North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I was once told of a charitably run old people's home that had a very old company car, a resident left a bequest to buy a new car, but it was deemed to be too cheap and they had to buy a more expensive one.

Sawdust.

 

AGM email received .
Eight nominations for the board of directors received for four vacancies .
The committee of wise people have chosen which four they want so no requirement or opportunity for the general membership to have a say .

Need we say more …

 

My question is 'what exactly is getting put in the "admin" pot?' For all we know, the ticketing agents (for example) are salaried employees (I expect someone on here who's local knows the answer to this, but I don't - anyway, it's just a hypothetical example, so not important to be accurate), and their salaries are getting put into the 'admin pot'. I don't recall if the accounts went into any detail about what that category includes.

I think the NYMR went the wrong direction, quite a few years back, in having such a high overhead operation (salaries are part of it, but without examining things in more detail than I have the interest to do, I don't know what else I would classify is 'unaffordable expense'). It's too bad that the current management team, when the current management team took over, didn't instantly come to that conclusion, and take steps to change the fundamental direction the line was taking. Instead, they went 180 degrees the other way...

The problems currently extant across the heritage world (e.g. fuel costs) could not have been seen coming when they started, in 20/20 clarity, but the line would be better positioned to deal with them (and failing major bridges) if they had.

Speaking of bridges, I wonder what whichever government body bridge 42 falls into the lap of, will do to deal with it, if the line goes under? Would they just demolish it as a hazard?

Noel

 

Bridge 42 is a listed structure so liability for its repair would be binding on an administrator or liquidator if the Charity became insolvent. If ultimately there wasn’t enough money to rebuild the bridge it would become the responsibility of the Local Authority. One way or another it would almost certainly be rebuilt even if it was no longer for railway use.

 

That doesn't automatically mean it would be repaired at the taxpayers expense. Listed structures have been demolished as part of the TPR upgrade.

Sawdust.

 

I rather hope that bridge 42 if not required to carry trains wouldn’t actually need much rebuilding. If it has got to the stage where it couldnt even remain in situ without rebuild I rather thing it ought to have been shut to trains earlier than it was!

 

There is one way to guarantee the attention of the board, but it requires volunteers to organise themselves, not simply to quietly quit or retire from volunteering individually.

 

What right have "the committee of wise people", presumably the existing board, to choose who they want ? If there is an election then it is up to the membership to decide amongst the eight applicants without interference (no doubt considered "guidance ) from the Board or any of its officers. It is called democracy and is one way of ensuring the the Board does not get stuck in a self-perpetuating cycle, which may indeed be part of the present problem.