North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I'd suggest a better start would be clear confidence, of the sort displayed by Beamish, in what NYMR is.

 

I not talking about directing grants away from payroll, but payroll needs to be reduced to those employees who are essential in providing the railway service. The difficulty is financial so reducing expenditure would mitigate the underlying problem.

Quite agree that governance and day to day management are different but at the moment the salaried management seem to be in control to the detriment of the governing body. It is the PLC management who have trespassed across that boundary.

Either we make a change to restore the balance of power to what it was or the whole edifice is in danger of collapse. 1973 may be a lifetime ago but it was a far more successful organisational model than what we have today.

We are in financial failure and without change there will be no payroll for anyone.

 

That is an assumption, and can't be answered properly without considering the cost of change. That also requires proper definition of "essential".

I happen to share your view that the payroll is too large relative to the organisation, but there is a dangerous elision between that observation, and the assertions about structure - they're distinct features, and shouldn't be over-simplified togetehr

 

I'm going off piste on a personal ramble but please bear with me.

Thirty five years ago I first worked for a small UK company in what is called the service sector. We employed professionally qualified staff, support staff, service operatives, catering staff and housekeepers. It was a 24 hour a day 365 days a year service and, as such it employed around 230 staff most of them full time on a shift system.

The organisation was headed by a CEO with many years experience in the specific field of operation. There were just 5 administrative staff (including accounts) and for whom I was responsible.

When I joined it was a brand new company and building up trade was a slow and painstaking business and funding was tight to put in mildly. For the first few years it was touch and go but very slowly trade increased as did our reputation for good and reliable service.

If we had employed non-productive staff at £90,000, £50,000 or even £20,000 that business would have failed. If we had employed unecessary staff even at the basic wage threshold that business would have failed.

Returning to the NYMR it has received all manner of grants, it is supported by all sorts of organisations, it has volunteers who have provided free labour to the tune of millions of pounds for over 50 years. Even with all those advantages it is now in danger of collapse. It may be possible to recover from such a catastrophe as the Llangollen has done but despite the recovery that railway has lost so much along the way.

What I am looking for, and asking others more expert than myself to assist, is to find constitutional answers as to how to remove those who have not only failed, but abysmally failed, to maintain the railway over which they have usurped control.

There are problems which need solutions. What we don't need are obstacles being placed in the path of those solutions.

 

Yo0u mention grants, but I don't think they are a pressing issue - there haven't been any lately that are linked to employment afaik, and nor should any be taken on now. If there are any existing they must becoming to an end by now.

In terms of governance and day to day management, the NYMR always had the Trust Board and a separate Management Committee, since the day it opened. The Trust Board took the big decisions - setting fares and timetables, and the management committee effectively collected the cash. Of course, back then, the Trust Board was composed of people who were from and knew and understood the railway business. That's why, on the commercial side, we had a GM. The Plc was set up as a part of a fundraising exercise, and that's when staff e3xpectations of title and importance began to increase. IMHO it's time to reverse the trend.

 

If the 'crew' currently in charge of the NYMR really wanted to try and succeed, they'd organize day (or longer) visits to several of the many (I could name half a dozen right off the top of my head, as I'm sure most of us could) heritage lines that are succeeding (even in today's difficult environment), and really study them to find out how they are doing it.

And I do mean "study"; just going for a sight-seeing visit, where they do not listen really hard to what people have to say to them, would be a waste of time. Unless they are truly, in their hearts, thinking 'I don't know what I am doing, or how to fix this; these people do, so if I listen hard enough, maybe I can learn something from them', they'd be wasting everyone's time (including their own - and also the time of everyone at the NYMR).

Noel

 

A couple of points. First, on grants, I was using that language for payments from Trust to PLC, nothing more.

Second, and reinforced by the first, I am now an outsider. I am not proposing to participate in a campaign to change NYMR, but I am pointing out where there are apparent gaps in a logic that need to be faced up to. I do not, and have never, worked on the basis that I tell people what they want to hear, even if its inconvenient.

For what it's worth, I do believe strongly that the delegation to the PLC has become excessive, and that the balance between "commercial" and "heritage" has gone out of kilter. I think that is a structural issue but, more importantly, its a people issue. While I didn't envisage the current state of affairs, it is why I opposed the change in Articles 5 years ago, and believe it's sown dragons teeth that the railway as a whole will live to regret.

I have no doubt that the capability exists within NYMR to do better, and that relatively minor changes could have disproportionate impact. The bit that will be difficult without a crisis, and possibly even with one, will be changing the organisational culture so that it always asks "how can this be done by a volunteer" rather than, as appears to be the case now, defaulting to employing someone.

I strongly suspect that needs significant change at board and board -1 level, and that some people will need to step aside - voluntarily or not. Some may be paid staff, some may be volunteers - I've genuinely no idea. Having never knowingly met the CEO, I can't comment knowledgeably on whether she's good, bad, or awful - or whether she's part of the problem or solution (and, yes, I have heard plenty of views). The issues may be of her making, or they may be caused by other factors which removing others might turn around.

The obsessive focus on payroll, and especially higher paid roles, is IMHO dangerous because it presumes an answer without properly diagnosing a condition. Spending too much is not a condition, but a symptom - squeeze the haemorrhage in the wrong place, and you may make it worse, not better.

You ask about constitutional answers. I suggest you find sympathetically minded souls to stand for the Trust Board, who you trust and who the Board will tolerate being in the pot. Then give them time to dig themselves in, and find ways to work from within. The changes a few years ago mean that a frontal assault won't work, so you have to look at siege warfare for patterns. After all - more haste, less speed

 

Before risking going down what might be a nihilistic path, can I suggest that someone suggests that all the senior management and Trust Board members read the last hundred or so posts on here and all sit down in a single room, try to work out where they have gone wrong, and come up with a strategy to bring things back on track. It would inevitably result in quite a lot of bruised egos, but a bruised ego is far better than losing one's job.

 

One issue with that approach " they don't do social media" !!!

Sent from my SM-A556B using Tapatalk

 

I think, at the very least, annual passenger numbers for 2022-2026 should be published.

With the new online booking system there will be almost instant data on ticket sales.

 

I suspect that the underlying issue is culture. One of the problems of creating boards which have few long term working volunteers as members is that they become slightly detached. I have also watched more than once new board members who come with impeccable credentials fail to understand the critical difference between a heritage railway and any other form of museum working or otherwise, volunteer led or otherwise.

That difference is the extremely high level of commitment required and the skill and knowledge demanded from a much bigger number of volunteers to even begin to make things work.

I can think of no other regulated industry where volunteers are required to undertake most of even all the safety critical jobs, and in addition also do the majority of the engineering as well, some of which requires a lifetime of experience (think valve setting or signal interlocking).

All too often lip service is being paid to acknowledging this and properly understanding what the quid pro quo is with such volunteers. The paid staff too are generally more committed than most employees and that needs careful nurturing as well.

Survival requires commercial success. That drives donors to give, volunteers to volunteer, grant givers to give. No one part can be done without the others, but the foundation is the volunteer.

 

I can think of many reasons not to publish those numbers to be fair, but I would answer the question in a face to face meeting/volunteer forum

 

One of the problems with the Trust Board was brought about by the introduction of the selection committee, for which the remit seems to have been to identify candidates with financial and accountancy or tourism backgrounds. Conversely, the intention seems to have been to disbar those with experience of the railway's operation matters, and a reduction in numbers to reduce the diversity of experience. It's a good example of someone coming from a totally different business background believing that lawyers, accountants and publicity/marketing types need to be ruling the roost.

 

So I suppose the follow up thought is what to do about the culture.

I would be very surprised if the boards aren’t aware that there is an issue. Very. And by issue what I mean is that they will know that there is a a degree of disquiet between themselves and the volunteers. I would be surprised if the SMT were not similarly aware.

So why don’t they change? My suspicion based on experience would be that a) they recognise that there are problems and they believe they are doing their best to resolve them. As they believe themselves to be good people and have the best of intentions, then what they are doing must be the best that can be done. A falacy we are all guilty of at times. And b) some of them will be afraid of change/not have the imagination to work out how to change things (even though they may want to do so) and be afraid of asking for help either internally or externally. And c) may not be clear on who to ask or what to ask for.

When you are busy shovelling it can be very hard to know when to stop digging!

 

I completely agree and indeed I have watched with dismay as the advice has been adopted elsewhere. There is no question that additional expertise was needed on many (most?) boards, but the loss of corporate memory caused the exclusion of anyone who knows anything about the railway or how it has come to be as it is, is utterly suicidal for a business which is so rooted in its unpaid staff, and which often works (sometimes very well) through informal structures and or decision making routines. I am not saying a lack of business process is a good thing, but there is a grave danger if you do not move very deliberately and consciously from the informal to the better documented.

 

To existing (and recently departed) members and volunteers the only suggestion I have to make is this:

- make your views known in a respectful way by speaking at forum or writing letters and emails

- try to get organised and coordinated about how you share your views

- consider forming a volunteer group to represent your views …. Don’t let it become too militant

- remember that as volunteers you ultimately hold all the power, it is just difficult to get to excercise that power collectively, however, any hint that you might should have the board listening attentively. So again use the power wisely.

- try to find some (several) people that are trusted and who communicate well and get the board to accept that they must be allowed to join.

- do NOT campaign against individuals. There are right and proper ways to deal with performance problems, but that must be left to the line management. Calling attention to where the company is not performing is fine.

 

One of the things about volunteers is that they are usually very interested in such details, far more than the average employee. They want to know all the nitty gritty of the why and the wherefore of their railway. When things are deliberately kept from them when they don’t think there is good reason to do so, they don’t like it

 

Elsewhere, away from railways, I’m involved in an ongoing governance review. It’s been prompted by an external review, and is looking at what we do differently in future.

One thing that’s become very obvious is that “best practice” is a guide, not a rule. What would be very sensible in some contexts is either impossible or counter productive in another. The board I’m on has long accepted that there’s a need for a representative function, and some members are elected solely for that reason, with only their legal eligibility taken into account. I’m one of those members.

That’s possible because it’s recognised that membership of the board isn’t the same as managerial responsibility. It is not the same as a management committee, and our agendas reflect that difference.

The explicit acknowledgement of a representative function is designed to give the board a broad base, and keep it grounded. My legal and fiduciary duty is as a trustee/director, but my authority rests on those who’ve elected me - and is respected as such by my colleagues on the board.

This goes beyond a purely corporate view of the world, but is essential for grounding us. While I wouldn’t directly commend our pattern to railways, I think there are lessons to learn that go beyond a narrowly corporate perspective.

 

couldnt agree more. The failure by the HRA advisors and advice to recognise this is lamentable. Furthermore, the failure of many directors and trustees to be able to wear more than one hat is an issue….. by which I mean:

Railways are typically under managed. They cannot afford to employ all the managers they need and too frequently do not have properly formed management structures which would in part be volunteers. I am not talking about Ops which is typically structured and involves many volunteers, though even here normal management practices and oversight and support is often lacking.

Frequently trustees and directors fill in the gaps. This in my view can lead to two very undesirable outcomes. First, the directors forget which hat they are wearing. As a manager they report to the GM or CEO. As a director the relationship is reversed. It is hard to ride both horses. Second, it tends to undermine the management chain because those being managed won’t always see which hat is been worn so get confused about the powers of the director/manager. Third, the directors can end up being a kind of agony aunt, and taking back to the board concerns which ought to be left to the line management to address and /or which are unfair or unreasonable. This makes the non director manager’s role very difficult.

All of the above can be addressed, but it isn’t always even acknowledged as an issue.

 

Ah, what is needed is more managers, then managers managing managers. More meetings more policies more reviews. The bureaucrats answer to everything. It works very well in Government departs that are famous for their slick decision making and lean workforce.