North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I’m afraid I am still unclear on your broader point, I feel like I am missing something still. Narrowly answering the question though as posed, volunteers will carry on even when they disagree quite vehemently with the management, but a) this tends to create a somewhat toxic culture b) it doesn’t help anyone feel happier and c) it certainly doesn’t assist the recruitment of new volunteers. The railway may continue to function, but not as well as it could.

As I don’t understand your point I am not sure yet how it links back to the culture comment before? Neither of us are advocating for a culture where volunteers feel they need to carry despite the management….well I am not, and I don’t think you are either.

 

Arrogance and complacency are probably the biggest problems.

I imagine we can all identify examples of those directors or trustees who think that either they know best or the rules don’t apply to them. On the surface at least this would not appear to be that big an issue in the heritage railway world, no more so than anywhere else, but as I reflect on some of the things I have heard around the industry I am less comfortable, and certainly the ORR was at one stage a few years ago very concerned about governance - driven I think by a concern that too few properly understood their duties as Directors / Trustees.

I don’t think it needs to be a scary monster thing though. The duty is to be curious. To find out what you need to know and make sure you find the answers. If you’re reasonably diligent and reasonably willing to heed advice then it is unlikely you need to be too worried about prosecution. Accidents and incidents are pretty inevitable and the key is to do whatever you reasonably can to prevent them and mitigate the consequences. This is pretty much true for safety or finances really.

 

Sounds like sound advice to me, but as I'm that way inclined, personality-wise, I'd probably never get past the NYMR'S Trust Board selection committee!

 

All diesel again today. 37688 on 10.35 Grosmont - Pickering was very loud. Should've been 31128 on 15.10 return but that was 37264. 47077 was out today, not on roster. I know it's the middle of summer but it's amazing how overgrown everywhere is since my last visit 7 years ago, and the amount of speed restrictions is incredible.

Edit - 926 had been lit up at Grosmont this afternoon. Bit of rain this afternoon but it barely lasted half an hour.

 

The replacement MIC reflects the heritage aspect of the charitable requirement, being a continuation of over 150 years of such institutions.

 

The new MIC is great but it is a bit more than that, including offices, showers and other amenities. A good win for the railway, nevertheless.

 

I think you may have missed my intended tone in my comment. I am not opposed to the MIC, I am not opposed to it, but it will provide volunteer crew facilities and a training area where instruction will be provide mostly by volunteers to other volunteers. That does not correspond to the idea - indeed preference due to necessity - of focusing on paid staff advocated by the person I was replying to. I have in the past suggested that heritage railways should be looking to encourage learning in all departments as traditional industries, that have till recently provided much of the skilled workforce, die away and skilled volunteers become scarcer. We have to start teaching and training people, because competency with a keyboard, for example, will not help too much with a mallet and chisel in the wordworking shop, or operating a lathe or milling machine, and such things are increasingly less and less taught in schools or even evening classes at tech. colleges.

 

I do get the impression that some heritage concerns do encourage volunteers to come and train for new skills, whether woodworking, upholstery or with metal. I do believe a lot of volunteers want to try their hand at something different to what the do/did in their daily work.

 

Lots of discussion today whilst I've been out and it would be too much to comment on each specific post so a few comments based on specifics.
With regard to volunteers not wanting to do what they do in everyday life, that is quite common and is no bar to people volunteering in other subjects, even at the highest levels. In the NYMR's case (as it is appropriate to the thread), for many years their signalling guru was the late John Boyes and John was, I believe, a chemist by profession. Despite no signalling training he was a well respected expert in this field. Again, associated with the NYMR, the PW stalwart on the ground for many years was Les Barwick who was a fireman by profession. Going further afield, in times past there was Fred Youell, a lecturer by profession but one who was entrusted with slewing running lines at both Embsay and Chapel & Wakes Colne so that stock could be transferred off the network. He also proposed changes to Liverpool Street to improve working that were implemented by BR. Even today, we have people in high level positions who are doing jobs totally alien to what they do for their everyday life (mentioning no names).
In terms of risk to volunteers, the highest risk is arguably for those in operational roles yet, in general terms, it is these that most volunteers aspire to - footplate crew, guards and signalmen, especially. If risk and liability were prime there would be real difficulty in fulfilling these roles but there is usually no shortage of people wanting to get involved with these operations. In a slightly different but related vein, a couple of years ago I had need to consult with @Lineisclear over an issue with a loco owning group for which a colleague and I needed legal advice. This was freely given by @Lineisclear for which we were most grateful. However, during the discussion liability and other things raised their heads and we were told of many possibilities which could involve such things as going to prison and unlimited fines. Even what might happen if you got your next door neighbour to help you move a wardrobe and that person succumbed to an accident was mentioned and that you really need to be insured before asking your neighbour to help. Coming out of the meeting the immediate thoughts were along the lines of 'lets get out of this game' but we soon came around to thinking that we were more likely to get run over and killed than the nightmare possibilities we had just been told about. When you read his posts on here and elsewhere, I think it is fairly obvious that he tends towards the nightmare scenario. Perhaps not wrong in law but very unlikely. In this respect I am reminded of the Environmental Protection Act which, as written, makes it illegal for both you to take your mothers waste to the tip and for her to give it to you to do so. You could both be fined but the reality is that you would not be prosecuted for doing so.

 

I’m not sure that would hold true, if anything I’d expect the opposite. A permanent staff member might be constrained by a lack of alternative roles available, and have significant ties to the area – everyone’s got to work, and not everyone can just up sticks and go somewhere else. Volunteers can more easily just stop volunteering. and may in any case not be as local so could also choose to volunteer somewhere else.

Like @21B I’m struggling with your logic here, and opposition to his list of what seemed to me to be truisms. What am I missing?

Simon

 

When you are able to advise on legal risks they should be highlighted and explained. It’s then up to the organisation or individuals to decide how to respond to them. If personal liability or sanctions are unlikely that can be taken into account but it’s surely better that’s an informed decision not just an assumption. The names mentioned are heroes all but perhaps men of their times? Sadly ,we live in a more litigious risk averse blame culture where a key issue may be insurance cover. Concern has been expressed that a number of potential insurers have withdrawn from the heritage rail sector. Where cover is available both willingness to provide it and/0r the premiums may be affected by perception of qualifications and evidence of competence. It’s not a question of whether that is provided by volunteers or employees. However, its availability underpinned by an employment contact may be material.

 

Can you give one example of where someone has been prosecuted for "negligent advice" at an MIC or any other training event on a heritage railway?

 

I often have to consult with lawyers in the course of my work, and I am often consulted by colleagues over risk; this also happens in my voluntary capacity. By & large, I've found that focusing on the worst case scenarios is not especially helpful and that advice is most useful when it focuses on what needs to be done to address the particular situation, to craft a positive outcome.

In contrast, I have sometimes slipped into, and find some advisors all too willing to, following the model of Puddleglum. When that happens, the focus shifts from achieving something positive towards avoiding a negative; very often it also makes the negative more likely because the focus is on that negative (a bit like with a small child, it is always better to divert their attention than say "no, you can't have an ice cream").

With that in mind, I suggest the concern over insurance is best addressed with an approach along the lines of "Insurers need to see the following information to be able to provide affordable cover - how do we use what we have to give them the comfort they need?". If that is really so sensitive to whether a particular person is in place, then putting faith in an employment contract seems a very weak position - if that employee falls under the proverbial bus, then the implications rapidly spiral.

As a contract manager, it reminds me that a purely contractual model rarely works, and that effective relationships tend to be far more effective. Contracts are a form of promise, can be broken - and are. As the report (by Bob Meanley?) into the Flying Scotsman overhaul highlighted, the preservation sector is generally not of a scale financially (or of maturity) to support the sort of model of contractual obligations that would be natural in a large corporation.

In this case, it feels like the comfort of an employment contract is a convenient distraction from the substance of the issue and, again, reflecting a difficult in engaging with the fundamental question of how a volunteering culture can be embedded in the organisation.

 

I would not know about that but I do agree with the view about liability, which kicks in for all sorts of things.
Over my working life I saw the H&SAWA grow into to some sort of monster.
I saw insurance requirements (OK it was working at LHR) grow to such a level that companies were unable or unprepared to obtain the required level and hence refused to even quote for work becuse the risk was too large.
You can never get a straight answer on these things, even our own inhouse legal team would often caveat their "advice" with "of course it is up to you if you follow what we have suggested". A true CYA if I ever saw one, so it would be a brave man who did not.
I have seen all the growth in diversity requirements, racial equality etc, all of which are fine but things you need to be aware of and train staff and volunteers for, and hence as an organisation you become responsible. Again liabilities can be severe
We have drifted into to a US sue everybody or anything, ambulance chasing lawyers, no win, no fee etc. It is not unrelated to this we can no longer wander around say Sheffield Park or Loughbourgh yards to get some decent images.
I will bow to those with more knowledge over the ORR's views on volunteers, but from my main line stewarding as a volunteer I am not sure we hold any level above a passenger in their eyes.

I have even had a debate with someone on the Bluebell email group over his view that my purchasing ticket to travel creates a liability for me to report any actions that are illegal or unsafe, and if I do not do so I am also liable to prosecution. That of course would assume I was even aware of those laws or regulations.

I will not really get into the whole paid vs volunteer, other than to say unhappy volunteers can walk away, paid staff, even at the non commercial rates paid by HR lines are more likely to stay (and perhaps moan) and even if they leave there is a notice period. Paid staff JD's could include many tasks, or a catch all such as any task as requested within their competence, whereas a volunteer when asked can say no. I do not know the answer on balance, but I can see what lines that run a lot of the year need paid staff, even if some of those are only seasonal, like say a TTI or booking office and platform staff.

 

Noted; my points about overall approach remain unaltered.

 

With the nearby fires continuing to cause problems - it is any surprise that according to the railway website Tornado is running as normal tomorrow! With no update since 18 August.

 

You say “If they require the comfort of a contractual underpinning…..”. Is there any evidence of this happening anywhere within the heritage railway movement and, if so, where, as I’ve heard nothing?

 

The comment was IF insurers thought employment was material. I have no idea whether that’s been an issue but I can see it would be a matter of possible concern. As another post has highlighted there’s a significant difference between resource that is under no obligation ( which is the essence of volunteering) to provide the necessary competence and that which is subject to a contractual obligation to do so. It would not be surprising if insurers were more reassured by the latter.

 

Would this not depend upon the the type of insurance and the broker? It never came up in any insurance negotiation I had on behalf of a railway where so far as the insurers were concerned “employees” meant anyone employed in doing a job of work on the railway. The employee reward never came into it. I don’t see this being an issue and I certainly wouldn’t want to suggest it should be, I can think of no material way in which the risk profile is worse whether you are paying someone or not. What matters is their competence.