North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

The state of the arches will not be fully known until the track is removed and the infill excavated to expose them.

 

Agree.
I refer the Hon Gentleman to post 12420

 

See the first paragraph of post #12477. I don't seem to be the only person who thinks that way, although I admit I did perhaps put my point of view with a more satirical angle.....

 

John, you keep trotting out this statistic safe in the knowledge that you are technically correct. What you, I and a lot of others know is that the vast majority of those voting will have not even bothered to have read the new articles and merely ticked the accept box. That’s a major disadvantage of postal or internet voting in this way. I suspect, but will never know, that, if voting was limited to AGM attendees only, it would have been an entirely different matter. I remember attending Talyllyn AGM’s of many years ago when 250 and more people turned up and there was always lively debate on any motion put forward by the Council. I’m also sure that, if these changes could have been debated and people allowed to listen to the arguments, the outcome would have been quite different.

 

On that point - the accompanying note with the AGM papers says in effect that eight nominations were received for four vacancies; that list was whittled down to six candidates (unclear how but presumably based on their candidate statements); and of those six, interviews selected the final four. It is also notable that those four do not fill the entire skills gap identified, only some of it. ("4 individuals were selected as having some of the skills identified as part of the skills gap analysis"). It is presumably feasible that actually any group of four from the eight would have likewise filled some of the skills gap, possibly just different parts of it.

That does raise a whole host of questions, particularly in the light of your statement above about what ACE wish to see.

• Did the NYMR board have defined portfolios for board members with publicly identified skills and experience requirements?
• Was that skills matrix made clear in the advertising process? (In other words, were potential candidates made aware before submitting an application as to what skills and experience they needed to display?)
• In the absence of an interview, were the candidate statements considered sufficient to enable the selection panel to make an accurate assessment as to which candidates had the requisite skills?
• Was the overall diversity of the board used as a selection criterion, and how do you apply what is essentially a collective measure to a single candidate? (In other words - if candidate A is a better skills match but candidate B improves the overall board diversity, would you have selected A or B?)
• Were candidates retiring by rotation and putting themselves forward for re-election subject to the same vetting process?

The whole process seems fraught with difficulties to me, and is then made much worse by a total absence of transparency. (Who is on the appointment panel? What brief were they given? How did they ensure their selection process was robust? What did the candidate statements of the unsuccessful candidates say? etc etc)

You say that the NYMR members voted overwhelmingly to put in place a Nominations Committee, but I think there is a rather sly elision that has taken that to what is in effect a complete selection process. They are not one and the same thing. At a minimum, a nominations committee could be used just to vet candidates to ensure they met the technical requirement for standing (for example, were paid up members in good standing etc etc) and to validate that their candidate statements were accurate. A median position might be - as @35B outlined with the National Trust - to provide a board recommendation, but still allow all valid candidates to stand. Whereas you have gone for the maximalist position, which is essentially to just run a recruitment process with no member involvement. I doubt many would have voted for that had they known that was the outcome, so claiming 90% support it is I think a bit rich.

I agree completely with @21B here: everything the NYMR board does just seems to come from a bunker mentality that is resistant to any kind of challenge. Even if that were not true, the perception is so prevalent that it is eroding any trusted goodwill that the board might have, and right now trust and goodwill is about the only hope you have left.

Tom

 

You mean the same quango that has lost the confidence of the sector it supports and which is likely to have to significantly reconsider how it gives grants because the focus on diversity has caused it to fail to invest in excellence?

I happen to regard diversity as a virtue, and have supported co-options made explicitly for reasons of diversity. But that decision was a) not in a membership based organisation (whatever its legal form*) and b) openly reached.

This decision was reached in a closed manner, the justification is opaque and seemingly disingenuous*, and in an organisation that is haemorrhaging confidence from its natural supporters. Pinning authority to a quango that is widely discredited and may well have limited capacity to support NYMR in future strikes me as "interesting" or, pace Humphrey Appleby, "heroic".

* - I believe in substance over form. In this case, this is a membership organisation structured as a company and it is necessary that both aspects are expressed. The failure to consider substance risks making the form void.
** - I stress that I do not know the candidates or (per @Jamessquared in post #12485) what the details of the nomination and selection process were, and therefore how much the elisions in the description of process are relevant to substantive confidence (or not) in the process.

 

I wish to enter a minor objection to that. The run-up to the L&BRT EGM in March 2024 showed how a struggling board can lose the confidence of that wider membership where the challenge to their actions is mounted effectively. Sadly, though some of us did oppose the NYMR changes robustly, there was not the same level of campaign and hence the armchair vote prevailed.

 

Steve, voting can never be limited to those physically attending an AGM as members must have the right to appoint a proxy whether they've read and understood the motions or not. That typically results in the Chair holding sufficient proxies to determine the outcome of any vote so the result could well have been the same. Your observation on democratic postal/electronic voting is really quite demeaning of the membership as it suggests they can't be trusted. It implies a desire for an Animal Farm scenario where all members are equal but those who turn up and vote at an AGM are more equal than others.

 

Maybe I should do an foi request to find out if that status was awarded because of any NELPG, LNERCA or H&BRSF assets on the railway, because there isn't anything that is more remarkable than any other heritage railway has without those.

Sawdust.

 

In fact, I had one ready to submit early this year but it wasn't very long after my partner's death and fell off the top of my to do list, as at the same time I am also sorting out both of my late parents affairs.
Sawdust.

 

Tom, All candidates (including those standing for re-election) are made aware of the skills and competencies that the Nominations Committe will be looking for and , if unsuccesful, the reasons why they have not been recommended. The change to the Articles approved by members ( and which was the subject of extensive explanatory guidance at the time) could hardly be clearer. It states simply that no person can be appointed as a Trustee/Director unless they are recommended by the Nominations Committee. The Committee's remit is to sift applications and recommend those that, after taking the skills matrix into account, seem to offer the skills and competencies to fill some of the gaps. It's then for the members to decide but if the number of recommendable candidates is less than, or equal to, the number of vacancies there is no election is required. Even under the old popularity based election system it was quite common for the number of candidates to be less than the vacancies so no election was involved.

 

I'm not as clued up as Tom on technicalities or as eloquent in debate as 35B. I'm not into corporate law or administrative jargon as Lineisclear appears to be. I attempt to speak plainly.

The points I've been trying to make have been critical of both Trustees and PLC leadership. That isn't because I doubt Lineisclear's commitment to the line, or that of other trustees who have been line volunteers over often many years. Any undertaking the size of the NYMR needs leadership and being businesslike in that leadership is to be welcomed, but it isn't, or at least shouldn't be the whole story.

Lineisclear explains that the membership, of which I was an active part, gave away all control of the railway by a democratic vote in the past. Personally I have no recollection of so doing because, as Steve has described, it would have been part of a tick-box exercise. I'm doubtless as guilty therefore as anyone else.

The Trustees have, in my opinion most foolishly, surrendered control to the PLC by authorising and underwriting continuing and potentially unsustainable debt levels. The PLC as a body have vested control in the CEO and her management team. It gives me no pleasure to say this but they have been an abject failure.

When skimming through the accounts at the weekend I was restricted to a mobile phone but hopefully picked up on the significant figures. This morning I looked on a full-size screen in the hope of some light or potential hope but found none. I did find that whilst £522k has been spent on salaries covering railway operations (clearly essential) a further £341k was spend on non-railway-op salaries. I find £251k spent on professional fees, and a massive £708k on "hire of rolling stock". This clearly isn't the teak set so can only be locomotive hire and given that steam miles fell by 48% it must be predominantly diesel hire. I know very little about diesel traction but I'm told by those who do that £708,000 would buy at least three substantial locos suitable for heritage use. The short-sighted failure to bring our Class 25 and 24 locos back into service for less expense only demonstrates the lack of basic acumen which our leadership clearly suffers from.

Money is scarce and likely to become more so. That's partly down to global economics but increasingly due to those who claim to know best refusing to accept reality. Four different posters have, within the last week, used the expression "tone deaf". As far as I can see it's rapidly becoming stone deaf. Lineisclear deserves credit for engaging against overwhelming odds but though he emphasises he's no longer responsible since he stepped down his reluctance to join the chorus of those who want reform remains. He has been compared to Putin and certainly many working volunteers call Park Street the Polit Bureau. Personally I see the comparison as being that of Canute. Everyone agrees more money is needed but no one can say where it's coming from. Without the changes that all must make it isn't just Canute that will be carried away by the tide.

My neighbour, a regular church-goer says that due to lack of funds the parish is about to lose it's last vicar. Whilst railway enthusiasm is not a religion for many it comes close. Either way those who are disillusioned in their beliefs aren't going to give.

If the railway wants to maintain itself it has to restore control to true supporters. Without change support will continue to ebb away.

 

Well whatever this policy hoped to achieve, it doesn't appear to have been a great success for the NYMR.

Sawdust.

 

There are many ways to achieve/improve diversity without needing a nominations committee which is effectively a censorship committee. I am quite certain that the Arts Council did not tell the NYMR to form such a committee with a threat of losing any future grants.

 

60103, 60007 and 60163 last year wouldn't have been cheap. There's also the ongoing hires of the autocar, 31128, 37688 and 47077, and 8 or so locos hired in for the steam and diesel galas. 92134, 44806, 2253 and 31466 are "home" locos but privately owned so should be getting a mileage fee. There's only 45428 and 926 currently owned and operated by the railway.

All of the 60007 and 60103 services in the spring and the autumn were virtual sell outs, and would certainly have more than covered their costs. Likewise the steam and diesel galas were reportedly very successful financially. It's a shame there's not more rolling stock available to allow more people to travel - I certainly know of several people who don't attend the galas any more due to the risk of overcrowding.

 

I have no idea but if you look at the ACE website and their "briefing" about diversity on the groups they may supply money to, it looks to me like it heads in that direction.

 

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Or, in this case, who have defined the skills matrix and determined what is "good enough" to allow a recommendation to be made? And, when someone is advised why they have not been recommended, what level of detail is provided - in particular, regarding how comparative scores if no one had the full set of skills.

I objected, loudly, to the Articles at the time because they set in motion precisely the circumstances described here - that the sifting process would be able to act as a veto over who could be recommended and how. If (and I haven't rechecked but I don't remember it being as flagrant) the wording required a recommendation for a candidate to be appointable, then this was not a nominations committee but a veto committee.

As for the reference to uncontested elections, I regard that as a red herring. The point is that, now, the effect of the committee is to prevent members from exercising an informed choice.

 

I asked about hire costs a few months back. I was told (by someone who would know) that 60103 was a significant financial success, 60007 covered costs and 60163 a flop. When it comes to 31128, 37688, 47077 they were needed due to lack of "home" diesels waiting repair. There is no breakdown of the £708k but with steam mileage slashed I think the 31/37/47 will be of a very significant proportion of that figure. A repaired 25 and 24 would have saved us money.

The autocar is a very worthy vehicle but hiring in a "limited seating" option doesn't make commercial sense. LHJC29 on load 4 would have been a far more cost effective, higher capacity and more popular attraction. Gala visitors I welcome, including hire costs, because they invariably bring in significant revenue for both steam and diesel events.

 

I think taking that kind of maximalist rather than minimalist position as to the function of the Appointment Committee is very dangerous, and I am sure that it is not the only way in which things could be arranged while still ensuring that the Board has the necessary range of skills.

By complete chance the draft rules for the future Bluebell Railway structure have arrived today. In the case of the PLC-replacement there is an appointments committee in the proposed rules, but the rules appear at first glance to have been drafted to ensure that the role of the AC is there to ensure candidates reach the minimum standard required, after which they proceed to a vote, rather than the opposite of finding who is the best fit for a vacancy. There is also a point in the rules that only some of the Trustee Posts have formal job requirements; and if a candidate does not meet those requirements but is otherwise eligible, they are put forward for election to the other unspecified Trustee roles. Now, these are draft roles, and I think they need studying carefully before acceptance, but at first glance they do at least seem to point to another mechanism by which a board can ensure that key skills are covered without disenfranchising the membership in voting for the trustees they wish to see elected.

Tom

 

John, what you are saying effectively highlights what is wrong with current voting requirements. The very idea of the chairman holding multiple votes make voting totally undemocratic. Those civil servants who drafted the current Companies Act may have been trying to make things more inclusive but, in reality, they have created a monster. I have no objections to proxies as long as they turn up to vote and are instructed how to vote by those they are acting for. I also think that the number of proxies a person can hold should be limited.