North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

The problem with this is that I don't see demonisation of paid staff, per se. What I see is deep frustration at the degree to which paid staff are used, and how the organisation is set up in ways that undermine the stated commitment to use volunteers. If "wherever possible" actually means "Monday-Friday, 9-5", that is deeply restrictive and, as important, arguably contradictory to both the charitable purposes and the stated intents for some of the grant awards that the railway has benefitted from.

I agree with @Lineisclear that care has to be taken over matters like the supervision of volunteers, and how productivity is managed. But what I observe in his posts is a strong sense of "we would love volunteers - but on our terms". The examples - and they are only examples - given by such as @Steve demonstrate that there is a long way to go before there is truly a "volunteer first" culture within NYMR.

 

Perhaps a more accurate description of "wherever possible" would be "we would love volunteers who can do what the railway needs when it needs it doing". Steve's complaint sounds more like "I'm willing to volunteer so you must find me something worthwhile to do when I want to do it". Whether more MPD activity at weekends would make economic sense is a very good question. The answer should be driven by cost/benefit analysis including the benefit of volunteer's potential weekend contributions.

 

I'd suggest that the fact that one railway had the ability to make constructive use of ad-hoc volunteering opportunities, and another is very restrictive, indicates a significant problem with the more restrictive railway and it's ability to get the best out of the (potentially) available resources.

It is ridiculous for a volunteer based movement to simultaneously bemoan the reducing availability of volunteers due to changing lifestyle patterns, and simultaneously put barriers in the way of the same people when they do seek to volunteer.

The framing of this cuts to the heart of the challenge, and demonstrates the depth of cultural challenge that's required to genuinely encourage volunteers.

 

Good points but wasted on the NYMR management, who I fear have strongly ingrained prejudices and closed ears (and eyes!). When one sees the phrase "The answer should be driven by cost/benefit analysis including the benefit of volunteer's potential weekend contributions." its is immediately obvious that there is really no hope with this management.

 

Back to diesel today, due to fire risk / nearby fires

31128 37264 37688 47077 out, 44806 single trip.

Woodsmith Mine staff evacuated as Langdale Moor wildfire enters third week - BBC News

 

With respect to Tom it is self evidently how the number was arrived at. In don’t in fact think it is correct other than if you wanted to replace say operational volunteers with paid staff. Many volunteers do a full time equivalent job, and many jobs can be broken down differently.

Is this the nub of the problem for the Moors perhaps? Having traveled further than most down the employed route there are embedded costs (redundancy payments) that can obstruct the cost reduction exercise. It is perfectly possible to get into a situation where you want to reduce headcount but lack the cash to be able to do so.

Is there a trend towards more employees? In some areas for sure employees are necessary, but in others I do think it can be an “easy way”. Recruiting volunteers is extremely difficult, but not impossible. One thing that I witness is that you first must have happy existing volunteers.

This is rubbish, and would appear to confirm @35B point. You HAVE to accept that volunteers will be available at different times to when conventionally employees would be. A different and more imaginative management approach is required to address the tension between the modern world, the changes to demographics, legislation on one hand and volunteering on the other. I am very much afraid that the the NYMR has developed a rather wooden way of thinking. Hardly unique in heritage railways, but decidedly unhelpful.

 

Loco roster makes no sense. 37688 and 31128 are both meant to be at both Pickering and Whitby simultaneously!

 

Calling it "wooden" thinking thinking is flattering imho - well on the way to "ossified" would be a lot more realistic.

 

I assume!!

31128 0915/1000/1200/1410/1615 start/finish Grosmont
37688 1040/1235/1510/1710 start Grosmont/finish Pickering

 

37688 definitely on 10.40 Grosmont to Whitby.

 

I agree; there has to be commitment. But what I observe is that other railways achieve this without anything like the level (relative or absolute) of permanent staffing at NYMR.

 

Pebbles has just come off the 12.35 ex Whitby at Grosmont and gone to the north end so is presumably going back there and replacing 31128 on the 13.25 to Whitby.

 

Cheers Steve, so 31128 blocked in to work 1330 back to Pickering until after Whitby departs with 37688.

Hark back to the days of 2023 when loco swaps were common place at Deviation!

 

When I first got involved with the NYMR they had paid drivers and firemen. However, if volunteers were available to do these things, the paid staff dropped onto other jobs such as loco maintenance, carriage maintenance, trackwork or whatever and this was the more usual thing for them to do. It is called multi-tasking and this can be applied throughout the business.

 

Loco swaps at Deviation are no longer allowed except in an emergency as the railway is not signalled to allow it and it also means leaving a set on the gradient. It was much more operationally convenient, though.

 

Thanks for the update Steve, wasn't aware of the change, I will have to check my notes, when it actually last was for me, old Sunday timetable from memory, making sure Whitby diesel was always at Grosmont.

 

I suspect this might be how it is done at railways with much smaller numbers of paid staff, but would it ever be acceptable within the confines of Park Street? It would certainly be desirable to do so. As a further employee has stated on the NYMR Unofficial Forum: "...in 90s the marketing team strength was one person with sporadic attendance of one other. This was the time of peak passenger numbers." Surely those numbers could be used to temporarily add someone from another department when needed - even the CEO!

 

It certainly works at one larger railway where I have seen the MD driving at events on more than one occasion. Lineisclear has even been working closely with said MD according to a post last night. I am sure there is a reason why such multi-tasking can't be done at the NYMR though.

 

In fairness, a criticism I've heard previously of NYMR has been the reliance on paid staff to fill gaps in the roster, and the disruption that has caused to planned work. I do not dismiss what @Lineisclear writes, because he does raise important concerns, reinforced by what @Sidmouth writes. Rather, it is the culture around that which I question, and which IMHO disproportionately discounts the value of volunteers, and privileges the use of paid staff.

At the risk of boring myself by repetition, the challenge is one of culture - and step one in dealing with that challenge is to look for how volunteers can be used, not for constraints on their use.