North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

The 1200 public ex Pickering was stopped at Levisham for an hour waiting for the late running FS, no heating, not a popular delay as it ate into Whitby time.

 

Something has just arrived at Grosmont. Looks like load 3, no idea of the loco but 44806 is on the roster.

 

Oh dear. I'm not up to speed with what happened over the weekend, but that sounds like that train started in the wrong place, either due to operational issue or planning error. Either way that'll be a loss on one of the Whitby slots passengers have been advised to use to help with parking....

EDIT - they didn't lose the slot but ran it late, causing a 15 min delay to the Northern Rail service.

 

Hard to believe the first service to Whitby was at 12h00 yesterday despite the Goth Weekend, one of the biggest of the year.

Have the management's pay rises clouded their judgement?

It's clearly a sharp learning curve for some on the boards unused to railways. The question is, will the money last long enough?

 

If only they'd stuck ton running Locomotion No. 1 and its special train between Pickering and New Bridge - at least they manage3d to do that reaso9nably successfully!

 

The real test of the Boards, as the events are the brainchild and responsibility of the paid staff, is how they respond to the shortcomings in the arrangements that have been made painfully obvious. The rapping of knuckles ought to be severe enough to result on lots of broken fingers, because that management should admit responsibility. Apart from the FS debacle, its very disappointing that the NYMR were once again unwilling or unable to try to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the Goth weekend in Whitby. The real question, though, is whether there are sufficient people on the two boards, to whom the paid staff are answerable, with the backbone to stand up and issue the knuckle rapping, and will their other colleagues back them up. This is likely to be a pivotal moment: are the paid staff's mistakes irrelevant and they are unassailable, or can they be meaningfully called to account? I've made my feelings clear, so I hope we'll hear in turn fro9m the chief apologist.

 

To be fair the role of Chairman of a board demands that they support the staff in public. They may have other private views that they shouldn’t share.

The issue of effective oversight of management is difficult in any company, but it is especially so in heritage railways. There is a lot of knowledge and expertise within the volunteers and members, and very often this is not well harnessed. It can feel very threatening to some especially managers, and too much control from the board is of course micro management - and undesirable.

 

What do you mean by "accountability"? Like you, I'm frustrated at the weaknesses that we're seeing, but I'm also uncomfortable about individuals being publicly held out by their own organisation - especially if there is any possibility of sanction.

What I'd be more interested in seeing, not least because it would deliver much more for the railway, is where the strategy and tactics of the railway are being altered to maximise opportunity. Ideally, that would involve a degree of critical difference between the two boards, so that the Trust can clearly hold the operating company to account for the wider goals of the Trust. At the moment, and respecting what @21B says about the role of a chairman, that doesn't come across.

 

The leadership of a heritage railway is a pretty challenging role. The diversity of the organisation is extreme. There are few others like it, and none that I can think of in the heritage and museum space.

Most heritage centres don’t carry people around in the exhibit nor are they in a regulated industry. To a degree often not seen elsewhere they are reliant upon volunteers, and those volunteers must be exceptionally dedicated and expert in some areas.

It isn’t that safety critical work doesn’t exist in other museums, but perhaps not to the extent that the overwhelming majority of the volunteers and staff are engaged in such work. The balance of paid and unpaid is unusual in being very heavily skewed to unpaid.

Not many organisations are catering, retail, civil engineering, train operations, heavy engineering and entertainment.

With the ever developing regulatory environment and the squeeze on resources, that creates a background of challenge. Without commenting directly on individuals, I am not sure that the support structure available within most heritage railways is up to the job of enabling senior management to be successful, and I suspect that many senior managers struggle to deal with the day to day workload, let alone plan a better future.

I also watch boards struggling to cope with how to support their senior managers. Boards made up principally of outsiders to the organisation are not a recipe for success, but neither are those without external expertise and experience.

 

Who said anything about "individuals being publicly held out"? Board meetings are not normally held publicly, so there's no reason for anyone holding back at such a meeting. That said, though, there's no reason why robust criticism shouldn't be followed by equally stringent example of what went wrong and why, and if it proves the the paid staff were ill-advised or under-resourced, then the opportunity should be taken to find them stronger and wider ranging support from within the volunteers and the wider membership. It would be a good opportunity to rebuild the links between those groups and break down any "us and them" attititudes that have developed.

 

In which case, I was misled by your reference to hearing from "the chief apologist" into thinking you meant something public.

 

The person I'm thinking of as the "chief apologist" I should perhaps more aptly described as the "chief defender excuse-maker and justifier" for the NYMR management - you will perhaps recognise him better as a self-confessed Levisham signalman......

 

I knew precisely who you meant.

 

Is it me but isn't this thread getting a bit personal and drifting front objectivity ?

Sent from my SM-A556B using Tapatalk

 

Perhaps, but people make decisions and should be prepared to stand by them. Equally, those who offer seemingly uncriticising support should themselves understand that they will be open to taking criticism. If I felt that the only viable option had been followed I'd stay quiet, but I'm convinced it wasn't; I'm not even sure that the options were considered.

 

And this is where public fora like this reach their limit - some things do need to be addressed in private. The acid test will be in what changes going into 2026.

 

Possibly the acid test will be the financial results in 2027? By which time change will have delivered for good or ill?

 

I do find this one of the most depressing threads on here (more so that the WSR debacle a couple of years back)
It is like being back at work where you hear people endlessly criticising "management" yet rarely having any valid alternatives beyond doing what may have worked back in time long before the world moved on.

 

At risk of getting feedback myself I'll put my two pennies worth in. I agree this is quite often one of the more depressing areas and its sometimes easy to jump in with the criticism without offering good alternatives. Though many of the railways failings in recent times has been due to not getting the basics right.

Pricing - Even the railways own data presented at the AGM showed that ticket prices had outpaced inflation, and as soon as that happened the bums on seats reduced. I think they know where they have gone wrong here but need to stop lurching through totally different strategies to fix it. Others have suggested this before but i believe just holding at current prices for a year or two will bring these back in line. And its so common that everybody puts prices up every year holding prices can be used in publicity as a hook. Separately I do think the whole Gift Aid donation fare is a bit messy (and confusing at first glance) though that subject already has enough history in this thread.

Diesel Running - I think the railway missed a trick not offering a small discount during the enforced Steam Bans. I know of many customers that didn't travel due the higher prices without any steam engines. The railway did very well maintaining a service under the circumstances but I feel missed out of more business than they should of for not offering a small concession. Even if it had been extra vouchers for the cafes it would of been something.

Running days - If the data supports not running the majority of Thursdays and Fridays then that is a legitimate business decision. But I think there was a major own goal including school holidays in that. Any school holidays at least by North Yorkshire timings the railway should be open. I just don't understand why you wouldn't be.

Local Events - A relatively easy win for the railway should be researching events going on at along the line. Any day there is an event going on that brings in a decent amount of people the railway should be running trains to help support the movement of those people. If the railway wants to get more involved then that's another conversation but at the very least there should be trains running to capitalize. Goth weekend was mentioned recently. The Goathland Beer festival didn't have any late trains. I'm sure there are others.

Railway Events - The Steam Gala and the Diesel Gala this year prove the railway can run big events well. There has been experimenting with other small events which, while I don't buy into all of them, I do agree that there are lots of different markets that can be tapped and need to be tried. With regard to the FS days I don't know if constraints were put on after the booking, or the railway is now just so desperate for money they couldn't run it in a different way or with other trains supporting. But parking issues and late running have been the headlines. I've no doubt that the money coming in will show it as a huge success but I really hope lessons are learned fast in where that operation and the attached communication can be improved.

Teaks - The situation with the teaks and the LNERCA is scandalous in my opinion. There is an agreement to run stock that isn't being maintained to the required standard on the NYMR's part and as such that stock isn't being run. In my mind there must be a contract breach there somewhere. To then use images of that stock in advertising is frankly dishonest and shows a product that isn't actually being offered. To then add in at the AGM 'we don't them' just adds insult to injury. If they expect owning groups and trusts to work with them then reputation is key. There's a big mess there that needs sorting out one way or another. I've said it before but i think there is a real risk here that the railway will have to return the coaches to running condition whether they choose to then run them or not. At least if they do it soon they will get mileage out of them that could reduce some wear on an internal MK1 set.

I could go on but the general theme is get the basics right and apply common sense.

 

A little unfair, I think I've put a lot of suggestions forward, and so have others - and many of them are either new, or suggest better ways of doing things. What I really disagree with, though, is the suggestion that things that have worked in the past should be allowed continue unchanged - but I also do not agree that the traditional business model has changed beyond all recognition, what we should really be looking at is looking to offer a more varied and sophisticated offering, as a better value product.