North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

31128 replaces 44806

loco-16092026-v3.pdf

 

My earlier abortive post was indeed finger trouble! Apologies.

I must correct two mistakes by others in recent posts. Firstly I am not a representative of the NYMR. Since resigning as Trustee I can post on here in a purely personal capacity. Second the old canard of 17 marketing people keeps getting trotted out. It’s not true, There are around five most.


It’s very telling when individuals post on the basis that “ I’ve been told that” . All sorts of rumour may be around some of it very remote from the true facts. The nonsense about Bridge 42 is a good example. It was well known that the Bridge needed remedial work but an independent engineering consultant’s assessment in 2025 was that it was safe to use on the basis that the work would be done over the winter of 2026/7. That consultancy firm has since gone out of business. Despite an extensive search the railway was unable to attract a suitably qualified and experienced volunteer civil engineer. That’s not a new problem. It also proved impossible to recruit an employee at a salary the railway could afford. The short term solution was to retain the services of an independent contractor who quite reasonably wanted to verify that the consultant’s advice was sound. A second opinion from different experts indicated that use of the bridge should be halted immediately. The more detailed inspection that has been possible (because propping has given better access) confirmed the wisdom of that opinion.
The railway was fortunate to have the services of a contractor with the guts to recommend immediate closure until the bridge could be propped despite the huge opprobrium heaped on him for what was inevitably an unpopular decision.

Unfortunately the facts don’t fit the narrative of those that prefer to rely on rumour. If, as suggested the marketing department are expected to monitor social media and correct the misunderstandings of those who have just been told something then a headcount of 17 might indeed be justified!

 

There is no NELPG weekend .2392 only loco that would be available.
D6700 once featured at a steam gala when 60163 arrived in steam and was duly failed by the shed on arrival .

 

Thank you for several invaluable clarifications. I was probably not the only one here unaware of your resigning as Trustee.

It is reassuring that there are nowhere near 17 marketing people, but even one or two should be enough to prevent most of the silliness that has been reported in this thread.

 

There were posts recently that explained the personal circumstances behind my decision to stand down. Some of my fiercest critics on here expressed their sympathy which was very much appreciated.

 

Nothing in your post there I find in the least surprising. From 41 years in managing orders and contracts based on engineering needs, getting two engineers to agree on anything seems very difficult.
I am far from surprised that any Heritage Line could afford to pay what the market would generate for qualified bridge engineers, which these days I suspect is a very small pool.
Various posts about the size of the "marketing department" I find highly amusing, (once 28 now 17?) but as an outside observer, when a link was posted to the report an accounts it was a department called marketing and something else (forget what). So unless someone can come up with an actual number that could equally be one.

 

Sadly I had come to think that might happen a few weeks ago. It's fair to say I think that this year has not gone to plan for NELPG but hopefully the worst is now behind them.

Thanks for confirming.

 

I based my assertion on information from other people closer to the railway, soon may well have been wrong (although I did qualify it by saying "allegedly", which @Linesisclear doesn't seem to have taken into account.....What I will say is that the latest Moors Line list three heads of department that seem to lie in the marketing & commercial area, so if indeed there are only five in total, that must mean that the chiefs outweigh the indians. As the managers are most likely paid managerial salaries that seems to me to be very poor piece of organisation. Nor does it say very much in favour of the prudence of .the highly paid FD, if he's willing to live with the arrangement. I just hope that more prudent heads will be voted onto the Board by the Trust Board soon

 

Any role has to pay what the market commands if you want anybody decent. Titles mean little, I had manager in my title for about 18 years, the last 12 of them I had no staff at all reporting to me. The only way we could even get external folks to apply was to make the role seem attractive in the first instance.

 

When staffing numbers are quoted for Heritage Railways (including in annual reports & accounts), it is often not made clear whether the numbers are full time, full time equivalent or a mixed headcount of full time, part time and seasonal workers. So whether the NYMR has 17 or 5 marketeers, are they all full-time posts?

A single senior manager may cost the equivalent of several junior, part time or seasonal staff. So the focus ought not to be on staff numbers but on total staff costs. Even then, qualifications must be noted. Alongside the issue of whether tasks are performed by volunteers or paid staff, there is the parallel issue of whether tasks are performed in-house or by external contractors. External contractors will not appear under staff costs and numbers, but will certainly be a cost under other sections of the accounts.

I have no idea whether the NYMR's web-site and any social media presence is maintained in-house or by contractors. If contractors are involved, there may well be a fee payable each time it needs to be updated. Conversely, if it is maintained in-house, updates may be dependent on one or two critical folk who may not always be available. Factors to be borne in mind if the web-site is not always as up to date as is desirable in respect of things such as loco rosters.

 

Bearing in mind your opening comment there, can I nonetheless confirm with you the current non-correctness of a long-standing impression (one that I, and I suspect others) had? At one point, the current highest management of the NYMR (I am speaking of the top-most level of shot callers, whatever their formal positions might be) seemingly had hoped to run it as an 'ordinary' business (i.e. one which depends on income from customers to pay all its costs)? Although I had had the strong impression, at one point, that that had been the hope , I saw something in the most recent Trust Strategic Plan which indicates that the thinking is currently otherwise: "The NYMR can’t work as a commercial proposition."

If that is in fact the current general view, I think that's good; almost every successful heritage line in the UK is not an 'ordinary' business, so if the NYMR realizes that it has to be that way too, I think that's necessary realism. (And perhaps my past impression was incorrect, and the current highest management of the NYMR always had that view?)

Noel

 

I don't belive anyone was under the mistaken impression that the NYMR vould operate as an ordinary business in the way you define it. That's quite common across the heritage railway sector although there are some railways that do succeed as successful commercial businesses. However, what undoubtedly true is that no heritage railway is immune from ordinary business dynamics. Their traditional business model assumed the a mix of income from customers and members underpinned by volunteer participation would generate a sufficient annual surplus over costs. It's been clear for some time, and not just on the NYMR, that the old business model no longer works. Huge cost increases, ever more expensive regulatory compliance, increased taxation, the national decline in volunteering, cost of living pressures and ageing infrastructure have created a perfect storm. There's no point in harking back to what worked in the past because the fundamental business dynamics have shifted. Sustainability depends on crafting a different business model that works for the future. That doesn't mean trying to run as an ordinary business but it does require the ability to evolve and adapt to the current business environment in the hospitality sector.

 

Indeed. You get similar dynamics in the engineering side as well. Railway A may have its own workshop with paid staff; railway B contracts out overhauls while railway C just hires locos on the market and pays a daily running cost. In those scenarios, railway A will look like it has more paid staff (and therefore higher staff costs) but those costs still exist for B and C, they are just different line items in the budget. The ultimate question is which railway is being most effective at satisfying its operational need for locos in a cost-effective way.

Almost every operation on a railway - from p/way to payroll - can be done by paid staff, volunteers, contracting out or a mix, so straight comparisons of one line item in a budget (say, staff costs) have to be taken a bit cautiously if you don't simultaneously look at others (say, loco hire fees). The one thing you can't escape is the overall total!

One thing I've noticed on our railway, and it would be interesting to know to what extent it is reflected elsewhere, is volunteer recruitment that is very focused on a specific role. It is still possible to be a "generic" volunteer in a department: turn up on Saturday morning in the loco yard as a cleaner, and maybe in a few years you have risen to driver; or turn up on a station and in time rise through the ranks to senior station master or signalman. But increasingly I'm seeing adverts for very specific volunteer roles, with what are in effect job descriptions / person specifications etc. Right now we have vacancies for a pattern shop administrator, drawing office digitisation volunteers, a finance / IT project manager to oversee the changes needed as we convert to a CCBS etc. Increasingly we are seeing a transition from the general "come and volunteer" and far more of a targeted "do you have this specific set of skills, and if so, could you help us as a volunteer?"

Tom

 

I see this in a church context too - the need for specific (especially professional) skills requires very targeted recruitment. But for what might be called "general" volunteering, we're increasingly finding it necessary to a) say "we need people to do X" and b) make direct approaches to people. I think that reflects a shift in the culture of "belonging", and how people (especially working people) respond.

 

I think this last is an un

Interesting from a rugby club point of view too. I guess people are much more time-poor. Also, I wonder if post-covid has an impact, people want a reason to leave the house?

Both lead to a decline in people just showing up to see if they can help.

We have over 150 minis and juniors on the books and put 1 or more teams accross all age groups most weeks. And the bar is empty afterwards.

When I was a lad (cue Dvorjak Hovis music) we all stayed for ages after the game, pints for the parents, [koff] shandy for the juniors.

Soc transit gloria mundi

 

I've now heard from several sources that a high powered management team are going around the railway listing anything that they consider can be disposed of to raise funds. This includes cranes, strategic spares, such as bogies and wagons, anything that is not required to run the railway today. Those who have to make things happen on the ground and know the true value are not involved. The Bridge 42 works have been postponed and it is going to remain propped into next year.
Things are not good.

 

I should keep moving then if I were you. . .

To be more serious, this sort of thing doesn't really encourage those with any sort of railway assets to donate them to a railway.