North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

No they haven't it's 2/3rds funded though.

 

Not what I've heard, although admittedly only on the grapevine. What's your source, is it any better?

 

Why is there a need for a glossy magazine instead of a PDF? I spend far too much of my time staring at a screen and I very much enjoy the opportunity to sit down with a book or magazine in hand. I suspect I'm not unique in this respect. Although I readily admit that there are others who are happy to read things on a screen, please don't force me to do things that I don't want to do because you seemingly prefer to do so.

 

Post removed

 

News is reaching me that the powers that be on the NYMR are taking exception to what is being discussed on Nat Pres regarding the railway and the bridge 42 saga and newly appointed civil engineer in particular. Perhaps those powers that be should be reading the many posts and taking notice of them rather than trying to censor them. There may be some duff posts but many are being made by people with knowledge and experience.

 

That isn't a joke - it's just a mean and unpleasant personal attack.

 

If that's what you think then I apologise, however I have long felt that the NYMR has become much more about the staff and defending their salaries, than it has about running a historical railway

 

According to a communication received today, the Railway has decided to prop the bridge and reopen by Easter. The full repairs would then be undertaken next winter. Tenders have been invited.

 

I suggest that those complaining about the criticism of this and that might pause to consider that other people do not view their efforts with same enthusiasm that they do. Usually, one of the basic principles of management is that managers really ought to grow a very thick skin - or accept that at least some of the criticism they are facing is valid. It's hard to know how valid the criticism of the handling of bridge 42 is, when the management themselves either don't know how to tackle the problem yet, or simply don't want to let out that they have decided.

 

I look forward to seeing that communication updating the appeal page. I also look forward to seeing clarification that the work required has the relevant permits or that the engagement is in place to secure them - I have too often seen optimistic updates followed by attempts to blame regulators for a delay that was entirely foreseeable.

 

Same user who was giddy several pages back about job losses. This isn't just criticising the railway, its bloodlust.

 

Of course not being a member has the advantage of not receiving pressure of not posting your views. It may be applied to members but unless derogatory, inflammatory, or illegal pretty difficult to shut up "The Man on the Clapham Omnibus"

 

It quite possibly has. But those staff (yes, including the CEO) are humans and worthy of respect. If their jobs are vulnerable, they are still going to need to feed families, pay mortgages, etc. Any redundancies that might come need to be viewed in that light, and not as a desirable outcome in itself.

I write as someone who finds it hard to believe that the current wagebill is sustainable, and wishes that the railway would correct its course.

 

The only sensible option really - shame that a lot of dirty laundry has been aired - but perhaps that will turn out to be a good thing in the long term?

As for tenders - the same applies. One would imagine that they will now be properly scrutinised - that GBP500k difference as quoted upthread should concentrate minds...

Mark

 

I'm not giddy about bloodlust, but after years of losses I firmly believe that the railway is operating beyond its means and one of the steps it has to take is to reduce its salary bill to a level that is more sustainable for the long term. It's a point that has been echoed by others, it's not just me that feels that way. Better to do it in a slow, careful way when people retire or move on, rather than face a forced welter when the next financial crisis arrives. I'm not an accountant, but from what I've seen of the Trust accounts it seems to have poured all its liquid asset into supporting the Plc, and as far as I could see it has now run out of liquid assets to pump further money in. If more is needed they'll have to try to borrow more or sell assets. Under those circumstances, you have to ask what is trying to be preserved - a heritage railway or the livelihoods of its staff?

 

I get Heritage Railway magazine, which is a glossy magazine is £5.40 per month. A netflix subscription is £5.99 (with adverts), a Large Cappucino in my local costa is £5.50, a pint of pepsi in the pub is £4.10.
£5 per month to be a member (£60 per year) doesn't seem at all unreasonable to be honest.

I wasn't forcing anyone, I said maybe membership should be more for those who want it. The cost of providing it being much more expensive than sending out an email. If I were a member of the NYMR, which I will admit I am not, I would want the money going towards the railway, not spent on providing a document I'll read once and throw away.

 

Well, a post on the NYMR unofficial forum says a post has been put on HOPS regarding the bridge and the estimated cost currently stands at...

 

Your postings have gone from genuine concern to frothing obsessive. Grinding the axe in threads where the railway isn't even the subject. You practically drove Lineisclear off the forum when he couldn't or wouldn't have the answer at hand to the point that NYMR had to dowse its outriders. Is the NYMR a well run organisation? From nearly 500 pages of posts and however many of them being the latest Disaster it looks like no. But needless sniping aren't exactly helping matters. All that energy and bandwidth and its all just spinning wheels.

 

Four issues of Heritage Railway Magazine is only £21.60 though, if membership came with the discounts for travel that it used to then £60 per annum might be justifiable.
Again you are thinking simply along per head lines. A smaller membership will increase the cost per copy of each magazine sent to each member. If the subscription were set at a less psychologically terrifying would maintain a larger membership producing a larger pot of money, if that doesn't cover the magazine cost per member, reduce the size and use cheaper paper. You might be able to afford a magazine subscription and Netflix but to many people those are non essential luxury items, should being a supporter of a heritage railway also be a luxury item?

Sawdust.

 

I'm a Branch Line Society member, and that costs me £12/year with almost all communications electronic. I can pay more to get paper content - up to £50/year for 20 mailings in the UK. If magazines are sent out quarterly, a comparison suggests the production cost should be somewhere around £10-£20 per year given the size and paper quality compared to BLN.

That then raises the question of what level a membership fee should be set at, and how it should permit the railway to make a cash surplus on membership (my view is that fare discounts are generally at worst an opportunity cost, and easily over-estimated). BLS is a voluntary organisation, and most of the other societies I belong to also use volunteers rather than paid staff for membership admin. My instinct is that the sweet spot, with paper distribution, is somewhere around £35-£40, but I'm not sure of the demand curve. I certainly wouldn't pay more than £50 for ordinary membership of a society without expecting a lot back - my NT and EH memberships, which are more, are absolutely mercenary in nature, and I look to get the cost back each year.