North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Here is the very problem, an organisation addicted to tax payers money like it is crack! It sees no reason for reform of its gargantuan wage bill. I travelled on the railway for the first time in ages this year, in fact the last time was when both 60044 and myself were presented with long service awards! It was depressing, from cocked up bridges and the loss of operational flexibility at Goathland to NER signals at Levisham, devoid of paint and bleached grey by the sun to long temporary speed restrictions due aging rail fixings and Mark 1 carriages still not repaired after a rough shunt some time back.
Yet this is the situation after a massive HLF injection of cash along with the aforementioned handouts from ACE, it is a railway that can barely sustain the basics.
Why this situation has arisen is because the NYMR is now an organisation run for the convenience of its employees. Many of those who still volunteer do so for their own satisfaction rather than out of a sense of belonging and community. As can be seen by crews not wanting to drive diesels because of the drought induced steam ban, where once turns of would have fulfilled out of a sense of duty and not wanting to let the railway down.
Demands on the public purse are increasing, governments of whatever shade are going to find their room to manoeuvre restricted. The NYMR should not count on continuing handouts.

Sawdust.

 

The recent NYMR Trust Strategic Plan was mostly marketing waffle, but did contain this pithy, brutally on-target, observation: "The Trust is dependent on its income from visitors and donors to fund its operations. It has no underpinning public funding. It relies on its supporters, including 8,000 members and 800 volunteers, together with legacies and occasional capital grants to fill the gap between fare income and the ca £11M annual cost of preserving and operating the railway".

Which is it? Are the "supporters, including 8,000 members and 800 volunteers" the ones who have to "fill the gap between fare income and the cost of preserving and operating the railway", or is it "other entities"? (Although technically I suppose that one could claim that "other entities" could be classified as 'supporters', too - the "including" wording above does leave the class of 'supporters' open.)

Actually, I reckon it is both that are needed - along with the labour (not money - although they may also contribute) of volunteers, who provide a goodly amount of free labour (which does not show up on the accounts).

Today's NYMR? Learn?

Noel

 

It would help immeasurably if you were to even understand how to formulate a reply, whether it might be absolute c**p or pure gold wisdom!

 

So, please ennunciate where the funds that underpin the railway's date to day expenses come from, and how much they amount to?

 

OK so a genuine question. What would you do? The assumption that a combination of membership financial support and income from visitors will sustain the railway has not been true for some time. That’s not unique to the NYMR.

The usual answer is reduce cost especially labour cost . ,Fine but doing that will also reduce capability to run on as many days and at the levels we’ve been used to.
It seems sometimes as if there’s a belief that the railway is under a duty to operate 7 days a week with an intensive train service because that is what the members and volunteers expect. Just run them and then it’s the job of marketing to fill the seats. That assumes demand is there at a realistic price point but what if it’s not?
You can’t suddenly magic an army of suitable volunteers to replace paid staff so cutbacks are unavoidable, Are you robust enough to make the difficult decisions that are bound to be unpopular with many members? Being a Trustee is a tough volunteer role when there are no easy or painless options.

 

If the hard facts are so clear, please state them - although I doubt that you can. For example, I read in Moors Line that the new MIC at Grosmont was made possible by a grant, but the match funding, of a similar amount, came from a private donor. That is a project that would not have happened I in a prudently managed world( without the support of that donor. The repair of 80135's boiler is only taking place as a result of the receipt of a bequest . I would say that if one took into account the amount of paid staff time ~because volunteers, who were responsible for writing the last large HLF application, but who have seen their roles taken over by "professional" managers - these awards, such as they are, are greatly diminished in value.

I do, however, look forward to seeing an answer that replies to these questions with some detail and facts! I'm afraid this will not do:

OK so a genuine question. What would you do? The assumption that a combination of membership financial support and income from visitors will sustain the railway has not been true for some time. That’s not unique to the NYMR.
The usual answer is reduce cost especially labour cost . ,Fine but doing that will also reduce capability to run on as many days and at the levels we’ve been used to.
It seems sometimes as if there’s a belief that the railway is under a duty to operate 7 days a week with an intensive train service because that is what the members and volunteers expect. Just run them and then it’s the job of marketing to fill the seats. That assumes demand is there at a realistic price point but what if it’s not?
You can’t suddenly magic an army of suitable volunteers to replace paid staff so cutbacks are unavoidable, Are you robust enough to make the difficult decisions that are bound to be unpopular with many members? Being a Trustee is a tough volunteer role when there are no easy or painless options.

I have been clear from the outset the the NYMR has become overstaffed with managerial staff. There really needs to be a review of what those staff need to cope with, and what are really needed to cope with the current requirements. I seem to remember that in Ken Kitchen's day there were about three people in the accounts department, and they seemed to cope. How many are there now? Savings to be had there! Similarly in the marketing dept. Yes there are seats to sell and fill, but how many people are needed to do that? There should not be any a call for any culls in the engineering area as hey are all working on minimal resources. and the loco dept. seems inadequately resourced.

My own experience as a director of a small, hopelessly inadequately resourced company is that as little as possible should be spent. I don't think that mindset has reached the NYMR, nor has the understanding that spending as little as possible just defers, but piles up, problems down the line.

 

May one ask who/which message this was directed to? (The immediately preceding message was from me, but I suspect this might have been in response to another, earlier message.) May I also suggest in future the use of the convenient 'Reply' button, to avoid these problems?

Noel

 

As you point out, many lines face this problem. However, most of them seem to have found a way to answer it. Why not the NYMR?

You seem to be looking for an answer inside the usual 'business' box. Perhaps you need to think/look elsewhere - as many of the lines above do.

Noel

 

That's interesting lineisclear, you are the only individual I can recall for a long time expressing a need to operate 7 days a week. I myself have frequently called for a pattern of operating days and timetables shaped to generate the maximum income for the lowest cost.
The number of employees is not fixed, a reduction now does preclude increasing them down the line if demand can be increased. Indeed such a cycle occurred during my time on trust board.
What you don't seem to be able to recognise is that the percentage of income spent on wages and salaries is so large, it leaves too little to spend on the assets.
This problem with the NYMR seems to be recognised by everyone within industry that I come across. Also you have to consider that inflation is eroding the value of that income meaning it won't go as far as a decade ago.
Doing less can also mean your assets don't wear out as quickly. Some restructuring will probably allow for savings to be greater than any resulting reduction in services.
But mark my words, like with the country, sooner or later the only door that will be left open is slashing expenditure and there is no fat left on the assets to slash.

Sawdust.

 

But dismissing the membership out of hand isn't going to help either. Ignoring 50% of your annual donations is incredibly foolish. It sounds like you expect other bodies to give to money and grants whenever you ask for it, and you need that free money to pay for day to day running. As an outsider, that doesn't sound like a particularly sensible way to run a business.

The appeal to get 75029 has seemingly stalled. Bridge 42 funds are coming in at a trickle. 80135 is only being overhauled due to someone leaving the railway a lot of money in their will. One person has publicly stated the £650,000 they'd earmarked in their will won't be going to the railway anymore, and I'd imagine there are many more who have changed their wills to give money elsewhere. Potentially millions of pounds lost to the railway. If Peter Best wasn't so generous, you'd be down three locos and the new MIC at Grosmont wouldn't exist.

It comes across as very arrogant and condescending when you appear to be saying appealing to outside bodies to give you grants is more important to the railway than members and their donations. You make it sound like an either/or situation. I fully understand the boards needs to show its professionalism to the outside world, but you need everyone on your side, and it feels like you're concentrating on the few rather than the many.

 

Not true! However an earlier post summed it nicely when it implied a distinction between "supporters" i.e the thousands of subscription paying members, and those organisations that invest substantial funds in the charity. The reality is that they are all supporters to be encouraged and motivated but the discretionary financial contribution from those organisations is critical because of its relative size.

 

And if you then considered the efforts of people as donations in kind? What would those be worth?

The point is not the precise ratio, but the emphasis on specific kinds of funding and contribution over time, and the way that by omission it downplays the support of individuals.

 

Absolutely , but the discussion was about the relative financial contribution from membership subscriptions not the value of volunteers' practical support.

 

I beg to differ - and to the extent that it was, it was you that moved the conversation down the path of relative financial shares, rather than the purpose of engagement that was at the core of points made by @Steve, @Sawdust and others.