North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Correction please! I haven't had the privilege and burden of being Chair of the Trust Board for over two years!

There's recurring theme in your posts about members/volunteers regaining control. Even with a community organisation like a CCBS that's not possible. Control always lies with the Trustees and Directors and that's been the case since the Charity was incorporated in 1973. Fostering a sense of involvement and a degree of influence is another matter. That's where a CCBS can help. If the railway was controlled by its members the obvious risk would be that it would end up being run in their interests rather than for public benefit benefit via fulfillment of its charitable purposes. In that event it could no longer be a charity with all the financial consequences that would entail.

 

At the end of the day, the NYMR does need corporate restructuring, but that's not the heart of the problem. The crux of the problems is that the business approach needs to change and the present Trust and Plc boards and the paid management do not seem to have a clue about how to go about that; what is worse, they all seem very disinclined to admit that they are doing anything wrong in the face of very strong evidence that they are not doing anything at all much right. If only they would and were prepared to change things there might be less call for urgent corporate change, but the first step on the right path must be to acknowledge and listen to the criticism - and there are no signs of that happening. Rather it's a case of fingers in the ears and shouting "I can't hear anyone, everything must be alright, nothing to see here!"

It doesn't help much for @Lineisclear, in his usual doomsday style to come out with statements like "If the railway was controlled by its members the obvious risk would be that it would end up being run in their interests rather than for public benefit benefit via fulfillment of its charitable purposes. In that event it could no longer be a charity with all the financial consequences that would entail". No-one but him has suggested anything of the sort!

 

You often talk as though public benefit and what members and volunteers want are mutually exclusive, whereas in truth they are for the most part identical.

Sawdust.

 

Indeed they often are but the post was in response to the specific suggestion of the members "regaining control" which is a very different matter.

 

I took the information from the Trustee report 2025-2026 listing, available via the official NYMR website. If it is wrong then I am happy to be corrected and apologise.

 

It depends whether "regaining control" is for their own benefit, or to pursue a different means of achieving the charitable purposes.

I don't think there's anyone particularly concerned about the terms of those public purposes - this is fundamentally about "how" the NYMR is run, not people trying to take it over for themselves. Even as framed by some, the practical implications are that there is explicit consideration of the interests of the volunteers - which is bluntly no more than a form of stakeholder management

 

Surely the problem is even if the railway had an organisation that would allow members/volunteers to take control how on earth would you even mobilise them to even get it started?
I suspect the NYMR membership base like most railways is mainly "armchair based" (and like myself at the Bluebell coming to @Jamessquared point about their changes in a moment) are rarely in a position to visit with any regularity anyway.
So the Bluebell proposed changes arrived in the post the other day and personally life is to short to wade through all that. I suspect there are many like me. Although I thought I had supplied my email address I obviously have not, but honestly if it all that came as a pdf I would be even less likely to read it.
Ergo they will get no disagreement from me.
You mentioned in an earlier post the current set up may have been part of "a tick box exercise". Quite possibly, but you would have needed someone with the knowledge to pick it up and mobilise a lot of people.

 

I wish I could ‘like’ this more than once!

I’m not sure what you think when someone mentions volunteer involvement/control, it is obviously anathema to you for some reason. As you will know, many heritage groups (not just railways) operate very successfully with large amounts, or total volunteer management. Maybe you need to stop thinking of volunteers as somehow second class when it comes to management. With such large continuing annual losses, the current “professional” management would have been dismissed in any normal organisation.

 

But those ultimately responsible for leadership and direction of the NYMR are 100% volunteers!

 

Whether it is intentional or not, there is often a very clear subtext in your posts that the members of a heritage railway cannot be trusted, since their own objectives are diametrically opposed to the public benefit. In fact I'd suggest nothing could be further from the truth: a way to demonstrate the public benefit (or community benefit, for a CCBS) is to deliver the outcomes that members of a heritage railway wish to see, i.e. a viable heritage railway! So I would see the public benefit and member interest as very closely aligned.

In the material circulated to the Bluebell members, there is a line that I think articulates that point - it is in the explanatory notes, not the rules, but says:

A CBS, whether or not it is recognised as charitable, must operate for the benefit of the community, not just its members, though its members are an important part of the community that should be benefiting from what the CBS does.

(My emphasis)
​

The community benefit we wish to deliver is defined as (paraphrased) preservation and operation of a heritage railway, including future extensions; preservation conservation, repair, maintenance and display of locomotives and rolling stock, buildings, bridges, track, signalling etc; archives, records and artefacts; provision of education and skills training in relation to the above; advancement of citizenship, community development and individual wellbeing through the promotion of volunteering, learning and training. I don;t think there is much to argue with there, inasmuch as if we are able to deliver all of those things, we will have demonstrably both met our community benefit and delivered the things are members wish to see.

Too often I think you get lost in the technicalities of rules, such that you end up viewing them through the lens of "what do they preclude" rather than "what do they enable".

Tom

 

I didn’t mention leadership and direction- I referred to management.
Perhaps leadership and direction are 100% volunteer, however it is very obvious that they are 100% not fulfilling those roles and responsibilities, since they continue to bankroll the “professional” management with not a word said against any of those “professionals” who are digging an even bigger hole for the NYMR to be buried in.

 

It seems to me that they do not. I reckon that either the existing trustees will decide to make a change of fundamental direction - or they will not.

Noel

 

Just come off the phone with a friend who still volunteers and was on duty for the gala weekend which he said was hugely successful and a real money spinner so not all is doom and gloom.

Unfortunately he went on to tell me about his visit in August. Because it was quiet he went to the chippy in Pickering when a car family car pulled up outside and the mother came in asking "where to park for the steam trains".

The bloke behind the counter supplied a one word answer. "Keighley"

Don't know whether to laugh or cry.

 

I have consistently used the word "leadership" to avoid getting into the finer points of the specific role fulfilled by the individual(s) concerned.

 

The CEO is a paid position, no?

Although you did say "ultimately" (which echoes something I have written to those who seemed to lay the main share of the blame at her feet).

Noel

 

I have no idea of the level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with recent and current management and leadership among active working volunteers of NYMR.

If a sufficient number of disgruntled active volunteers were to organise themselves into withdrawing their labour, to stop trains running, the senior management and PLC Board may be forced into dialogue with said organised active volunteers, with hopefully a positive attitude by both sides…..

 

It’s been talked about but the general thoughts amongst volunteers are why should I stop doing something that I enjoy and, if I did, there would be no income and it would probably be the end of the railway and my hobby.

 

I can understand this but it's not like if the volunteers mobilised and went on strike for a week (in the spring/summer it would be more effective than autumn/winter obviously) the management would just say "OK, end of railway." A week off is a small personal price to pay to safeguard your ability to keep volunteering for years to come, no? There's a reason strike action is highly effective. It forces people who have their heads in the sand to pay attention. If the volunteers could be persuaded to go on strike like that you could probably have either an immediate dialogue with management or the dominoes falling with regards to resignations, which ultimately does seem to be what everyone wants...