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?