North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Well ... yes

I'm not sure (and the author of that report is certainly free to correct me!) that any of the significant recommendations came to pass. Structurally, give or take the odd change in a charity's name, the overall WSR "family" still has the same structure, the same mix of support charities with minority shareholdings in an operating company, and the same strengths and weaknesses that such a structure confers. I think really the only significant change between now and five years ago is that as personalities within the organisation have changed, a lot of the heat has gone out of the arguments for reform. My sense is that that railway is considerably more harmonious than it was, but that is not the same as saying it has undergone any kind of structural reform; the organisations on the railway simply seem to work together better than previously.

There is an interesting comparison to be made between the two railways. In gross terms, the WSR is 10% longer in track length than the NYMR, and has twice as many stations to maintain. Yet in financial terms, it is half the size of the NYMR. So it would be very interesting to understand why the NYMR is a £7m per year organisation to run trains on 18 miles of their own track (and 6 miles of someone else's); yet the WSR is a £3m per year organisation to run trains on a line of at least comparable size.

I wouldn't want to push things too far, since the WSR itself is not without its own financial issues. But it is interesting that the two are comparably-sized railways, but not comparably-sized companies.

Tom

 

Where to begin? I'm sure that everyone following this thread will be largely aware of my views, but I'll sum them up by saying that the NYMR has forgotten its roots and history, and is paying less attention to being a heritage railway - and that is showing in its revenue which doesn't seem to be increasing year on year of late, and certainly isn't keeping costs with its running expenses; at the same time, the only expense it seems to be able to control is its maintenance budget - and then only by keeping up with maintenance. It hasn't dawned on its management why BR closed it, and why in the early stages of revival it was primarily run and managed by volunteers, but sadly it seems to alienating more and more of its volunteers and supporters, and there's a real and increasing risk of the supply of volunteers, and their supporter's money drawing up. They need to change their approach, but can they do it in time?

 

I think it's very telling that the word "historical" was dropped from the trust name.

Sawdust.

 

A question for Lineisclear, how many members of the trust board were volunteers on the railway before becoming directors of the trust, besides yourself?

Sawdust.

 

FYI voting is now open to members of the NYMR to vote for new Trustees of the Trust Board, with voting closing at 5pm on the 14th October, with the AGM set for 10am on the 18th October.

 

Those who volunteer to serve on the Trust Board are just as much working volunteers as those helping the railway in any other capacity. By my calculation in terms of having been a working volunteer in any other capacity before election the answer is all but two. In answer to your other question the dropping of the word historical has absolutely no significance. A company’s name does not establish its aims. In the case of the NYMR those are its registered charitable purposes. Shortening of the company name and getting charity commission consent to dispense with limited was just to achieve something less cumbersome.

 

You forget I served on trust board for twelve years and while the role may have changed a bit over time, I don't imagine that the meetings have got much shorter or less tedious over the last 25 years.

Sawdust.

 

I’m sure they weren’t a bundle of laughs then either!

 

They are indeed but, as far as I'm concerned, people should have been regular volunteers before being put up for Trust Board. It is my opinion that they should have an understanding of the ethos of the NYMR and what it means and not someone parachuted in with none of those qualifications. Again, in my opinion that is at the heart of what has gone wrong with the Railway and its management.

 

I think this is half true - outsiders with a genuine interest can add to a board, helping it go beyond being purely inward looking.

 

But understanding the ethos is paramount and you need to be part of it to do that.

 

That, IMHO, is a recipe for complacency and stagnation. A positive ethos will welcome external influences while also moulding those outsiders to its shape.

What worries me in discussions here is that the volunteer ethos is being treated as dangerous, and that the skills and experience of volunteers are not being given the respect they’re due, but treated as a threat.

I will also observe that the behaviours I see exhibiting that are espoused by someone who is unquestionably a volunteer. That further suggests to me that the “volunteer test” is a flawed basis for assessing the composition of a board

 

Whilst a positive ethos will welcome external influences, I do believe that Trustees need a deep understanding and passion for the railway; what makes it tick, are staff and volunteers “happy”, what are their ideas for improvement etc, and there is no better way of gaining this knowledge than by volunteering in advance of becoming a Trustee.

Volunteering ethos is a positive trait, and volunteers and are as equally important as paid members of staff; the railway cannot and would not exist without either. In my experience they exist alongside each other, showing mutual respect and an understanding of this truth. Nevertheless there is a need to maximise volunteer input so as to minimise staff costs, but totally understand the need to employ staff to ensure the smooth operation of the railway; to ensure booking offices, shops, tea shop and even all signal boxes remain open even if there is a shortage of volunteers on any one day, that some posts need to be occupied by full time staff to ensure continuity of thought, and that there are quite a few tasks that volunteers are reluctant to fill.

I’m a volunteer, and would like to think I exhibit positive behaviours!

 

I’m a volunteer in my own field, and completely recognise that volunteers have an essential role - indeed, I’m a critic of how some at NYMR portray volunteer engagement in governance. Part of that criticism is absolutely about the seeming unwillingness to acknowledge the importance of their insights and expertise.

That doesn’t mean that I believe governance of a volunteer led organisation should be limited to active volunteers. External directors, supportive of but independent from, the organisation can provide an extra perspective, bringing other experience to bear and enriching the organisation.

The dosage is vital, and they need to be chosen with care. But as trustees, there to pursue the goals of the Trust, and to help hold the plc to account for how it supports those goals, they could be very valuable - especially if selected to balance and challenge constructively the plc board.

 

Surely the Director role is voluntary, thus making them a volunteer?

By this definition, though I assist my local line with office-based work, I wouldn't qualify for volunteer status.

 

Yes the Trustee role is voluntary, and thus all Trustees are by definition all volunteers! In your example where you assist with office-based work yes you qualify for volunteer status. In my views it doesn’t matter the type of voluntary work, whether office-based, customer based, back office, train crew, p-way or what ever, as as all voluntary work is equally important to the success of of a heritage railway (or whatever). But I do believe such voluntary work is an essential pre requisite to becoming a Trustee or similar.

 

For a Trustee / Director, clearly in performing that role they are volunteering. But the harsh question is how you answer the "and what do you do?" question from somebody on the shop floor (so to speak) who doesn't know any of the names or personalities. In other words, there is a tendency to write off the Trustee / Director role, and ask "but what's your real job". That conversation becomes easier if you can say "signalman / shunter / pway / membership secretary" etc.

I am absolutely not saying that the role of Director / Trustee is "not a real job", "not really volunteering" , "easy", or anything of that ilk (though some may perceive it thus). But I do think the job is easier if you also have, or had, a "shop floor" type role first.

I think there are two main reasons for that.

Firstly, it helps you understand the railway "as it is", rather than "as you think it is", or "as it is documented" - which may be two different things. In any job, it's one thing (for example) to look at a staff structure and job descriptions to try to understand the work that occurs; it is an entirely different thing to see what people actually do day-to-day.

Secondly, when there are hard messages to convey - a cut in service levels, mothballing a long-cherished plan, disposing of a significant asset - then it helps if the person who has to convey the message feels like "one of us", not "one of them". Otherwise it is too easy for an attitude of "lions led by donkey's to develop: "one more push and we'll be in Berlin by summer" is better conveyed from the front line than a Chateau 30 miles in the rear.

Tom

 

And that brings the distinction between the director/trustee and managerial roles into sharp view.

A board clearly needs to be anchored in the operation - that goes without saying. But an external view and voice is reasonable, as part of a balanced board.

 

Making previous contribution as a volunteer as pre requisite of standing for election as a trustee would require a change in the Trust's constitution. It would also rule out useful experience and talent at a time when much greater attention is being paid to corporate governance and the composition of boards. At the end of the day the decision as to whether to elect those without previous volunteering involvement lies with the members. What is already done is that the Nominations Committee take volunteering experience in the railway into account. However, that could be beefed up. A change not requiring amendment of the Articles of Association might be for the terms of reference for the Nominations Committee to ensure that a set percentage of candidates have a track record of volunteering on the railway. Of course it raises an interesting question. The paid staff also have relevant and useful experience. It's generally accepted that they are as essential to the railway as volunteers (even if the number required may be disputed). Many are also working volunteers. Whether they are, or not, why should they be excluded from volunteering as trustees? There is no legal basis for exclusion. Trustees can be paid for for their day jobs as long as they aren't paid for acting as trustees. There may well be employees with heritage railway knowledge, experience and skills who would make excellent trustees.

 

All fair comments, but the role of the nominations committee is fundamental - yet operates in an opaque manner.

And there we get to what I consider to be the heart of the issue - the ability of the board, through it's control of who sits on the nominations committee, to very strongly influence who may be chosen to sit on the trust board. Questions about whether members are or were volunteers at NYMR or elsewhere are a distraction while that mechanism of control exists. It is all very well to say that "the decision as to whether to elect those without previous volunteering involvement lies with the members", but if the nomination committee do not pass candidates into the election, members have in effect no choice.