

 

I do! I volunteer alongside paid staff, and more than happy to, the only difference between us is I choose when to volunteer to suite myself (currently 4 days per week): but if I want a weeks holiday etc then I have a weeks holiday, although once I have committed to a roster I stick to it.

However, I would never want to volunteer as a Pullman steward purely because of the unsocial hours wrt the evening Pullman.

 

As usual you hit the nail on the head. Just taking HOPS as an example, back in 2014 the NYMR started using it following a presentation at a HRA conference by Danny Scroggins. A volunteer took on the admin role and I took on the footplate rostering as a volunteer whilst someone else did the operating side (paid). The Admin chap and I split the work with him compiling the base roster and me dealing with the roster once published and all the e-mail traffic it produced (The record was 94 emails in one day. ) That worked well for about 5 years until a member of senior management pi**ed of the admin and he quit volunteering. There was no plea for another volunteer to take it on, it was simply given to the (paid) IT department. However, they baulked at compiling the roster and a volunteer did come forward to do this. Fast forward another 5 years and I decided to step down. There was no plea for someone else to volunteer; it was simply given to an employee. Now the last volunteer has given up and the whole job is in the hands of paid staff. Again no plea for a volunteer to undertake the role. The tragedy is, HOPS is eminently suited to a volunteer working from home and the job can easily be split amongst several people.

 

A long standing GM now retired said to me that “my job is to ensure that the railway doesn’t pay for any job that a volunteer could do”.

 

That needs to be in the job description of all heritage railway general managers.

 

I agree. It is a fairly simple mantra. It can be difficult to achieve, and there are many reasons why it can be perfectly sensible to pay someone, but it needs to be the last resort. Now, I think what may happen, and it is understandable given the pressures of managing a heritage railway, is that the thought process that Tom @Jamessquared described very well becomes “too difficult” to undertake. It is a cultural thing to a great extent though, and more discipline around the thinking would be advantageous.

 

It is that cultural point that bothers me in the context of NYMR, where the nature of the responses (not to mention anecdotes like that of @Steve) suggest some deep seated reflexes are at work.

I need to acknowledge that @Lineisclear has stated that policies have been implemented to limit recruitment. In my working life, I've seen such policies - whether hiring freezes or contractor bans - implemented but they have frequently been followed by widespread evasion as managers try to maintain their previous ways of working, frequently in response to a one size fits all corporate diktat. It's much more challenging, but I think more necessary in this sector, to shift mindset so that questions about gaps aren't just asked in terms of "Bob has left, how do I replace Bob?" - and that is where culture becomes all important.

 

What about those that don't have any volunteers ( and in many cases are financially successful) or aren't they proper heritage railways?

 

I suggest that those are the exception, and a distraction from the focus on NYMR.

 

I think people here are actually trying to be helpful to your mission. You have more or less agreed that the money numbers at one of the premier standard gauge lines are not on a sustainable path. Clearly there has been a degree of push back on the price side of the equation. So the whole question of the cost structure and the various balancing factors comes sharply into focus.

Coming from a sector which has been progressively bureaucratised over the last forty years, in part as a response to increased regulation, I strongly identify with the proposition that the culture of the organisation is key to maintaining a sense of togetherness and goodwill. I see the NYMR as one of the jewels of North Yorkshire, and I really hope you can all find the magic pathway.

 

Which ones would they be? PDSR is a transport network that operates steam trains on part of its route. Snowdon has always been commercial. Brecon and VoR were completely staffed by paid staff but now have some volunteers.

And none of them are losing hundreds of thousands of pounds annually, year after year.

 

I'm happy to be corrected if Brecon now has volunteers but if so that's a very recent change. When I was last there the VoR was pretty much 100%paid staff. I believe the Lakeside and Haverthwaite should be added to the all employee list.
Your post rather makes the point. It's not always essential for a financially succcesful heritage railway to depend on volunteers.

 

It saddens me to feel obliged to say that I feel that the time is coming for a need to change the management on the NYMR to one that is more closely aligned with the concept of being both better disposed towards volunteers and more heritage orientated. From the messages I've received, it doesn't seem like I'm the only one who feels that way, but I hope that if such a change is made it can be done peacefully and without further financial damage.

 

It isn’t necessary but is I think desirable.

On necessity as with any business the requirement is that the expenditure can be at the very least equalled by income, though in reality if you cannot show a small surplus every year you’re in trouble. The PDSR carries similar numbers to the NYMR over less distance with a much less complex operation that doesn’t involve someone else’s infrastructure and the resultant costs of that.

On desirability, at the very least volunteers reduce the cash income needed for the same outcomes, but they frequently (if used well) bring skills and experience that the company could not hope to afford. Volunteers also embed the community benefit of the railway and bring creativity (sadly too often squashed these days by management - a dig at much of the industry). The FR is a great example of volunteering used well.

The Moors challenge (not uniquely) is that you cannot carry enough passengers willing to pay a sufficiently hire fare to cover the required expenditure. Could you cut back to a point where you could not only cover that existing expenditure need, but the added one of a fully employed staff? Maybe, but the railway would I suggest not go to Whitby, probably not go all the way to Pickering, would operate a fraction of the services it does now, have no signal boxes and deliver a very different “public good”. I am not sure that level of pruning is what anyone has in mind, is it?

 

No but it’s an obvious risk that I and others are determined to avoid materialising . Incidentally that outcome would almost certainly involve loss of charitable status.

 

Have you any idea how condescending you sound?
If this is the attitude from the HRA then bloody hell.

 

Which is why, imho, you should consider stepping aside and letting others with a rather better understanding of the financial mess the NYMR is in, and that you and your regime have created, and allow others with more constructive and financially more rewarding ways of dealing with it to take on the challenge. I'm sure they are out there, waiting.

 

Not really, In the case of the Dart Valley Railway plc they are strictly a business and paying a dividend (sometimes!) which was the objective of the founding fathers. They operate a steam hauled service because that's what Joe Public wants but it is hardly what I would consider to be heritage. Nostalia, perhaps. They are good at what they do, though.
Are there any others?