North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

It doesn't take one chartered civil engineer for each 18 miles of railway, Nigel Trotter performed the role for many years along side his other work, so if such a secondment did happen I wouldn't envisage it being a full-time post.
I do concede that the word "might" was doing some heavy lifting in my post but if you don't ask you don't get.

Sawdust.

 

I was told many years ago that, when given extra work, most people will claim that they already have enough to do and more staff should be employed/seconded to the job. However, that is rarely the case, just human nature and that those people will rise to the challenge. One of the attributes of good management is knowing how far you can push your staff and who will and who will not deliver. I think that there’s a lot of truth in that.

 

It was suggested to me recently, by a former Trust Board member, that once control of staffing passed to the Plc Board and was no longer subject to Trust Board approval, a lot of the "most people will claim that they already have enough to do and more staff should be employed/seconded to the job". behaviour took place. I cannot vouch for the reality of that, but from the outside looking in there, has been strongly suggestive signs of it!

 

"35 pence out of every £ in revenue on admin costs" may or may not be reasonable, depending on what is included under that heading, but if the figures of 19 admin staff, with 5 of them responsible for the (almost non-existent) marketing, is correct then that is surely extremely unreasonable.

 

That strikes a nerve. I was that guy at one point “oh give it to Sheff, he loves a challenge” and of course you accept it … again and again.
Until one day your mind and body decides otherwise. Lesson learned the hard way.

 

Great point, and a one i can concur with, in another field completely.
If you want something doing to your own standards, the only way is to do it yourself.
And, when i left, they were left right in the shoite, and requested all documentation i had created.
Thought about destroying it, instead passed it over, and said contact me if you need any impartial advice.
heard nothing and the project died.

 

It is interesting that the Bluebell's annual report, as summarised by @Alistair in the Bluebell thread, seem to confirm @Lineisclear's assertion that there is an industry-wide problem, but that same report shows that the Bluebell's management have recognised the issues, and have formulated a plan to deal with it without cutting essential expenditure on maintenance. That seems to be in start contrast to the NYMR where the has been several years of savage cuts in maintenance budgets, that have left the railway in a parlous state for operating, and with no apparent plan for recovery so far. That's a big difference in approaches. Will the NYMR develop a recovery plan in time to save itself - and will it tell its supporters what it consists of? I don't know the answer to that, but I am convinced that, inter alia, it needs to come up with ways of improving its trading performance, and lowering its staff costs - but without further weakening its engineering base. Without those measures, I simply don't think that any plan will be believable.

 

I am confident that these points are all recognised.

Sawdust.

 

I noticed that yesterday the camping coach at Levisham was moved to Pickering, along with the NER G2 covered van. Does anybody know why the G2 has been moved?

 

No one is likely to dispute that trading performance has to improve and that labour costs should be reduced. The challenge is how that can be done without making the railway less attractive to volunteers and while retaining the current operational length of the line. At least the Bluebell has demonstrated that the core problem is not unique to the NYMR. What’s rendering heritage railways unsustainable is primarily infrastructure capital costs plus the end of the assumption that the public could be persuaded to pay enough to make them financially viable. The challenge on staffing is to ensure that any reduction does not undermine the railway’s capacity to operate safely and in compliance with its regulatory obligations. Some of the roles necessary to achieve that may actually be more critical than engineering resource. The test will be next year’s business plan developed by the PLC and the courage of the Trustees in being prepared to back whatever it involves.

 

For scrapping presumably, old vehicles, no value to a modern commercial tourism operation.

 

I'm not a frequent visitor to the Bluebell and but there is a fundamental difference with the NYMR management in that not only are thay taking steps to deal with the economic climate, they have retained the confidence and support of their membership and volunteers by being open and honest about problems and keeping them on side.

The way in which both NYMR Trustees and Plc directors have been not just secretive but downright hostile to members volunteering has been disgraceful. At the same time they have been dismissive of suggestions to improve the financial position. Senior management hasn't just been failing but has been downright dishonest. Witness the recent accounts where a £200k loss was presented as a profit.

I note Sawdust has again posted that he has faith in our new Chairman and, because I trust Sawdust's judgment, I am willing to hope for the best. However time continues to run out and we are paying through the nose for every further delay.

For organisations with growing debt the interest rate rise announced today will cost us dear on what we already owe, let alone what we still have to spend on bridges and other deferred maintenance. I don't know what the current Santander debts amount to but I'm unofficially told it will be around £3 million.

A quarter of 1% may not sound much but it means that debt burden becomes ever more unaffordable. We need to dispose of those increasing that debt whilst serving no useful purpose.

 

I would imagine that the camping coach has been moved to Pickering for an internal"freshen-up" and a repaint; No idea about the NER van, I just hope it hasn't been sold!

 

Whilst I do agree the Bluebell has a plan, personally from someone who has worked under the sort of financial control mentioned there I would say it is a big leap to "have formulated a plan to deal with it without cutting essential expenditure on maintenance "to implying that is the status quo where everything gets done still. It could for example mean that a bridge replacement or its maintenance is delayed for a time, say by a speed restriction, so the money that is available can be used elsewhere. At some stage there will almost certainly be two or more "must do projects" and that is where the real problems start.
Despite being a member I have no idea if the Bluebell has or intends to start a Capital Expenditure Committee, nor if the NYMR has one, but in my view they should have so each business case can be fully interrogated to assess its worth for the money at this time.
Whilst galas seem to be growing in popularity with the enthusiast community (maybe due to less day to day running) it is pretty clear general load factors are unlikely to return to levels in the past, whilst the cost base rises and money for the publics discretionary spend falls.

I find it strange you use this to validate @Lineisclear view on the industry wide problem. Various GM's or CEO's (depending on the line) having been saying this in articles in magazines for years.