North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

The detection of the motor points does allow the home signal to be cleared. However, as the signal is a mechanical semaphore, subsequent loss of detection would not cause the signal to revert to danger. Current signalling principles accept this when the box is open (presumably expecting the signalman to spot the problem), but not when it is closed. Suitable mitigations could be a motor-operated or colour light home signal. Alternatively, maybe clipping/ padlocking and scotching the points before switching out would be acceptable.

The level crossing barriers operate hydraulically, and the mechanisms are of the order of 50 years old. It isn't certain that the manual pumping necessary to raise the barriers if the box were switched out would always be reliable. This could cause frustration and lead to abuse issues such as not bothering to lower the barriers after crossing. Train drivers would not receive the usual white light to prove that the barriers were down and wig-wag lights were flashing, which would lead to operating delays while the crossing was checked and the train authorised to proceed. This is something to be avoided.

 

Thanks for that @Lanky. It's good to have an informed post. I hope that it is the start of many more. As a matter of interest and better knowledge, if it is locked (and proved to be locked) is it possible for it to become unlocked by non-intentional means?
With regard to the barriers not being lowered by Joe Public, that has always been the case and many's the time I've had to stop and lower them when the box was switched out. Many's the time a Levisham Womble has done the same for us, as well, another 'facility' we've lost. It's inconvenient but not so much that it could be regarded as a problem.

 

Views may well of course vary on this, but in most businesses I think that the managers report and answer to a director. It seems to me to be a conflict of interest to expect managers answer to themselves, and that it would be better to have non-executive directors. Of course that would probably not be the case in a small company, but we've been told by a former Trust board director that it's a SME nowadays.......

As for running out of money, that's really what we're all afraid of, and it's why the forthcoming visit of Flying Scotsman is so crucial as so 0f us think the NYMR is going to do exactly that around the end of this year if the visit goes badly, and no-one wants that to happen, but part of preventing must be to not waste whatever cash remains, and not pay more people than it can afford.

 

When you say "it", I presume you mean the points? It's hard to think of anything that would cause the points to motor inadvertently, but malicious interference, though unlikely, can never be ruled out. Loss of detection due problems with electrical contacts, vibration or general wear and tear would seem more likely, but scheduled testing is carried out to keep the equipment in good order.

 

You do make headcount reductions sound so simple and "forcing" staff to take on roles of others. I am sure if was all so simple we would have virtually DOO trains everywhere to name one example.
Yes you may find there are volunteers who want to do more than one role, I see many on my local line but logic says if you say want to be a guard and a TTI you will ask to do both.
Just making paid staff redundant and then replacing in them with a volunteer is probably going to land you with a claim for unfair dismissal, maybe breach of contract, and may border on constructive dismissal. I assume the paid staff are non union, but I have no idea, the RMT seem to love "representing" staff who at best only have a casual relationship with the railway.
Does their current contract of employment allow for them to have to undertake other tasks, or will the JD have to change which logically lead to a salary increase?
Still you seem to have all the answers so we will have to see if the MYMR adopts them.

 

You seem to have fallen into Lineisclear's "too difficult mode! With regard to multi-tasking, I think you argument is irrelevant, because I don't think the NYMR employs any TTIs; they are all volunteers or there are none present (unless I'm out of date!) but in the past I believe the Guards did that task.

I've said before, I'm not particularly advocating redundancies for precisely the reasons you advocate, but I cannot see what the objection would be to not replacing someone who has left voluntarily and using a volunteer in their stead.

FWIW I don't see a huge loss of people, with none going through redundancy, and I don't actually see many, if indeed any, lost on the operating and maintenance sides. In these days of EPOS systems, for example, I think there are economies to be had, and in office staff I think there could well be scope for fewer of them, with the ones left doing a bit more job sharing if it helps to save a post - it's in their self interest after all - no-one wants to lose their job involuntarily.

Ironically, considering you have accused me of adhering to adherence to outdated practices in past missives, your own thinking seems to be very dated, perhaps stuck in the days when BA was itself barely keeping itself going but probably managers like yourself were fighting to retain their typing pool?

 

I chose TTI as an example it could easily have been trackside gang and driver or fireman, or porter and booking office clerk.
Well you always claim the NYMR has far too many paid staff, so if you do not see many going where is the wage bill saving you claim can be made coming from?
I do not know where you worked but from my experience many paid staff do not willingly take on more without extra renumeration unless they are management level, where basically tyou can expect them to do anything. I assume most are not management level even if they have the word manager in their title

 

What is required now it's a top to bottom review of everything the NYMR does and how it does them, it really needs to be done by an outsider who will take an objective view. Something similar did happen in the late 70s.
Running out of money is a real danger and happened once before in 1984 when a certain high street bank withdrew the overdraft, fortunately on that occasion the then trust chairman (and I think secretary) were able to make a presentation to another bank who then took it over.
It is clear that as losses have only been reduced and not eliminated, that it is unlikely that sufficient income to support the present cost base can be generated in the near term, that coupled with inflation, high energy costs and a stagnant to shrinking economy should be giving the present directors and managers sleepless nights. To carry on as is without such a review would be irresponsible.

Sawdust.

 

But in the circumstances you cite, you might not want the review to be conducted in the full glare of publicity.

 

I stand by my opinion that the NYMR has too many paid staff, but one has to be realistic. It also doesn't have the money to pay for compulsory redundancies so really natural wastage is the best hope for the time being, along with the hope that some of them will understand the alternatives to being asked to take on some extra level of worklo0ad. Actually, in my experience (in the public sector) it was not unknown for people to be given extra responsibilities for no extra pay, particularly when it was clear to all the alternative would be no more job for some of them. I'd also stress that the type of job rationalisation I'm proposing is a lot easier in an office environment, and I have also said that I can only see it working amongst the office staff - perhaps the savings would not be great enough to solve the financial problems, but they would at least be a start. Personally, for example, I cannot see why the NYMR need a financial controller and a financial director, and combining those roles alone could save tens of thousands per year - probably nearly 90k/yr if it was the part-time one who was lost. So it might be possible to "only" save 150K in total, but at a time when there is an appeal proceeding very slowly to get the boiler from 75029 sent away for overhaul, and there is no money to pay for track renewal materials this winter, that surely would be a worthwhile sum?

 

Most large businesses of my acquaintance have executive and non executive directors, recognising that at a certain level, the idea of wholly separate reporting is untenable.

 

Again, though, I emphasise that (imho) the NYMR is not a large business, it's a small one, and making all its managers directors strips away a level of responsibility: the ultimate level of responsibility for those directors is now themselves.

 

That’s nonsense! Firstly because only a few senior managers have been made directors of the operating subsidiary…not all of them as claimed. Secondly because the ultimate level of responsibility is the Trustees.

 

Did anybody claim all of them had been? Similarly I wasn't mandating the percentage of staff to be made redundant, just illustrating my point.
As an aside a friend of my late father who ran a small plumbing business would calculate the cost of making his staff redundant every week, to ensure he never got into a position where he couldn't afford to let them go. I myself was made redundant by my own father just before Christmas in 1991 after work suddenly dried up. My last week was spent fitting bespoke fitted wardrobes in little Venice, that was not a jolly Christmas.

Sawdust.

Sawdust.

 

See post 7693 above.

 

Yes. See post 7693 above.

 

Didn't the WSR have such a review by an outsider a while ago?

 

Oh yeah, sorry was in the middle of cooking.

Sawdust.

 

Well I quite agree, I am not detecting any shift in attitude from eight years ago, so I suspect the chances of one are remote and change when it comes will forced unwillingly on those in charge and the results will be more devastating than anything I have suggested.

Sawdust.