North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

And most importantly in my opinion (and because of their structure - although other structures can provide similar results) they retain the engagement and support of their volunteers and members. THAT as I have said before, will be the defining difference between survival and shutdown. Size, past achievement, catchment area and a hundred other things make it more or less difficult, and more or less likely a line will survive, but engagement is the defining characteristic.

 

Imagine if the railway: mobilised their volunteers... communicated with them openly... focused on running the steam locomotives they have available... used their marketing department (employees: 5 to 17?) to advertise those steam services...? That would seem a more logical and sustainable way of getting money in the coffers than selling assets that may be needed in future and may not even be theirs to sell.

What has to happen before these people start to consider their positions?

 

And the tin lies the crux of the problem. The senior management don’t engage with the volunteers, whether by ignorance or design. In recent months they have produced a weekly newsletter but it has been generally full of spin with such things as positive comments from visitors and the fact that the Thomas week ‘covered its costs. ‘. Nothing about passenger numbers, problems with locos or what the plan is to get out of the situation. Having said that there was recent brief comment on the state of 31466 wheel tyres and the latest issue does have a ‘tells it like it is’ about br 42 from the CEO without going deeply into the ‘why’.

 

So, a genuine question...what additional "engagement" might help?

As Steve notes the NYMR already issue a weekly on line volunteer update. I don't think it should hold back from highlighting positive visitor feedback. Surely it helps for volunteers to know when they've done a great job? That update isn't all complacent "spin" as evidenced by the honest appraisal of the bridge 42 situation.

The railway already conducts volunteer surveys (which indicated a very high satisfaction rate and intention to continue) and holds volunteer forums both on line and face to face when questions from volunteers are addressed by senior management. It also issues a synopsis of matters discussed at Trust Board meetings by its 100% volunteer members. Perhaps a regular update on volunteer vacancies might help? I've seen that done elsewhere but the downside is that it flags up just how difficult it has become across the heritage railway sector find volunteers to fill roles that are sometimes essential.

Complaining about lack of engagement is easy. Let's see some constructive and realistic suggestions as to how enagagement might be improved!

 

The problem seems to be that, like Moors Line, the weekly volunteer update is about "spin", which is why some of us at least, barely bother to glance at the magazine and have cancelled our membership, until the time when it reverts to being even a shadow of its former self. I wonder who carries out those volunteer surveys? Pollsters (probably paid to carry them out and analyse the data?) with a vested interest in a positive result? I only talk to a small percentage of people, but I don't know of any who "indicated a very high satisfaction rate and intention to continue" - but perhaps my sample is similarly skewed, though I can at least admit it! I hear of staff on the point of resigning, for example, because they don't agree with the way things are going, and if they do what signal will that send to their colleagues, some of whom may be thinking likewise, but need something lined up to move to?

As for suggestions, perhaps telling the truth would help? When I hear stories of contractors declining to quote for bridge 42 because they have done their financial due diligence and have concerns about getting paid, or grant awarding bodies declining to place grants for similar reasons, it is deeply worrying, as I doubt whether their due diligence extends to the depth of reading chat forum columns - so the truth is out there but is being kept from the people who have uilt and supported the railway down the years. People might rally round a bit more if presented with the honest truth - a key conclusion being that we have a CEO and FD who are increasingly being recognised as not up to their respective jobs.

 

John, what volunteers (and others) want is the truth and not just spin. I quoted two instances in the Thomas event and Br 42. Simply saying Thomas covered it’s costs is being economical with the truth. By how much did it cover its costs. 50p or £100K because they tell two different stories. Even more telling would be to say something like ‘the Thomas event resulted in the railways overall income for the week being £xxx, which compares with an expected income of £yyy on a normal week. People would then know how successful ( or otherwise) it was. The Br 42 statement only tells half a story. ‘...we have found that contractors are, at present, reluctant to enter tender processes with charities.’ is putting spin on the truth. The statement also says that we have been unsuccessful with the NHLF application but doesn’t say why and I think that the reasons are being avoided along with other reasons for the delay to the works.
You mention the customer feedback. They are great in isolation but what about complaints? You can’t just forget them, even though you might want to (and I know there have been some.)
You asked what additional engagement might help. For a start, provide information on traffic figures compared with budget. Don’t simply dismiss them as being irrelevant, as was done by the CEO when asked by a member at a forum. It was a genuine question that a lot of people would like to know and that information would be readily available. Let’s have information on why there has been so much diesel mileage instead of steam. The dry weather can’t really be used as a reason when coal fired locos have been used when available so what have been the problems. People are usually more sympathetic when they know why.
I could go on but you get the gist.

 

If that conclusion was shared by the Auditors, the Lending Bank and regulators it would be cause for concern but fortunately it isn't.
As for the rest of the post another classic example of listening to stories then posting on the unverified assumption they must be true.

 

Repton, Sir Nigel Gresley and the 9F out today, with all but two Grosmont departures steam hauled. That's more like it.

 

What the current management needs to take on board, in a big way, is that most of the 'carping' that seems to upset them is actually coming from people who deeply care for the railway! If they didn't care about the line, they'd just be quiet, not speaking out. (So it should be welcomed, because it's a sign of the depth of connection to the line that so many have - a connection that might be used to help save the line.)

Far from wanting the line to fail - they strongly want it not to fail! If they seem upset - they are - precisely because they are very worried that it will fail.

Noel

 

Just on that specific point - it seems an odd point of view. No-one doubts that it is hard to find volunteers, but it doesn't magically get easier if you don't even try! If the railway is struggling to find volunteers, you aren't going to make that situation better by disguising the problem. You never know, maybe there is someone out there who has a really good track record in another organisation of volunteer recruitment and retention, but how will they even know their skills are needed if you disguise that there is an issue?

That sentence feels emblematic of what a lot of the NYMR problem is: a reluctance to believe that the great unwashed have anything of value to offer, so it is hardly even worth engaging that there is a need at all. The board has KPIs and lots of stats on the volunteer workforce, so why bother discussing any of the thorny issues with the membership, it will only lead to grumbling? Whereas a more mature organisation might appreciate that the board and managers do not have a monopoly on ideas of how to tackle the thorny issues that beset the railway.

Tom

 

It's a fair point and I wish it were universally true. Unfortunately there seem to be some who want the railway under its current direction and management to fail in the mistaken belief that they can take over and start again.

 

Tom, you're right of course but the point I was getting at is that if that list of volunteer vacancies keeps re-appearing with little or no change that risks undermining confidence.

 

If you were perhaps referring to me, I can say categorically that you are 100% wrong! I do not wish the railway to fail, or even to look as though it is going to and I absolutely do not want to run it - but I, and I think many others, feel that certain of the abject present management have shown that without doubt that they are utterly useless and new, competent people with managerial experience in the heritage railway movement are urgently needed to replace them. And those are factual statements of my opinion that I don't think there's any reason to question or try to distort.

 

Is there confidence to undermine?
You may find it has already been lost

 

How do you measure success/ decline?

Passenger numbers
£ Turnover
£ Profit
Volunteer recruitment & retention vs volunteer retirement or resignation

They must be the big 4, but factors such as engagement with the local community and being a heritage destination can have an impact on the 4 above. Yet the 4 are far easier to measure than things that some may consider nice to do.

 

Turn that round, and soft measures like engagement can be convenient distractions from the hard numbers.

 

Happy to confirm that it is definitely not you I had in mind!

 

Well, interestingly, I thought it might be me, as I have been quite vociferous and unstinting with my criticism. I can't think of anyone with previous management experience on the NYMR (or even elsewhere on a heritage railway)who has uttered any hint that they might be interested in such a heavily poisoned chalice, but clearly you have other ideas! Intriguiung!

 

Why the rigid thinking? If the vacancies info you have out there isn't getting the people in, you need alternative recruitment methods. That might look like a targeted ad campaign. Or as @Jamessquared said recruiting somebody with specialist experience in recruiting volunteers. You could talk to other heritage operations that have run successful recruitment drives. But you didn't engage with that suggestion at all and came back with "well we can't keep posting it."

Also - "undermines confidence". In who? Your audience is not investors. Regular people don't think that way.