North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Yes, adverse comments on social media was the jist of what was said. Not the fact that they were after a director of civil engineering, then the person they employed was someone who is merely a project manager and quantity surveyor, not a qualified civil engineer.

 

I think this "explanation" needs more explaining. Are you suggesting that the person was employed despite the railway having "the professional support of two experienced volunteers and the very effective input from a contractor"? So, what exactly does the appointed person actually do to justify his pay? It cannot be in-person day to day liaison with the contractors, if he's based in Spain! IT's begin to sound like "here's an empty position, we must fill it with a paid person, no matter what their suitability is!" It begs the question of whether, if he needs to call in consulting engineers to justify his decisions, it might have been easier and cheaper to call in the consultants from the outset and cut out the middle man(which is what I think Piglet had been doing until the new person was appointed - and he is based within a walk of the site!).

Here, I would suggest, is another salary that could be saved!

 

"I can't afford a qualified technician to replace my Airbus cabin windows, so I hired a window cleaner instead".

Sawdust.

 

Sometimes the explanations given by people are so risible that laughter is the only real reply.

 

Did anyone think to contact one of the huge international railway civil engineering companies at all for help? They might well have got someone qualified on secondment for a year or two, while they sort out a permanent solution.
The company wouldn't care, they'd put it down as a charitable donation and the cost would have come off their corporation tax bill.

Sawdust.

 

I'm sure that someone might have asked around the HRA for some suggestions - or even done the same with the NYMR's former honorary head of civil engineering for advice (though that advice may have been to "jump on a horse and go off on a sexual adventure" since he apparently didn't leave entirely of his own volition, from what he was telling (actually, shouting across a field at!) the members of the PWay department!

 

You are nearly right. The former head of civil engineering aka the totally unqualified Spanish branch of the NYMR is no longer the head of civil engineering he is a contractor working on funding bids to repair the infrastructure despite having no qualifications (sorry he does have a HNC) in engineering, quantity surveying or project management. He does have a lot of differing CV’s listing his skills and expertise but none of this seems to match with reality.
When he was project managing and QS’ing and engineering bridge 42 he needed another project manager so another contractor was employed to support him and when the bridge 42 propping was completed this PM became the interim head of civil engineering.
The good bit is that during the reign of the first contractor head of civil engineering all of the bridges and structures were inspected by his totally unqualified self and the railway is working off what he has produced. So yes… the railway got rid of 2 volunteers who were qualified bridge inspectors and brought in 2 very expensive contractors who aren’t qualified to do the bridge inspections. Makes total sense when you think about it.
I know some people now have some hope that the new chair of trust board can somehow turn this around and save the railway but unless his previous role involved making the blind see and turning water into wine there is no hope at all. The commission won’t look into the PLC and the ORR contacts the NYMR to mark their own homework so there is nobody to turn to and nobody to look into what is at best gross incompetence and at worst should lead to jail time.

 

I spoke to the new trust chair at length, I found him amenable to listening to what I had to say, he came across as sharp, I believe his background does equip him to sort this mess out. You have to remember that bridge 42 is only one front on the NYMR's difficulties, I suspect it is the lesser of the problems in that I suspect the bulk of the funding may yet appear in the form of grants. It is the ongoing large losses coupled with the dire state of much of the rest of the infrastructure, which is the bigger problem as there are multiple issues to resolve.
If you feel you have something of some importance to draw to his attention, do so. If you have had any email dealings, with anyone at the NYMR, then you know how email addresses are formed and you will be able to work out what his email address is and contact him that way. If you don't, then PM me and I'll tell you what it is privately. That applies to anybody else who wants to contact him, as long as you do it using your real identity.
I am surprised little attention has been given on here to the admission by the PLC chair, that the current wages and salaries bill is not sustainable.
I believe that the situation is every bit as dire as it was in 1984 and if you genuinely want the NYMR to survive and not that you want to continually hone axes against certain individuals, who may or may not remain associated with the railway in the medium to long term. Then the best way to try and ensure it's survival is to back the new chairman and the trust board which is now a different composition to what it was just a couple of years ago.
Yes the new business plan is being drawn up by the PLC board but all aspects of it will have to meet the satisfaction of trust board. They don't have a magic wand and not all decisions will please everyone. But backing John Philip and trust board until at least the presentation meeting next year is the only real hope of saving the NYMR right now. They aren't going to be able to do that as well, if they are constantly being attacked as part of the failed regime rather than a new broom.

Sawdust.

 

All very fair and reasonable comments, but after all that has gone on, I suspect that showing faith in the new trust chairman and board will be difficult to do for many, until they see some positive actions that they can get behind. In view of the comments on infrastructure, and particularly those bridges in Newtondale in Newtondale which are said to be in desperate need of repair, by @Wonkyturntables, I think that one good development might be to get a second opinion of the urgency of repairs needed, so that the urgency of financial needs can be prioritised and perhaps more funds reallocated to track works. John Philp's priority must be to rebuild confidence in the SMT so that the railway's supporters can see that every penny is being spent wisely and sensibly from now on - and that must include a root and branch review of the administrative staff to see whether they are all making a positive contribution to the performance of the business. It is quite possible that not all actually do, and if not they have become a luxury that can no longer be afforded. The comments that you mention made by the Plc Chairman about the wage bill being no longer affordable as interesting, if only because they haven't been affordable for some years now, and what have the Plc Chairmen and SMT who have come and gone in those times done about the issue? It seems they have backed the CEO in making swingeing cuts to everything staff costs! There's a group of managers who clearly don't have much of a clue about the severity of the position! Some of them should really be considering their positions.

No doubt the Plc Board's chief apologist and defender will appear on here before too long with his usual array of legalistic excuses, but I hope that other reader's b******t and bluster filters have been tuned by now!

 

So, what you are effectively saying is that the person appointed was not a suitably qualified and experienced civil engineer, then? For once, most people would agree with you.

 

I'm broadly in agreement with the above although I think most supporters would like to to hope that the new Chairman can deliver badly needed changes, but you are certainly right that these need to be made in the immediate future. The simple reason is that the current policies continue to see the PLC haemorridging money. Expenditure exceeding revenue is inevitable in winter but the outflow needs to be reduced as far as possible. Our new Chairman is certainly aware of the problems and hopefully has already come to firm conclusions as to what cuts are needed. What the accounts describe as adminstrative costs work out at £225,000 a month so any further delays are unaffordable.

With very few exceptions the recent marketing of the line has varied between non-existent and negligible. The only example which I think anywhere near worth the expenditure was the website homepage video, excellent in promoting the right image to attract visitors but sadly far from what has been the true experience of overwhelming diesel substitutions this summer. It's a miracle there haven't been complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority.

In theory 5 of the 19 administrative staff are designated as Marketing. Why these duties aren't volunteer posts I can't imagine. Of the 14 others exactly who does what, their salary levels and even what (if any) purpose they serve seems to be kept in total secrecy. Yes admin is an important function but it MUST be cut to the minimum necessary. For those of you who might suggest I don't know what I'm talking about I used the manage the Finance and Admin department of a small UK Plc. We had 5 staff covering both functions out of a total workforce of 260. At the moment the NYMR spends 35 pence out of every £ in revenue on admin costs. This is admitted in the Feb 2026 accounts. At the AGM it was accepted that the wage bill is unsustainable. Abolishing the CEO post is an essential first step

Finally the current webpage says the re-opening will be in March 2027. At the current rate of progress the Bridge 42 appeal will probably then stand at a little over £500,000 out of the estimated £800,000 needed. I would suggest that our Spanish resident engineer is twice redundant, firstly due to location and second because his "consultancy fees" probably exceed the current rate of donations.

I hope our new Chairman will beware of the Bull, whether emanating from Iberia, CEO or his totally discredited predecessors.

 

That says to me three things.
1) If that company can spare someone for one yet alone two years what are they still employing them?
2) Either their colleagues have to take up the slack which means more work and hence probably longer hours for no extra pay.
or
3) They still have to do all or most of his own job as well as this.

I have done and got the tee shirt for 2 & 3. It is not great for the individuals and meeting their KPI's almost certainly suffer and that may well hit their pocket in terms of performance pay as well.

If the current person is being paid, then I assume he is employed as a contractor by the PLC so as I understand it is not a charity. If there would be some sort of feed through to the charity for payment terms is far from clear from the guidance I looked at on the government sites.

 

The Trust is the majority shareholder in the Plc and so the Trust Board has every right to ask about the employment terms awarded to contractors, including pay. If they have not done so it rather makes them yes-men to the Plc Board, and in need of any still remaining to be got rid of to be replaced by people more willing to ask questions and insist on truthful answers.

 

It depends on whether they work for a consulting firm, or an end user company. What you say is absolutely right for an end-user company; a consulting firm will often have some capacity and budget for precisely this kind of work.

 

I'm awaiting the next press release:-

"Moors line gets Philip after Swift departure"

 

I'm broadly sympathetic to the above, but I'd caution about getting too fixated on "administration" costs, because it really does depend what is included. I took a quick squiz at the most recent Bluebell accounts, and in the management information section (so really additional explanation to the accounts) there is £3.6m down as "administration", but it includes things like "power, heat and light", "property repairs and maintenance", "engine hire and transportation", "leasing - plant and machinery", "special event costs" and myriad other things. In fact it seems pretty much like the whole budget is listed except the various infrastructure, loco and rolling stock maintenance items! It certainly covers more than I suspect many people think when they hear the word "administration".

So absolutely a forensic look at the budget is needed, but that will require more detailed figures than are in the statutory accounts, and which may well be confusing if you fixate on the labels rather than on what of value is being generated by that line item.

Tom

 

Sorry, double post.

 

Very good, Sulzerman. Sign him up to marketing, sharpish.