North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I've just been catching up on all the posts from yesterday evening/this morning and I really don't know where the thread is going, or more important where the NYMR wull end up.

The posts made almost universally confirm a common conclusion that the line needs to survive but it cannot possibly do so under the existing leadership. The one and only exception to this view is Lineisclear. That is his privilege.

Many, many posts back, just over 24 hours ago though it seems like an age, Lineisclear made a post that I felt could be welcomed and supported, I chose to do both these things because, unlike so many of his previous posts, it suggested a change with was both positive and in my opinion workable. My only qualification of rhat support was for the technical and regulatory difficulties expertly explained by Tom. On it's own it wouldn't have been a total solution because implementation would be too slow to meet what are now crisis needs, but it was a step in the right direction. I really thought Lineisclear had turned a corner.

Subsequently his posts have reverted to explaining why essential changes can;t be implemented, why policies can't be reversed even why redundancies can't be made bcause he believes keeping expensive incompetent and unproductive staff is cheaper than firing them. Are we to take from this extrordinary logic that we are stuck with our CEO and her minions until Death us do Part?

He tells us the future is assured and a bright. In case he hasn't noticed the bank statements are as red as a 9F firebox. In a following post he goes into massive detail as why nothing can be rescued if the railway does fall into bankruptcy and anyone hoping for a Llangollen type revival is dreaming. He may well be right in that assessment as our Trustees don't seem to have had the same foresight as those at Llangollen. Personally I'd rather hope for a dream than live in the nightmare scenario we are heading towards
.
I've volunteered over what I thought was 30 years and last night I looked back at some ancient photos (prompted by FR20 mentioned by 35B and a most evocative photo from Tormagaig). I've realised I first visited circa 1978 and first volunteered in 1981, and that was for a Diesel Gala ! (please don't judge me as i was foolish in my youth). I won't seek to expand my 30 years total as I haven't been a regilar or frequent visitor over some of the intervening years due to family commitments. I know Lineisclear has such commitments and of a sad nature at the moment. The point I'm slowly coming to is that railways in general and the NYMR in particular has been a huge part of my life and I want to continue that for however many years I can.

I recognise that Lineisclear too has volunteered over a very long time, and in all honesty probably put in more hours, more effort and fulfilled more roles than I have over a similar period. Therefore, in this part of my posting at least, I'll attempt not to berate or criticise him further. I will however make a very simple appeal to him. You have knowkedge, you have experience, you have devotion to the line. Please, why not put all of that behind change? Without radical, significant and immediate changes you may be consenting to the railway's death warrant.

 

To be blunt I don’t think you mean that. You have excluded all manner of change already, so clearly you don’t mean whatever change. However, if there had to be one change I would suggest it is to restructure the SMT to include someone that has real communication skills. It would be worth considering how that role might work with the CEO. Investing in the right people and solutions might increase costs for a period, but might be the only way to survive. If truly the objective is to get a greater financial commitment from supporters, which has a lot to commend it as a plan, then you must first get people to love the railway again. Which is the point I have been making for many many many pages.

 

If your willing to bet one of your small Mars Bars @Steve… although more than happy to except a Hazlenut Twix,
Not all brown signs necessarily read ‘Steam Railway’ I have to pass this one on the Stourport Rd twice a day…

 

Deleted. Duplicate posting.

 

Just dont ask the shop assistant if she has a Snickers and a Twix

 

But the image on the sign is of a steam locomotive, not a diesel.

 

That's very considerate post. I thought i had explained that I'm not against change. Far from it indeed my prescription would probably be too radical for some including Kirk Oswald. I just don't understand how sacking the management who at director level share collective responsibility is going to bring about the transformation we would all like to see. Should they all go or just some? As they are implementing the Trustees' strategy should the Trustees all be booted out as well? I sense a desire to see scapegoats punished, which may be satisfying to those who are angry, but beyond that would it really change anything?

 

Level crossing without barrier or gates signs also contain images of a steam loco too…

 

This is hilarious. A word salad of nothing. You cannot encourage additional support of the railway at a time like this when the way it's run is what is driving people away. I don't think you even accept this as true.

As for "back the NYMR or buy a bike"... the arrogance is absolutely through the roof. No wonder it's up shhht creek if that's the attitude at board and management level.

Open dialogue would be a start. A member forum at which management are present and willing to listen. Public consultation. The humility to say we know this isn't working as it should. Absorbing ideas that may differ from their own. Visiting other railways and talking to their staff on the ground (not just their management).

I'm quite keen to start volunteering, having moved back to the UK after a decade abroad, and the NYMR would be my first choice. But why would I and why would anybody right now? It's not even clear you'll be operational in 12 months. The Severn Valley on the other hand is looking quite appealing...

 

While I think the precedent set with Admiral Byng has some advantages, I'm not in favour of scapegoating.

However, that does not extend to interpreting collective responsibility in that very expansive way. The point of collective responsibility is to allow boards to operate collectively, and especially to prevent members from going "it wasn't really me". Individual members retain responsibility for their areas of responsibility, and directed change may also be a way of forcing a change in how that part of the collective operates.

Taking that to the level of trustees, I suggest that the question of stay/go should be split between "exec" and "non exec" trustees. For the "non-execs", it would be a simple question of whether they feel that they are able to give what would be needed in a time of change. For those with "exec" responsibility, it would be whether they can align to a change of approach, and commit to it.

In both cases, this would need to take into account what changes there might be to the working relationship with the plc, and especially how the accountability relationship between PLC and Trust is governed. My strong suspicion is that this would require more active supervision by the Trust of the PLC, up to and including direction of the PLC. Such a change might be quite difficult for some in both organisations

 

There are a couple of points in there that I think need challenge, or at least perhaps a bit more rigour - one on fuel, one on staff costs.

The first is that coal has risen by 300%. Over what time period? The LBSCR were paying 12/- a ton delivered to Deptford Wharf before World War 1, but it is hardly informative to the current debate to say so! We all know that coal costs rose and supply got difficult as a consequence of the Ukraine War, but costs have come down considerably since then. So it is helpful to state over what period, and then compare that with general inflation of the same time. I suspect your 300% rise is over a time period in which most prices have gone up by 200% - so in real terms while it is a rise, it is rather less of one than the headline suggests.

Which then leads to the point that even if coal costs have risen, fuel is only one part of your traction costs, and traction is only one part of your total cost of operation of a train. It probably costs something like £25,000 per day to operate the NYMR. How much of that is coal? I suspect you might be averaging £1500 per day on coal and only then on the days you are running: if that jumps to £2000 of course it is unwelcome, but it isn't existential; and certainly it isn't worth saving £1000 per day on coal if doing so deters £2000 per day in fare income.

I might also note that right now, there is a worldwide diesel shortage and those prices are being driven up!

The second point is about paid staff. I will be the first to admit that paid staff should be treated with respect, and redundancy should absolutely be the last resort, not the first. But in talking about how costly and expensive it is to make savings by cutting the headcount of existing staff, you have neatly glossed over the issue of how many new roles have been created. If you want to do a root and branch look at the business' total cost, the first place is to ask "is this recruitment necessary?" Ideally, you might find a volunteer, but even if you feel a paid staff member is essential, can you redeploy from the existing staff - so people change the focus of their role, and the new work gets covered within the overall staff budget?

A lot of your defence of the need to have paid staff seems to start from a premise that once they are recruited, that role is sacrosanct, and if new requirements emerge - as they inevitably will - it inevitably means an expansion of the headcount, not a rearrangement. So by all means defend the contribution made by paid staff, but that shouldn't obscure the fact that in an organisation that is haemorrhaging money, the overall budget has to go down in real terms, and that must mean really serious consideration to how you redeploy existing staff to cover the work that needs doing before you get to the point of just recruiting new.

Tom

 

I did say it was a joke among other preserved railways.

 

In your post only this morning you said you would support any change to bring about a return to confidence. You don't however accept how we must move towards that objective.

In numerous posts dozens of different individuals have repeatedly and consistently stated they either have or are about to withdraw support due to management failures. All I've ever been in the NYMR context is an extremely small and unimportant cog. I claim no technical knowledge or legal expertise. When people of the calibre of Sawdust, Steve, 35B et al tell you exactly the same thing I don't see how you can fail to take on board such clear, expert and justified advice.

You've raised the issue of confidence in several postings and again I think you are right to do so. One of the reasons I like your shareholder proposal to inject capital is that I think Santander would gain confidence to see funds coming in from those supporters choosing to donate, However surely you must see that such donations, shareholdings or bequests won't be forthcoming without management changes. To propose the one without accepting the other won't bring in the money needed.

I don't see our CEO as either a scapegoat or as entirely to blame either. The underlying cause does, again as you correctly say, go back over several years. However under the present PLC leadership as well as due to recent Trustee failures the financial situation has become untenable. How untenable we don't know because accounts are witheld and the AGM idefinitely delayed.

I do see both the CEO and Trustees as being together culpable for ongoing failure arising from reckless unaffordable policies, collapsing infrastructure and a massive failure by Trustees to fulfil their responsibilities to protect the railway as they are supposed to do.

 

How much “clout” certain directors have with regard to strategic and day to day decisions, rather depends on how their relationship with the CEO is structured.
In some circumstances, the Directors are subservient to the Chief Executive Officer, which may or may not be the case at NYMR.

 

Your last sentence begs the question of the extent of any direction the Trust as shareholder can give to the PLC. The Trust decides on the charity's strategy and sets objectives for the PLC but it doesn't have unlimited power to direct it. First becuase (and its sometimes forgotten) there is a large number of other shareholders to whom the PLC board owe statutory duties. Second because even though the Trust holds all the voting shares it cannot legally give directions to the PLC that would put its directors in breach of their Companies Act duties to the other shareholders, employees etc. or that would cause a breach of the PLC's Articles. Relations between the two companies are infinitely better than they have been at some times in the past so any closer direction would need to avoid a return to those bad old days.

 

You constantly and repeatedly tell us what cannot be done.

Why not visit the Bluebell and learn what can be done.

 

I read the tone of this thread generally No-one is wanting the railway to succumb to receivership as far as I can tell, certainly not me. I'm not even calling for widespread reductions in staff costs, certainly not in engineering and commercial sides but I do think there is an opportunity to significantly downsize the managerial and administration staff, as outlined by @Jamessquared. Despite all the talk by @Lineisclear about new commercial approaches in other direction, and "exciting developments", I have yet to see anything in terms of these, just more flogging of the supposedly dead horses, for example the "Rockstar Specials", where I thought the railway was supposed to be appealing to more than railway enthusiasts. Had anything significant happened I would have welcomed it, therefore I'm afraid my voice must remain critical of both the CEO and the SMT, where I'm afraid the weeding out process must start. I am therefore, somewhat surprisingly in agreement with a lot of what @Lineisclear advocates, but not his approach to achieving it, which seems to discard anything that might usefully be tried - and also to voice seemingly impenetrable obstacles in all directions. If anyone is advocating receivership it is him, because he really doesn't seem to see any viable ways forward.

 

My hunch is that the failure to intervene is more likely to bring about complaints about abuse of minority shareholders than intervention. I find it hard to conceive, in the context of the current discussion, of any circumstances in which the exercise of authority by the Trust would either put the PLC directors at risk of breaching their legal duties to other shareholders, or be abusive of minority shareholders. All have an interest, as shareholders, in the continued operation of the PLC. Likewise, no one is suggesting that anyone should do something unlawful.

I'm sure that there are structural issues to consider. But, again, the primary concern is cultural - if this post is representative of Trust thinking, then the words of FDR come to mind - "we have nothing to fear but fear itself".

 

But who are they collectively responsible to?
Certainly not the membership - those links have been well and truly broken and you have emphasised that many times on here.
To the Trust? Apparently not as the two boards seem to share the same mentality and blindness to the impending doom of the railway.
The charity commissioners? Well yes, but they are not going to worry if the railway dies, as long as their rules have been followed.

If the directors share responsibility then why are they not admitting there is a serious problem?

 

Accountability in the case of the PLC Directors is to the PLC shareholders, regulators, and to its employees and the creditors as per their statutory duties. In the case of the Trust it's to the public as represented by the Charity Commission for achievement of the charitable purposes and to its members for that and compliance with the Charity's Articles.