North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I'm sorry, I disagree that those structures (especially charitable ones) are inappropriate. While they do impose constraints, especially on the legal duties of trustees and/or directors, the fundamental challenge is in how they are operated - which is a question of culture.

The idea of a volunteer forum could be very good (though I'd have concerns about injecting more formal structures), but it can only work to the extent that trustees/directors allow it to, or members engage with it. As this whole discussion has as one of it's key themes the challenges of engagement between volunteers and trustees/directors, and especially the validity of formal engagement, I do wonder how successful it could be.

 

The very fact that your first thought is to terminate someone’s volunteering if they disagree with the board or refuse to carry out an order, is somewhat frightening and should make every NYMR volunteer think seriously about volunteering on a line with a board member holding such a position.

Maybe the first thought should have been to query why the volunteer refused, how widely held the view is, if there was another option and perhaps, just maybe, the board was wrong…

 

Completely over the top! The discussion was about volunteer managers and whether those employed were less likely to challenge board decisions they think are wrong. My suggestion was very much what Ghost proposes; listen to those managers with experience, whether they're employed or volunteers and be open to thinking again based on their advice. However, once that's happened and a decision made it's perfectly reasonable to expect that any manager, paid or volunteer, will comply with it. The consequences of not doing so would inevitably raise the prospect for a volunteer manager of his or her future offer to volunteer in that role being declined.

 

Can you explain what format your volunteer forum will take and how you hope it to make a difference?

Sawdust.

 

I'm not involved directly in the detail. That's being developed the relatively new Head of HR who has already made a difference with things like the weekly staff and volunteers newsletter. Of course it involves the People Board Support Group, which has a number of working volunteers as members.

 

It perhaps ought not / would not be the first course of action though? Surely the first effort would be an effort to bridge the gap again. Perhaps a warning about the dangers and consequences of continuing to not accept the decision? Only repeated refusal to accept the decisions of the company would result in first removal from the manager role and later withdrawal of the permission to volunteer?

 

Agreed, which is why I mentioned "that role" rather than all volunteering. It's surely dependent on the circumstances. There might be instances where a manager's refusal to comply with board decisions would be critical. Broadly the test should be the same whether the manager is a volunteer or employee.

 

Re above. When I was work-working once a decision was made it was there to be followed without “public” dissent; eg Local Authority Officers following the decisions of the Local Authority Members made in Committee, employees following decisions made by Senior Management Teams (SMT), SMT’s following decisions made by a PLC Board. In this instance I would expect the NYMR to follow the direction (strategy / Policy) of the Trust Board, then subsequently the staff (whether paid or Employee, it makes no difference) to follow the direction of the PLC. The only place for dissent is behind closed doors but at the end directions are there to be followed (unless unlawful) whether one personally agrees or not with that decision, and certainly not to “wash one’s laundry in public.

In addition, when work-working I suppose I was lucky but once I did inwardly disagree with the direction of a company I worked for, but then I was able to gain employment in an alternative company with an ethos I whole heartedly agreed with. However, personally I now volunteer for NYMR and I do consider I have less rights than a paid employee, and if ever I was “dismissed” (ie services no longer required) then I would be “lost” (ie sat at home twiddling the proverbial fingers).

Yes there have been issues with volunteer and staff in the past, most notably with communication, but the railway has recognised this and taking effective measures to address through now weekly newsletters, now introduced staff and shortly to be introduced volunteer forums, and panel meetings. But overall, I find the NYMR a good place to volunteer, one happy family with little to distinguish between who is staff and who is a volunteer. We show equal respect to each other, and we are basically one happy family.

 

Back in the 80's there was a very unofficial 'Footplate Department' which met every three months. I say unoficial but it had a chairman and secretary (me) and thee was an agenda and minutes were produced. Everyone was welcome at these meetings although, quite logically, it was mainly footplate and MPD people who attended. In those days the footplate department was part of the MPD team. We didn't have an MPD manager, as such but had a loco superintendent who was responsible fro th day-to-day running of the shed, loco rostering ansd footplate crewing. The Loco Superintendent (Peter Smeaton) always used to attend the meetings and there was always some lively discussion, always good natured. We scored some notable successes, such as the banner repeater at New Bridge, movement of the shed water column and lighting and tarmac-ing of Grosmont tunnel although there were other good suggestions* that came to nought, usually on financial grounds. The December meeting, although having the formal bit, was always a bit of a party with a good bun fight, presentation of 'awards' (known as the Berties after Bert Hitchen) a John Hunt slide show and a singalong. All this in the back room of the Station Tavern. IMHO, I think that it would be great to have this resurrected and I don't see why other groups couldn't have similar.

* One very sensible suggestion that came to nought on financial grounds was an emergency crossover at he south end of Grosmont tunnel. This would give an alternative exit for locos in the event of (say) a derailment on the traps on the shed exit road. It would also enable a loco to leave shed at the same time as one was wanting to go on shed, something that often happened back then and led to some near misses in the days before there was a shed exit signal. It's ironic that, after all this time, the sugestion has come back on the agenda, sparked to some extent by the condition of Br.42 and the possibility of not being able to get locos off shed if it gets any worse and what this would mean for the railway.

 

It stands out when reading several pages of this thread that that majority of posts are Lineisclear v Anyone and Everyone and his defence for being right appears to always be a legal one however tenuous .
Perhaps ,even occasionally ,it would be nice if he accepted he is wrong and defeat and stopped digging .

 

I very much agree. I have for a long time thought that the approach of@Lineisclear, as shown on Nat Pres, is very symptomatic of what is wrong with the NYMR's management, which is a pity. In reality, he's a very nice guy and ever willing to help but, as a Trust Board member he very much toes the party line and senior management is always right, even when they are wrong. He always cites the legal angle of why you can't do or have to do with threats of dire consequences from the likes of the ORR, Charities Commission, Companies House and National England.

 

Thank you Steve. We may not always agree (that's helpful) but we 've always got on. Of course my posts will "toe the party line" because as a member of the Trust Board I accept collective responsibility. If I couldn't justify its decisions and those made by the PLC Senior Leadership Team under delegated authority my only option would be to resign. What I may argue within the confines of the Boardroom stays there . That's a fundamental tenet of any corporate governance structure.

I'm not an official spokesman. My view are my own but if they weren't compatible with leadership decisons I could not continue to be a Trustee.

Are management always right? Of course not! It was once observed that the definition of a good manager is someone who is right more often than they're wrong. The current leadership team are having to deal with huge challenges that are far from unique to the NYMR. They will make some mistakes but their capacity to learn and adapt will see them and the railway through.

I make no apoogies for seeing things from a legal perspective. That 's inevitable given my background and it's fair to say that gives a personal bias towards compliance rather than putting two fingers up to regulatory authorities who have the ability to close the railway. You may not like Natural England's power to ban steam traction during periods of extreme fire risk or the ability of a court, in the last few days, to fine a train operating company £1million for allowing a passenger to stick her out of a droplight to be hit by an overhanging branch. Sorry, but it's now a highly regulated litigous world we operate in. Shooting the messenger may make you feel better but it doesn't alter the situation.

It's bizarre to treat posts on social media as some sort of popularity contest. Whilst there are some who have genuine involvement with the NYMR it seems there are others who are neither NYMR members, shareholders or volunteers who believe they should have some influence over the NYMR's future based on their majority social media views. I have to disappoint them . The vast majority of the NYMR's leadership view social media as a toxic irrelevance. It must be obvious that I take a different view and have been prepared to engage, explain and challenge. However, I'm beginnimg to think that perhaps my colleagues are right

 

Re @Lineisclear reference to the recent £1m fine, here is the ORR (3/10/25) press release
https://www.orr.gov.uk/search-news/...ollowing-fatal-2018-droplight-window-incident
And the original RAIB 2018 report
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5da5d858e5274a392e9c9467/R142019_191016_Twerton.pdf
A salutary lesson for all, including Heritage Railways,

cheers

Dave