North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

This situation occurred on the ELR a few years ago. A curve on the river Irwell was getting too close to the track. I cannot recall how it was dealt with.

 

I’m not a civil engineer. The design of protection is a pretty specialist thing too. Personally I would start by talking to one of the half dozen firms that are used to this work for Network Rail and go from there.

 

But not in an insolvency - which was I think the argument made by @Lineisclear in respect of both WSR and Llangollen.

 

IF the charity is unable to meet its commitments it doesn’t necessarily mean the plc cannot, at least not immediately, and an orderly transfer of the Trust shares should be possible to another Trust with similar objects. We might be jumping a few steps ahead here, because I think we all hope they are not insolvent or about to be.

They need (for a few reasons) to demonstrate they can trade. Even Pickering to Levisham would be fine.

 

That sounds far too easy. There must be a catch!

 

"I’m not a civil engineer" Well you are in good company as, from the CV on his website, neither is the person making the decisions on the bridge. On this basis your opinion is as good as anyone's!

 

It’s important to know your limitations!

This saga sounds from afar to be pretty ridiculous, but there may be some really good reasoning going on. It can be very easy to point fingers and to misread situations like this when you’re on the outside with no information. This is where I think the comms strategy falls over for the Moors. They should really be making sure the rumour mill doesn’t grind into action. This, it seems to me, is the consistent failure of the organisation that hampers ALL its activities, and could well be the ending of them.

 

My interpretation (FWIW, which isn’t an awful lot) ….. based on what I’ve read here, and the individual’s LinkedIn account, is that he was looking for work, and NYMR needed someone to fill a Civil Engineering void (so to speak). Subsequently, it appears that he may have landed a full time paid contract which has led to him reducing his involvement at the railway.

What’s puzzling me is that why, given the somewhat opaque nature of his qualifications allied to the serious impact of his decision on the railway’s finances, haven’t they gone out and obtained a second opinion from a competent person?

 

There’s probably only three possible explanations for the appointment.
#1 despite not being a civil engineer the candidate displayed the qualities required to lead the civil engineering team with enough relevant experience to show competence which will have been explained as part of his introduction to the business.
#2 due to a lack of candidates the role was revised to more of a project management role but the job title wasn’t changed as the job title does not necessarily infer that the successful candidate is a civil engineer and again this was explained as part of his introduction to the business.
3# (and this is very low probability) the panel fell hook, line and sinker for his tall tales and failed to carry out any background checks such as reading his own two websites and checking their contents against what he had stated as part of the application process including not speaking to their own volunteers who have worked in the companies he claims to have worked for and on projects that he claims to have been the lead on.

Without being part of the selection panel it is unlikely that we will ever know the true answer.

 

Perhaps the least surprising part of that (to me) is they spent over a year searching for someone. It does go to show the difficulty in recruiting suitable people to roles that pay I suspect, well below market rate.
No idea if the present incumbent is or was the right choice of course, or all that was out there.

 

That may be the case; I don't know. but there is no reference to this in Section 24.

 

Knowing the person who was on the interview panel as an independent expert (and who is the chairman of a respected heritage railway) I suspect that he was only there to ask questions at the most and was not required to undertake due diligence. A good interviewee will give you the answers you are looking for and that could include telling porkies if they are that way inclined. If the affair hasn't resolved itself by the time I next bump into him, I might ask the question but that is unlikely to be before the next HRA meeting in April.

 

I was speaking to someone who has had a chat with a very experienced former civil engineer (on the NYMR!) who thinks that the repairs necessary to make bridge 42 safe to use shouldn't take more than a month or so. Basically, in their opinion, it's necessary to dig down a couple of feet in a few places (3 I think) cut out the old tie bars that hold the bridge sides from splaying out and replace them with new stainless steel tie bars and reinstate the infill and ballast etc. At some point in the future the bigger job of repairing the foundations in the river will be needed, as will repairs to the underside of the stonework, but trains could still run while they are. It sounds to me as though someone who really isn't a bridge engineer is suggesting an approach that "comprehensively covers his arse" rather than knowing exactly what is required.

 

So if I’m reading this right based on the posts on this new man I’m taking it that the NYMR has employed someone who isn’t a civil engineer as a civil engineer to add weight to funding applications and show compliance? This man has then closed a bridge that is vital to the operation of the railway before disappearing to Spain where it is believed that he may be working for someone else? If this is true and can be proved to be true then his contract should be terminated and whoever appointed him should walk very quickly before theirs is too.
I can only find one website of his but this doesn’t match what the has been written about him and the fact that he is described as an experienced civil engineer is enough to show me that the NYMR doesn’t have a clue what a civil engineer is or what qualifications are needed to use that title.
The Bridge 42 appeal is one NYMR appeal that I won’t be donating to until I have a lot more information and some faith that my money will be well spent.

 

There's https://pjsash.com/ abd http://www.pmylcivils.com/ that I know of. Looking at the samples of work undertaken some appear to have been whilst working for other contractors, either as a subby or as an employee.

 

I was wondering similar. I’m reminded of Mrs Thatcher’s dictum that “advisers advise and ministers decide”. In the scenario of something complex like bridge condition, I’d expect that you would have a process in place where someone qualified in assessing condition would provide regular reports, and the board would then decide how to act on those reports. I

t is I guess possible that such reports exist, and maybe the condition suddenly deteriorated to the point that the advice changed from “plan for a repair next winter” to “it is no longer fit for traffic”. But you would still expect those condition reports to come from someone qualified to inspect the condition of bridges and to see a separation between the advice and the decision. The important thing is that the board members must have faith in the quality and impartiality of advice they are being given.

If the board decision is that closure is necessary, the manager’s role is then to plan a cost-effective way to make a repair to enable resumption of services.

Tom

 

If the board is taking such decisions, rather than being informed and consulted, then I think something (else?) isn’t quite right.

 

Doesn't that depend on the seriousness of the decision?

On the one hand, running traffic over a structure not fit to take that traffic is clearly a safety-critical matter. But on the other hand, closing all or part of the railway (especially at short notice) has very significant impacts on the financial viability of the company.

That is very much the sort of decision that you would expect the board to be involved in, rather than devolved down, isn't it? Now, I am not suggesting that the board would wish to override a safety decision in order to maintain income generation, but they should at least have every confidence that the advice they are receiving and basing their decision on is coming from someone competent to offer such advice - particularly given (as I understand it) the advice about the time available before a repair was required changed with a change in personnel.

Maybe I am missing something.

Tom

 

I disagree. What is the decision the board should be making? Informed of the situation yes. Involved in planning / considering the options certainly. But the CEO and managers should making the call to stop and planning the options for what happens next. Boards aren’t supposed to be executive

 

The railway’s attention to detail is outstanding .
New sales brochure arrived today ..£60 a year subs from March ,more for new members requiring a printed sales brochure .
Excellent photo of 78019/41313 on page 47 (actually no cab /bunker on the Ivatt and no standard )..but there again page 56 mileage lists suggest neither loco ran in 2025 ….but send us your money for the bridge ..
Perhaps they shouldn’t have paid a consultancy to analyse 154 membership questionnaires…