North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Indeed, and I appreciate that.

But a lot of this argument is being played out in very black and white terms, whereas in fact there is a spectrum of commitment from "I've never heard of you" to "I'm your number one fan, I volunteer 5 days a week, contribute to all the appeals and have you written into my will". The point about members is that you already have evidence that they are already further along that commitment spectrum than others - so that is surely a relationship worth nurturing.

And yes, I am sure that someone will point to an individual who fits the template of "I'm your number one fan, I volunteer 5 days a week, contribute to all the appeals and have you written into my will - and I'm not a member". But I suspect those are a rarer group than those who are members.

Tom

 

There were lots of NP members last summer suggesting that it should be a 7 day operation, not reduced to 5 days I do not have time now to trawl back thought thousands of posts to locate them. Although I accept now it is more about the 5 days being the wrong ones.

 

I made no comment on their level of commitment. I describe them as third parties because they are independent organisations, not formally part of NYMR, and have their own pressures and drivers which may cause them to change approach to NYMR regardless of how NYMR nurtures the relationship.

I'd suggest that the conflation of members, supporters and grant givers into a single bucket is in itself a warning signal.

In my working life, I'd regard each as distinct classes of stakeholder, and then approach them each as distinct categories of stakeholder, with their own interests and values which I'd wish to nurture. It may just be how the points are expressed, but I see a number of signs - this discussion about AGM, changes to Moors Line - as strong signals that this is either not happening, or that the analysis is placing those third parties at the top of a hierarchy and discounting the value of individual members.

Ultimately, if as you say, this is a railway that cannot sustain itself through the farebox and relies on non-fare contributions, what you are describing is a big deals strategy, placing heavy reliance on a few large funders to make good the operating shortfall. It's a position that the railway has never publicly acknowledged, and which could be described as "putting all our eggs in one basket". Judging by what's publicly available about the appeal, it's hard to see that it's working as well as would be necessary.

 

There's one aspect of bequests that's worth thinking about, it seems to me. It feels like part of the mess at the NYMR is ('was', really - it's over, now, mostly) a struggle over power. One faction/group (I'm not sure how many there are, altogether) has emerged victorious, and has made changes to the governance structure to cement their grip.

People who leave money to the line aren't doing so as part of a desire for control/influence; by definition, they won't be there any more when the line gets their money. I suppose one could be cynical (or realistic, as this thought pattern does seem to have been real, for some people, historically), and say they are taking the attitude 'if I can't have the entity, nobody will'. I do get the impression, however, that the person who changed their mind about their large bequest was thinking 'the line is inevitably going bust, and will take my money with it, down the drain; I'd rather do something else with it, where it won't be wasted'.

The news of that person changing their mind had a tremendous impact on me; it was someone close to the line (who thus had a much better view of all the details than I do, from outside, far away) 'putting their money where their mouth is', in support of an analysis that the line was headed for failure. I'd be very curious to know what impact - if any - that news had inside the group currently in charge of the NYMR.

Noel

 

I too won't be leaving anything in my will to the NYMR, where once I would have done.

Sawdust.

 

Well if you listen to Lineisclear, that person with the bequest is not that important because they are 'just' a member/supporter and he would rather time is spent chasing Arts Council grants than looking after the members and supporters who have supported the line (financially and practically) through thick and thin for decades.
If all the volunteers decided to down tools for a week I think Lineisclear would soon realise just how valuable the members/supporters actually are (and not just in monetary terms).

 

I do get the impression, however, that the person who changed their mind about their large bequest was thinking 'the line is inevitably going bust, and will take my money with it, down the drain; I'd rather do something else with it, where it won't be wasted'.

He's not the only person thinking that way from what I have heard, and that includes me, for starters. A change of management led by someone more competent might change some of those minds, but whilst those installed them are still wielding influence and power it doesn't look hopeful.

Ihave been told that the present Trust Chairman wanted to step down, but has had to agree to stay on because they couldn't find anyone willing to replace him - this despite the fact that the Trust Board vacancies in the last few years have been filled by people approved by the selection committee. As the Chairman is no longer appointed by a member's vote at the AGM and now is elected by Trust Board members from within their ranks it is rather surprising that they can't find someone!

 

By the way, I'd like congratulate Lineisclear on his joining the ranks of the Yorkshire Light Keyboard Warriors.

Sawdust.

 

I understand the trust chair situation has evolved from that point and one of last year's intake has agreed to take on the role.

Sawdust.

 

without going back and finding the posts, I'm pretty certain that you have on more than one occasion denigrated the general membership as more of a nuisance than an asset. Even now you are saying that their financial benefit to the railway is negligible. In this you are conveniently forgetting th gifts left in wills which I suspect is quite sibstantial. A member recently posted on a forum that he had now changed his will and the railway would be a large six figure sum the worse off for it. I can only accept that at face value but i've no reason to doubt it. I also personally know of another person who has now written the NYMR out of his will; perhaps not a six figure sum but it makes the point. I suspect it will be far more common than just two people out of a membership that has now dropped to 8K. The railway that I'm still involved with has a membership far smaller than the NYMR but has benefited to the tune of £500K from legacies in recent years and I doubt that it is unique.

 

How about Moors Line editors, people to look after rostering and those who write grant applications, for a start? At least the membership secretary is still a volunteer even if he no longer posts on here.

 

Not at all and very much for the reasons you highlight. However, I don't view the issue through rose tinted spectacles. As Tom has suggested membership should be a developing relationship with growing levels of financial support. If it's a case of just pay the standard subs. (with sometimes an undue focus on what benefits members get in return ) then as the figures show it's not achieving much. That's not to denigrate members generally but to point out that unless their engagement is nurtured and develops their financial contribution is very modest. The rose tinted spectacles are when they believe that at the standard subs. level they are underpinning the railway's financial viability. If they also volunteer, leave a substantial legacy or commit to one of the enhanced levels of membership it's a different story. I agree absolutely that it's the responsibility of the Trust to encourage that.

 

Is he a volunteer? He hasn't bothered to reply to my message regarding terminating my membership, or the follow-up message pointing out that I was still being sent copies of the bin liner (aka Moors Line).

There is hope with a new chairman - who is , I'm told, a volunteer signalman (although based on previous happenings that sends a shiver down my spine!). Let us hope and desperately pray that it is not a false hope.

 

Membership is a feedback loop system. The more the members are rewarded by genuine good news and progress the more likely they are to contribute and to increase their contributions, but it is a system that is equally detrimental in reverse, and the NYMR has been in steep decline of late. There is a saying "success breeds success". Success means genuine externally apparent and recognised achievement, not the PR puff/fluff characterised by the new "Moorsline"

 

I don't believe that any member (of any railway society) has ever felt that, never mind communicated it in writing. Volunteers are a different matter.

 

[My emphasis] The whole point of this, and previous, discussions is that the messaging about the role of ordinary members is not nurturing engagement.