North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Then work on the relationships so that doesn’t happen. In reality, in an important role, a month’s notice is not long, especially if there’s holiday accrued.

I repeat. The issue here is about trust. If trust can’t be obtained without contracts, then something is badly wrong.

 

Well Bahamas was hired in earlier in the year and had four days running to Whitby before the season's first steam ban kicked in. I was fireman on the third day and got this shot of the runround process at Whitby.

Peter

 

Point 3: There is no doubt that in general volunteers are welcome, but but I'm not sure that they are always appreciated. We have seen on here that one influential person regards them as a costly administrative burden, for example. I suspect it all comes down to departmental heads and their attitudes. ~The PWay dept. as a case in point, there is a strong volunteer presence, but it seems to be shrinking; almost all seem to be ex-YAG members and they are gradually giving up as the age. There seem to be very few, if any, new additions.

Point 4: If you look at the NYMR Volunteers page on Facebook, I think you'll see that dissatisfaction with the CEO (and PLC Management as a whole) is more widespread than just a minority - someone who posts on here quite a lot is not popular either! My criticism of the CEO is that they seem to have a very limited repertoire, strong at making economies that will come to cripple the railway before too long but weak at making anything better.

Point 5: I don't know where the figure of 7 came from either - I think the number is 17 in the advertising department, as quoted earlier in this thread, though I don't know where it came from, or how it was arrived at. Perhaps it includes "peripherals" such as the IT manager as they will probably responsible for posting advertising/publicity materials on the interweb. As Dr. Johnson said, "it is not done well, but one is surprised to see it done at all!" As for the flower being a wheel, the NYMR logo has always been a wheel for nearly as long as I've been a member, so it's around 50 years now!

 

Ps Tornado is back on; 10.55 ex Pickering then the Pullman

 

Thanks for correcting me - I do remember now.

 

Perhaps you've identified the key issue which defines what, for many, a heritage railway is. There are some that rely almost totally on paid staff but they're dismissed as not "proper" heritage railways. The emotive ideal is seen as an essentially volunteer run and staffed operation that may tolerate some employees if it has to but as few as possible please! Trust that volunteers will do the the jobs that are needed as and when they are required is fundamental. The argument for that ideal is often couched in economic terms focussing on the financial value of volunteers. That's actually demeaning of volunteers' contributions. It risks them being regarded just as free labour. What's really different from the predominantly "commercial" heritage railways is a selfless contribution to a worthwhile cause that sustains a culture of shared commitment based on trust. There's no one size fits all nor perfect solution . At the end of the day the object is that the railway continues and, in the case of those that are charities, that they can continue to fulfill their charitable purposes. Some may find that for whatever reason (and many have been aired on here) they need a higher proportion of paid staff, with more reliance on contractual obligations. That doesn't mean they are any less heritage railways then those that can remain viable as wholly volunteer ones. As has been noted before the sector is not renowned for the generosity of its pay levels. Experience of trying to recruit and retain staff is that many are motivated to join or remain for reasons other than money. That's an important factor. There may be some paid staff that are only there for the pay cheque but the reality is that most are motivated by the same commitment to a worthwhile cause as their volunteer colleagues. Suggesting that they are a second best alternative to the purity of a relationship built on trust risks damaging what for many heritage railways is a resource that they cannot survive without. It may not satisfy the purist view of what a heritage railway should be but accepting that contractually bound staff may be just as critical to success as trusted volunteers is far more likely to secure its future.

 

I fundamentally disagree. This is not about whether a heritage railway can be a heritage railway if it relies on paid staff. It is about the trust placed in those working, and the attitude to them.

If trust is impossible without contracts, then a great deal more is broken than just the numbers.

You are arguing for a model in which the railway is run by paid staff, and volunteers may participate. That is a fundamental change from the historic norm on most heritage railways, and it disregards important aspects of culture.

I also notice that there is no response to my comment about the parallel position in churches, where legal duties are taken by volunteers that cannot in law be taken by paid staff.

 

I think what causes the accusation of “not a proper heritage railway” is that none of the lines which are entirely or mostly employed are not able to do anything that isn’t essential to the operation of the trains. Volunteers permit a greater variety of activities to be undertaken and generally the largely or fully employed railways do not do (as a result) as good a job of presenting the history.

Where I see tensions being created is where it isn’t clear what the railway wants to be. I am very clear about what the Bluebell is about. I think it is clear what both the FR and WHR are. The KESR, KWVR and many many others are also clear. What does the NYMR want to be? It proposes to be a museum but spends most of its efforts and targets it efforts on acting as a park and ride.

 

You will have far greater understanding of that relationship than I but I note you emphasize dependence on trust. If the church is happy to trust that the tasks involved will be undertaken when needed what's the problem? What it can't do is to oblige the volunteer to do what's needed when its required.

 

..... and definitely is among the Trust membership and volunteers. but, then, we are seen as an expensive nuisance by the management and our views are disregarded by them.

 

Indeed, it cannot. But it also must rely on volunteers for critical roles, up to and including taking legal accountability for things like adherence to CDM regulations.

The point is not that this is perfect - it can't be - but that by being volunteer reliant, it forces leaders to build a culture of trust so that they can rely on people doing what they say they will do. As the Bob Meanley report on Flying Scotsman demonstrated, applying a model that works quite well for the sort of large corporates that you and I work(ed) for is not a robust model in a much smaller, craft based, industry.

The emphasis on contracts reminds me of the workman who, having trained to use a hammer, uses only a hammer despite the threading on the "nail".

 

It seems to be forgotten that it was the members who voted to extend to Whitby! It's easy to overlook the fact that the majority of passengers want to enjoy the "park and ride" facility which between Pickering and Grosmont affords them the same experience as those who only travel over that section. The locos and coaches (yes even including the mark 1's) are museum artefacts being operated in a living museum context not as static exhibits.

 

I completely agree - and have stated that paid staff will be essential. I also fully acknowledge that there may be a particular necessity for them in compliance roles*. My concern, though, is the framing of this in quasi-contractual terms, as though the existence of the piece of paper is a guarantee (and, yes, the comparison to Chamberlain is intended).

* - I have reservations about dedicated compliance management as, without great care in defining the role and objectives, it is dangerously easy for their focus to drift away from compliance supporting activity to compliance as a goal in its own right.

 

I would be careful in how far you press that point - the provision of interpretation about what the trains are is far from robust. That is not just a failing of NYMR, by the way.

 

I vaguely remember, back when I was HRA Webmaster, some mention of liability cover for all HRA Officers so we were personally protected in the event of someone suing if they thought they had been given bad advice. I would hope that everyone in a similar advisory position in whatever organisation has similar cover (and that they never need to rely on it!)

 

Wow. That is the best description of the NYMR that I have heard or read.

 

Well any employee can walk away Steve but their employment contract will have a notice period, which in 99.9% of the cases will not lead to serious damage being done. My company had 1 month, 3 month and six month notice periods depending on grade and length of service. We were normally very attuned to making a decent "settlement" so even those on the longer time periods only had to hang around for 4 or 6 weeks. There was one case though where a colleague of mine (same grade as me), although he back then purchased the food for the onboard meals and had to be at Covent Garden Market most mornings about 05:00 was made to work every second of his six months, I guess partly as the role was very difficult to fill and by the spite of his GM for the problem it caused him.
I guess the last laugh was with my former colleague who was within 10 years a millionaire.

Volunteers of course could walk away today, or even in the middle of the day.