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.

 

The members voted by a majority of well over 90% to adopt Articles of Association that include a Nominations Committee which includes independent membership. Its role is to assess candidates against a matrix of qualities to ensure so far as possible that the Trust Board has the necessary skills and experience. As the process is part of the Articles the "right" is more of a duty since both the Trustees and the members are bound by them. It's also a corporate governance measure which grant funding organisations that continue to support the railway see as an important way of achieving board diversity.

 

I’ve no idea who the candidates were, or whether the nomination committee decision was good. I also don’t care.

The impression left, on top of the timing and delay to the AGM, is appalling, and can only leave an impression that the wagons are being circled. I also find the defence of diversity, taking it to mean “diversity of thought”, deeply unconvincing given the recent history of the organisation.

I am a member of the National Trust and, each year, am invited to vote for trustees. While the board do level the odds slightly in their favour with a default option, all candidates are allowed to stand on an equal footing even where they belong to groups explicitly opposed to the current Trust approach. The nominations committee impact is limited to advising which candidates are recommended. Over relatively few years, this has taken the heat out of opposition and left the trust leadership in a stronger position. Would that NYMR had the same wisdom.

When NYMR is struggling financially, reliant on goodwill to sustain itself, and underachieving on its appeals, this decision is not one that can give confidence but which will undermine confidence still further - and make recovery all the harder.

 

And how do you know that grant funding organisations see it as an important way of achieving board diversity? It is just more bu115h1t

 

Because, Steve, Arts Council England who have committed over £1million into the NYMR as a National Portfolio Organisation have made their concern about board diversity very clear. No doubt ACE will be pleased to see two new female working volunteers join the board.

 

I highlight these two sentences as they make clear it's Trustees who decide how legacies are spent and, if the worst happens, they would be used to pay off Santander and Nat West debt. Hardly likely to encourage donations or bequests.

Spot on. A classis case of "jobs for the boys". Not only a self-perpetuating cycle but a self-supporting clique. Even if it worked it would be shameful as non-railway or "professional" trustees are a waste of both time and money.Trustees need a professional approach of course but they need to be railwaymen/women with sound business knowledge or businessmen/women with practical knowledge of heritage railways.

 

This falls somewhere between legalistic gobbledegook and the nitrogenous matter that Steve mentions in his posting. Diversity is an important word when used in the correct context but is hardly useful if it means the inclusion of those who are there for the bunce, those who are there because their face fits or those who are there despite not having a clue what they are doing.
We are in our present financial plight because the "necessary skills and experience" have brought us here. The board diversity we need is to appoint those who can reverse that trend and pull us out of the mire.

 

So what are you suggesting? The members voted democratically for adoption of the Nominations Committee system which is binding on the Trustees. The suggestion that any might be there for "bunce" is an unsubstantiated slur. Although all Trustees are entiled to claim travel and susbsistence expenses none do. They are all volunteers who give their time and skills for free so deserve better than being repeatedly denigrated by those with an axe to grind.

 

Don you act as advisor for President Putin on the conduct of elections in Russia? there's a remarkable similarity with both - "These are the four candidates we have chosen for you to vote for. Other candidates aren't allowed!"

 

The problem is it's coming across as more of an appointment committee than a nomination committee. To an outsider, it appears you've got the people in charge deciding who they want and who will follow their agenda, which from looking through the accounts, is getting the railway into more and more debt. £400,000 loan from a member, £1m overdraft, £200,000 of bank loans. It all needs to be paid back at some point.

In the last year the number of admin and marketing staff up has gone up by 2, yet maintenance staff are down by 5. Bridges falling to pieces, speed restrictions galore, not a single working steam loco at times during the summer, overhauls that are indefinitely paused to lack of funds, others that are taking decades to complete. Donations down, membership down, passenger numbers down, yet no ideas on how to turn things around.

 

What I learned about the constructional details of Bridge 42 (not an in-depth understanding, but enough for a 'big picture' view) is that it has fundamental characteristics that mean it's hard to say exactly how far it is gone, without a lot more information (which I don't think any of us has).

Stone bridges that have lasted millennia, without maintenance (they exist - the Anji Bridge in China is 1+1/2 thousand years old), are built out of blocks that are locked into place by their geometry (wider at the top than at the bottom). Although the semi-decorative outer side layers of Bridge 42 have this characteristic, the bulk of the structure is built out of ordinary bricks (rectangular cross-section). So, when the mortar that is holding the ones in the bottom layer in place decays - they just fall out (as has started to happen). How good is the condition of the rest of the mortar throughout its structure? Who knows?

Noel

 

It’s not the what but the how.
At every single step at the moment the NYMR creates and reinforces a bunker mentality. None of what is being done is necessarily wrong, but the way it is being done is tone deaf. I mean how does anyone interpret the arrangements around the AGM as being anything other than a “xxx off we don’t want your input”. As the axiom says — actions speak louder than words. The constant disconnect in that respect is undermining the legitimacy of the leadership, and if “they” can’t see that or won’t address the problem then the future is short and bleak.

 

I think regardless of how you might view the situation, personal attacks like that are not warranted and generally only serve to weaken your case, not strengthen it.

Tom