North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

A bit of a longshot here but at the risk of attracting return fire I'll give it an airing antway.

We are told that the restrictions of making changes to the NYMR constitution as it stands would be variously complicated, costly, very long-winded and requiring all manner of regulatory approval. That being the case we need another way to solve the problem.

Although views across various posters differ in their approach I think 99% would agree that resolution and pretty fundamental change is needed. I also think the great majority would accept that whatever individuals think is a solution it comes down to a widespread, almost universal belief the present system is broken .

We are told that Senior Management could only be removed by Trustee action and that the Trustee's as a result have lost the confidence of staff (paid and volunteer), ordinary members and the local business community. We need to remedy that lack of trust within the rules of the present constitution.

The AGM notice for the 29th October makes it clear that questions will be restricted. It also gives no opportunity to raise other items for discussion or even a choice of candidates in an uncontested election. I don't know what the legalities are but maybe there might be a independently minded legal eagle reading this who could advise.

I think the existing Trustees should be asked, assuming they believe in trying to bring current divisions to an end, to allow a very simple choice. They should all agree to stand for re-election and allow all eight new candidates who were put forward for Trusteeship to stand as well. I have nothing whatever against any of the "chosen" four Trustees in waiting and because they are volunteers rather than professional trustees I'm sure they would all have the NYMR interests at heart. Equally I believe the excluded 4 candidates should have a right to stand for exactly the same reasons.

The above isn't going to provide an immediate solution to the growing financial problem but it would be a start. Very sad to say but the existing and recently departed Trustees, rightly or wrongly, no longer have the confidence of those who make the railway possible. Donations, bequests etc so numbers volunteering or offering support fall away.

We don't need to spend £50k we haven't got on lawyers, we don't need to take 2 years to sort the mess out. We just need the current regime to restore some sense of calm, co=operation and stability that all can work towards. This can be done within existing rules and don't let any obstacle builder tell you differently.

With Trustees the clue is in the job title and when trust has been lost then a change is required to restore the balance. It will be their choice as they hold all the aces but it could be the way forward.

 

Or perhaps to paraphrase in this context, we will need the volunteers to pay more so that we can continue to afford to employ the paid staff.

 

Just a simple question. The right of the members to a postal/electronic vote is enshrined in the Articles. Are you suggesting that only those who can physically turn up at the AGM would be able to vote on your proposal? Even if it was adopted it's the right of all members to be given notice of precise AGM resolutions. Failure to observe that fundamantal democratic requirement would mean that any decision reached at the AGM would be void.

 

I don't know if you have viewed the accounts Jon but it's worse than that. Administration costs are given as £2.7 million per year. In basic terms that 35 pence for every single pound from all sources.

For comparison salaries for staff working in railway operations the figure is £522k, less than 7 pence per pound.

 

Everybody who is a member should have the right to vote for people who can't vote in person they should be able to cast their vote in the way they desire, handing over their vote to the chair of the meeting to cast as the chair wishes should not be the sole option. However at the moment members only get the TB reasons to support any change. Those opposed to changes ought to be able to make the argument against those changes to the membership. The current system does not allow for honest debate about any motions put before general meetings to take place.

Sawdust.

 

I think that in legal circles (although "someone" more versed in them may correct me!) what you describe is termed "making an informed decision". Presumably, company law does not make any provision for providing voters with the pros and cons for any argument the company management wishes to win, they only need to provide the pros, at the company's expense, it is up to the dissenters to argue for the cons at their own expense. It is a loaded system!

 

Absolutely correct but it's even worse than that because not only is proxy voting power usurped by the chair but the control the Trustees have extends to choosing who is allowed to stand in the first place. It's impossible to vote for those so excluded before any ballot is possible.

Another poster was rebuked last week for comparing a certain person with a well known Russian dictator but it's no wonder many staff call Park Street the Polit Bureau.

 

I

I was that poster! - and actually I didn't compare anyone to a Russian politician, the comparison was with the electorial system currently in force under said politician!

 

That's the purpose of proxy votes. Every member has the right to appoint a proxy ( who doesn't have to be a member) to vote for them either as instructed or to use their discretion . There is no obligation to appoint the Chair as proxy but if a member does so the Chair is duty bound to vote as instructed i.e. he or she will excercise x votes in favour , y votes against or z votes as abstentions.
Under the postal/electronic voting system every member has the right to exercise their vote with the result declared at the meeting. This year, as usual, there was an invitation for members to submit resolutions in time for them to be included in the Notice of Meeting. There was no response. If any had been submitted a statement by their proposers as to the merits of the resolution would be included in the Notice.

 

On the contrary, I think visitor numbers are an essential measure of performance because they help qualify the pricing strategy. NYMR has been demonstrating both aspects of the Laffer Curve in recent years and, I suspect, had to lower fares more to compensate for demand lost by raising them. @Jamessquared is absolutely right that a fares strategy based on premiumisation, with income spread over a narrow base, leaves a firm employing it very vulnerable to a relatively small change in sentiment. That is before considering teh chariable objectvies, and whether they can honestly be seen to be being met if the fare is raised too far. Push it too far, and the sector risks being seen like private education as people hark back to a very narrow definition of what constitutes "charity".

You might, but you are a retired senior manager with, presumably, savings and pension to match. You were also recruited at a time when volunteering was just that, volunteering. If you make it "pay to play", then you risk excluding those with time but not money, and limiting your supply of new blood by introducing a threshold to cross before you can volunteer.

The comparison (in itself, a telling one) has been made to golf club membership. In that model, I pay for two things - to join the club, and then (separately) to participate in its activity. Any benefit from the activity is entirely my own. Even if we stretch it to, for example, an amateur orchestra or choral society, the performances (for which tickets are sold) are a function of allowing members to express themselves - hence being one-off and frequently not that well attended.

A heritage railway advertises a completely different proposition to the public, which it could not provide without the volunteers, or their paid equivalents. Even to the extent that the part of the public that it benefits is its membership, they are a subset of the total membership.

I administer donations for my church. I know that some give very generously, and others are much less generous relative to what I understand of their means. These are matters of conscience, but where their particiipation is the primary thing - anything they then give is over and above. When there is a hint of payment to participate (notably in the

 

I understaand and to large degree share your concerns but what's the alternative? Others have observed that cost cutting has its limits unless it impacts the scope and scale of what the railway is today. The standard suggestion is attracting more paying visitors which would be fine if they exist. However aside from enthusiast events the indications are that they are not there.
So faced with those hard realities what would you suggest?

 

This really is a pessimistic viewpoint with, I suggest, limited evidence to back it up. For example, the Yorkshire Dales Railway seems to be doing very well (taking historic carriages rejected by the NYMR!) to meet a revised business model., based on catering They seem to have adapted well, whereas the NYMR, in contrast, seems to have stuck with same catering model it has used for the last 30 years or more. Where is the evolution to meet a changing world at the NYMR? I see heritage railways up and down the country having to adapt and change, but the NYMR seems to be uniquely crippled by a management that seems incapable of much in the way of trying, and instead holding out its hand to appeal for that ever diminishing pool of public spending power. Maybe its new strapline should be "Alms for the struggling CEO with a large administration burden to support"!

 

Commercial focus. Invest in new events and ideas to reach different audiences. Build both premium offers and value prices offers. Ensure that these offers require a sensible amount of equipment.

Reconsider running to Whitby/how you run to Whitby. I suspect that a great deal of cost is driven by by that offer, make sure it works for you. Consider buying a 150 and using that to shuttle between Whitby and Grosmont for example. Do not simply trot out reasons why it cannot be done, actually think how it might be done and whether it could help.

Reduce the wage bill. Sorry, but as others have said you have to cut cloth etc.

Right size maintenance. Meaning, could you speed restrict bridges and eke out more life, or run the full length of the line less often?

Engage with volunteers and members. See what ideas they have. Create positive vibes, because that might lead to some useful insights.

Understand that there is no single fix. Everything will have to be tried. So do that in a structured way and measure the results. Share them.

Accept that none of the above guarantees success, only reduces the risk of failure.

 

Last two posts very interesting. Embsay seems to have been one of the standout railway post Covid in terms of transformation. It proves a turnaround can be achieved. I would also agree with all that @21B says.

have a look around for ideas. See if the railway can adapt to a new USP whether by new products or appealing to wider audiences. Look at partnerships with others to help on events. All these things may have been tried already or in production. Doing the same or hoping for a return to pre covid days or figures is probably a non starter.

Matt

 

All positive suggestions which can really be summarised as “ come up with a different economically viable business model” As Matt suggests that’s very different from going back to the pre Covid past or doing things in the traditional way.

 

It is interesting that you welcome these suggestions from others with associations to other lines, but seem to dismiss any from people with associations to the NYMR as impractical, for various reasons. I don't think anyone from the NYMR side has really suggested carrying on regardless, as you frequently seem to imply. I would have thought it is pretty b*****y obvious that carrying on the way things have been with little or no change is not sustainable, but if our "professional" managers don't realise that, why haven't they started to make the necessary changes?

 

With the size of the NYMR there is scope to try both at once or even pilot multiple ideas.

Sawdust.

 

Having visited Embsay, and had very mixed feelings about what I found, I suspect a very careful analysis of what they've done, why it's worked and especially whether it's transferable to the very different conditions of the North York Moors is necessary. On the day I visited, it was also conspicuously less busy that the KWVR.

But I make that comment not to constrain choices, but to highlight the need for the analysis to be properly in depth

 

A Scottish inter 7 city hst set would be a better fit and more marketable since it is such an iconic train.

Sawdust.