North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I coughed when I saw the statment about coal costs. Coal is currently about £300/tonne plus delivery charges (unless you buy it in 25kg bags!) I can't remember when it was last at £100/tonne but it was a long time ago. Admittedly, it went up to close to £400/tonne whem Russia invaded the Ukraine but it didn't stay there for long.
I agree that the quality could be better, though. Nothing like good ol' Yorkshire hards of old.

With regard to staff costs, perhaps the NYMR should take note of what's currently happening in Glasgow. Then again, perhaps not! I suspect that, with the current circumstances, quite a few people at all levels will be looking to move on in any case and who would blame them?

 

So in reality, no-one then.
None of those grouping are likely to question the current management strategy (is there one?) since they are all at arms length or are not concerned with management.
The exception of course is the Trust/PLC relationship, but that seems so intertwined it may as well be one board.

 

A little while ago, you criticised me for using the term "third parties" as a collective term for grant givers (current and potential), or other interested parties, on the basis that I was demeaning them.

I then read this, and see a definition of accountability that restricts the concept to a bare statutory minimum. There is no mention of stakeholders or any suggestion that the concept of accountability may go beyond the bare minimum. My reaction to this is "no wonder that things are difficult"; all of these are categories who may contribute and help members of the boards hold themselves accountable.

I then also notice no mention of accountability to the paying customers who provide the income that keeps the railway open in the first place.

I then compare that to what my employer puts in the public domain on a number of fronts, and how it invites accountability to more than the statutory minima - and devotes resources to that.

There are obvious differences of scale (a small or medium enterprise located in a very specific part of the UK with a 3 figure number of full time equivalent personnel, including volunteers, compared to a global company with a headcount in 6 figures), but the contrast of attitude is marked.

 

It depends on your definition of accountability. I freely admit a focus on obligations of accountability not on the choice to accept accountability to other people, entities and organisations.

 

Which it may be argued is part of the problem. The legal minimum has never been enough to run a successful business.

 

Yes, absolutely right .

 

Yes. Absolutly correct. The Trust board needs to take control and stop the bad dacisions being made by the PLC leadership, led by the CEO and financial director.

 

I agree with @21B; the legal minimum is rarely enough.

But I find your position inherently inconsistent. Over time, you have accepted accountability to a number of bodies despite such accountability being peripheral or optional, and set their objectives very high as though unalterable, while refusing to accept obligations of accountability within the NYMR family beyond the legal minimum. Where people have suggested such accountability, your position has consistently been opposed, and you have typically raised the legal constraints on what boards can do as fundamental objections to taking any such accountability. This is not just about NYMR, but also the work you've done elsewhere - if you search threads on (at least) the L&B and WSR, you'll find the same theme.

That has been a choice, and I think a really important one.

I then compare it to other railways which have also been challenged, and made changes - and where taking a wider view of accountability has supported their development and resolution of their issues.

 

Ghost asked a straightforward question about accountability. I give a factual answer. That’s provoked a different discussion as to whether it’s beneficial to adopt voluntarily wider accountability. I happen to agree.