North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Let’s have it in full please …..

“Oh man! Don't hit me with them negative waves so early in the morning. Think that bridge will be there - and it will be there. It's a mother, beautiful bridge 42 - and it's gonna be there. Okay?”

 

I have just received a PM from someone who reads this forum. I can offer no comment on its veracity, but I have to admit that it coincides with my own impressions!

"I found that engaging with @Lineisclear a complete and total waste of time. His methodology is unbeatable - he asserts whether he knows the facts are not, he uses his former disasterous Trusteeship to belittle any opposition, he almost always goes down legal and regulatory rabbit holes to justify his ramblings and fails to address any question that doesn't suit his purposes."

I'm just relaying this, please don't shoot the messenger, and please do form your own opinion!

 

I don't know if there's any point to posting that. If a poster has that view they should say it or shut up. I raise an eyebrow at a lot of the stances @Lineisclear tends to take, but posting that is only likely to make him disappear completely. He also doesn't 'belittle' anybody to be fair to him.

People already have formed their own opinion by now so the latter sentence is a bit of a copout.

 

So were the professional fundraisers responsible for the two failed bids for Br.42 money and how much did that cost the Railway? And, if not, who was responsible for them? The PLC or the Trust?

 

I have had I suspect the same PM, which I've replied to, I am not going to do as the sender suggests and intend to carry on as before.

Sawdust.

 

Sometimes, things need to be posted for giving a rounded picture - Donald Trump is a good example of that : some love his style, others do not; Nigel Farage is another, and those on either side will not normally reconsider their views, but some times a case of "the Emperors new clothes" might give them reason to think. Or it may not, but sometimes it helps to have another opinion to consider , because the person in question is held on a pedestal by those with no experience of them. All I'm doing is suggesting that you feed the snippet I have posted into the thinking mill!

 

As somebody who has raised substantial amounts in another field, you can be as professional as you want, and still fail.
We used professional funders, and got little success, you almost have to be in the right place at the right time.
The decision is down to the funder, and if you don't get it right, or not fulfil the criteria, you get a no.
And trying to milk the same cow, time after time again, leads to an eventual no.
And money like this is in ever shorter availability, that is apparent over the past 2 years.
Any business expecting, or based on funding is leading its way to failure, you should never expect it, it is a bonus, you should have your own house in order, not be on the "scrounge".
That is now way defends, what has happened, just sharing my experiences.

 

It is all true, which is why I have always been sceptical of @Lineisclear's utterances that the NYMR needs to bring in more grant awards. It is why my first piece of advice, based on my own experience, is that if applying to HLF it is always worth trying to arrange a meeting to discuss a synopsis of the proposed application. Quite often, they will read it and be excited by some aspects but discouraging about others - in my experience it was the main application that left them less interested but very enthusiastic about the supporting elements! That was a carriage restoration application, but it was how it was planned to use it and provide interpretation of it that caused the interest. In the case of carriage restoration, it was learned that what we perceived to be the main focus of the project really need to be written in as a peripheral, but necessary, end-justifying measure for its planned use!

The NYMR has a couple more examples - the award for staging the Gresley 100 gala came about because there were several NYMR-associated projects that had come to completion around that time, and it was perceived as being a good opportunity to show what had been supported between the LNERCA, NELPG and the NYMR. In a later instance the YMJ project came about because HLF had been impressed by the way that all the preceding projects had been delivered and were keen to support another.

 

Agree, for the major stuff, we went through a vetting procedure, to make sure the proposal got the funders interest, and wasted nobodies time.
However, i felt with the area we were trying to fund, it was a numbers game, and it quickly became evident, what they (funder) said, and what a award committee may feel could be different.
Getting as many applications in for an award committee was their mantra, the quality was lost, at the expense of numbers.
There now seems a commitment to fund areas away from the mainstream ( i would consider the NYMR this), with specific groups and ethnicities looked on more favourably.
You mention HLF, i would assume they have had many successful applications in the past, in which case, somebody else needs to be awarded.
Again, trying to run a business on a income stream, that is neither guaranteed is asking for real trouble, as forward planning cannot be done with any guarantee.

However i do know of a loan / grant product, offered by a social bank, that pays the first 40%, with the rest being paid at a very favourable rate. I am sure any professional funder would be aware of this.

 

926 vice 44806 on 1615 from Pickering this afternoon.

 

In the case of fundraisers who are paid a % of the total award as their payment, you simply calculate what their maximum ‘take home’ could be and build it into the applications management costs. It’s really not difficult. In my experience, a good fundraiser will accept a lower agreed fee in return for a greater ‘risk / reward’ of the bid being successful.

 

The fundraisers we used, paid for themselves, through a grant, that allowed us to get 20 days of work FOC.
Its a dangerous item to hide the expenses, and pay on amount won, as they will go for the maximum, and potentially reduce the possibility of success.
All of my successes were based around a percentage of in kind attributed to the applicant, as you are seen to help yourself.
This always assumes the applicant is not trying the same funder over and over again, that is a guaranteed failure eventually.
The rules for attributing costs, are quite onerous, and when we did it, it was categorically stated, no paid funding help, or commisson payments.

 

Put another way, what is their track record? How many successful applications and, overall how much did they cost? And, where on the Trust accounts do they appear? - under "administration"? Shouldn't it be possible for someone to be able to ask at the AGM what money has been spent on such matters, and how much as been raised and who authorised the expenditure? Was there a Trust Board vote?? - oh, but of course, I forget, there's no provision to ask these sort of things at the AGM now! The best we could ever hope to do is propose to thank all the officers for their hard work providing financial support to the paid managers!