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.

 

If so, that doesn't tend to come through in your writing!

There was a similar point earlier, when you answered a question about ownership, and in particular how in many heritage railway organisations, the members don't own the railway. I think in a very precise legal sense that is correct, but it misses the emotional connection that members have in their home railway, and that proprietorial stake that many feel. My "ownership" of (in my case) the Bluebell doesn't express itself in the sense that I feel a few hundred pounds richer because I own a few hundredths of a percent of a multi-million pound organisation, but rather that I want to care for it in the same way that I might want to care for my house - or indeed, my local community.

I think very often in what you write, you are simultaneously factually accurate and emotionally deluded; and to save the railway, you have to appeal to your supporters emotions. In other words, setting out in very precise legal ways the framework of who each trustee or director is accountable to, or what the precise limits of authority of different boards in the complex web of relationships misses completely the simple point that your supporters need to feel an emotional stake in the whole railway, and the more that stake can be encouraged, the more in turn that support will become tangible.

Tom

 

I suggest you’re being unduly harsh! I suggested that members ( and it’s particularly true of volunteers) own the heart and soul of their railways. It’s an emotional stake but actual ownership of the railway is ultimately a matter of hard fact.

 

...... and in turn you miss the point completely. Ownership of the railway has never been an issue in the minds of most supporters (I use the word "most" because you at least seem to worry about it! ) but most of us use the term "our railway because we have built it over the years and supported in whatever way we could, but none of those "most of us" feel that we even own (in the true possessive sense), even if we bought shares in the Plc. Those who did buy shares did so primarily to provide financial support and no-one ever expected to receive a return on their investment. What that should mean, but clearly cuts no ice with Plc board and SMT, is that they deserve respect and results that go towards meeting their aspirations. In many senses it is not a true business, in that its shareholders and other supporters are looking for success in achieving its charitable aim and long term sustainment, and I cannot for the life of me see the success there, other than in some specific niche areas, where the charitable aims have been written to use that success as justification to claim more widespread success

That warping of reality is perhaps only to be expected - I note that your role in your past life was as a company secretary, and in my experience the company secretary was the person who took minutes in Board meetings, and occasionally spoke up to advise on legal issues, but played no other role in managing the business, which has led me throughout to treat your advice with a handful - not a pinch! - of salt!

 

All of those parties have some interest in the railway's continued existence, which depends on keeping various other parties happy, notably the customers and the volunteers.

 

Quite frankly this thread has become John Bailey vs half a dozen people.

None of you are going to change your minds how the NYMR should be run.

 

Your belittling assumption needs to be corrected. The role was company secretary and Head of Legal which involved leading a team including numerous qualified lawyers as well as serving as MD of a number of subsidiaries and undertaking a number of executive roles. You read too much into your experience of the role which can, and did, carry substantial executive responsibility.

 

I agree with your analysis. However, if your last point is correct, the inevitable future cannot be changed.

Noel

 

Ouch, that does feel tight for a big gala. The SVR gala for comparison used 39 coaches and that didn't even include the teak set!

That one used to say 'Steam Railway' before Steam being replaced with Severn Valley. You can see that it's a patch over the original sign. There's similar ones in Kidderminster.

 

Thereby hangs the problem.
Successful railways communicate well and encourage emotional investment. A multitude of benefits flow from this approach, from volunteering to financial support. People will put themselves out for a good cause.

NYMR has been successful at this in the past but, sadly, it's lost the bond with its supporters due to lack of communication and disconnected management. Many now fear for the future. It's difficult to sympathise with the management when they refuse to give information.
It's not unreasonable to be suspicious. What are the hiding?

Why are passenger numbers withheld?
Why was there not a concerted effort to harness the huge interest in the wartime weekend into a more suitable event?
Were the changes to the Santa Specials a success, did they bring in more cash?
Why was the Thomas event scheduled at a peak slot, depriving the railway of guaranteed income from normal traffic? Did it make more money than the standard timetable?
Why so little steam this year when steam is vital to success and emblematic to the line?
There are many other questions and concerns, most of them could be answered or assuaged by openness from the top. I don't see it.

 

Which I suspect is totally unofficial.

 

There was an attempt to change things last year when the then plc chairman, Chris Gee, started posting on Facebook, providing information and answering questions. It was a breath of fresh air but it only lasted a few weeks until he resigned citing differences of opinion. I believe that he (and others) wanted to change things but I guess that they were in a minority. Perhaps, one day, the full story will be told?