North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Really? The most recent election resulted in the appointment of candidates who are all working volunteers on the railway. I thought you might have approved!

 

You have no idea how successful or otherwise, external expert directors appointed to the plc board in my time as a trust board member were, because you were not involved then at that level.

Sawdust.

 

Indeed, and my final contribution as a trustee was to give my colleagues a detailed presentation highlighting the benefits of converting the PLC to a charitable community benefit society. On that score I believe my duty was fulfilled.

 

Sorry Sawdust but that’s just not true. I may not have been a Trustee when you were but I served as both a Trustee and PLC Director when the PLC board included external appointees so I saw their contribution at first hand.

 

It really is necessary to define which of the two boards is being discussed here. Sawdust's experience was as a Trust Board member. I think it was always the case that paid employees were excluded from that Board, but these days it seems as though all -or at least most - senior staff members are Plc Board members. There is perhaps more of a case for the latter state of affairs, but I question what effect that has on personal accountability and judgement when a head of department is also the director to whom they should report. Perhaps others can rationalise it better than I can, but I know from personal experience as a founder of a tech startup that investors were unhappy about the two roles being combined.

I happen to believe that it was right for paid employees to not be allowed onto the Trust Board, which was the charitable body that employed them. At the time, although there was a management sub-committee, the Trust Board's responsibilities were wider ranging than setting policy, and whilst it wasn't engaged in micromanagement, there were times when it strayed in that direction - for example in discussing and (after much argument!) setting the fare table. In those days we tended to get it right, though - something that hasn't happened in recent years. Perhaps more Trust Board input would have been beneficial, even if the discussions were very long!

 

I do approve of more working volunteers being elected as Trust Board members, but I think that was not down to the Approval Committee's approval of their suitability; I think they managed to be allowed to stand more because the Committee couldn't find plausible reasons to exclude them!

 

There you go again, external appointees not being successful during your tenure doesn't automatically make prior appointees also unsuccessful. Maybe it was their background or the number of them at any one time during your tenure that resulted a lack of success.

Sawdust.

 

As I said, there are two separate issues. One is about paid staff being on a board, the other is about conflict of interest. Answers will vary by organisation and timing, but I think what is being lost sight of is that directors have a legal duty for the whole organisation, not just their bit. If that is not in question, then my concerns extend much deeper.

 

I think the general point I've been trying to make has been lost along the way in this discussion. If collective responsibility is the order of the day, I don't think there is much of an argument to say that the recent performance of both boards has been pretty abysmal in the post Covid era in financial terms and to me, at least, that suggests that a deeper overhaul of both entities needs to come about. Clearly, the Trust Board is fairly useless at setting realistic targets for the Plc Board to meet, and the Plc Board has been monumentally useless in getting anywhere near whatever targets it has been told to meet. That surely is the crux of the problem, and whilst various excuses about the difficulties of trading in the current economic climate will be trotted out, I do not see the same levels of sub-par performance at other heritage railways. I see other railways adapting their offerings to cope, but I really don't see the same at the NYMR but I think it is time for it to happen; I do want to see the NYMR regain its position as a premier heritage railway, I don't want it to become just a commercial people mover. The Trust Board needs to ensure the former objective, and the Plc Board needs to find a way to deliver it.

 

It did....but that was after the debacle of the previous year.

 

I wish I could give this post multiple likes.

While I agree with the first point, I don't think it's as high a priority as getting a grip on the line's overall financial situation. If both boards would be willing to throw all their preconceived ideas and positions out the window, and simply focus on tackling the line's most pressing problem(s), further tuning of the top levels of the management structure could be put off. Indeed, further tuning of the management structure is an un-affordable luxury (in time, energy, and focus) at the moment. A laser-like focus on the line's overall financial situation is the only thing that should be getting attention.

Noel

 

What you have said is true, but the NYMR needs Boards and managements to be able to work together, without egos getting in the way. That means a willingness from all parties to listen to ideas and suggestions. I don't think that is currently the case, although I have heard that the new Trust Chairman sounds promising in that respect though the one before last didn't last long when he started to show similar tendencies, which suggests that he will also need to be strong willed. I just hope that all the people involved can work together. There is no room for "my way or the highway" attitudes.

 

I presume that you mean the previous encumbent of the PLC chairman role and not the Trust chairman?

 

The honest answer is that I don't know, but in recent years at least and perhaps further back, the two positions have been filled by separate individuals. If the roles of the two boards are distinct they should each have their own chairperson, imho.

 

Isn’t there a classic example of hypocrisy there? The attitude of “my way or the highway”is rightly derided yet the same poster suggested recently that “ I don’t want the NYMR to become a commercial people mover”. Just maybe that could be a its financial salvation but what “I want” is clearly more important! I respect the repeatedly expressed personal conviction that a greater emphasis on heritage and authenticity is the only way forward but that’s just the opinion of a former member. The posts suggest an attitude of “my way is the only way because that’s what I want”. Fortunately those with responsibility for charting the NYMR’s future are more open minded.

They always have.

 

It could be, but the results of that strategy aren’t exactly looking great - and run four square into the fundamental constraints of the infrastructure. While I’d suggest that some posters are a tad intransigent, I also see the same in reverse

 

It's a re -run of the Whitby Park and Ride debate. I was at pains to emphasize personal respect for those who believe financial succcess would come from greater authenticity of operations between Pickering and Grosmont. However, describing services as "commercial people moving" is another way of saying "providing what customers want and are willing to pay for." I support wholeheartedly delivering as much heritage experience as possible when responding to customer demand...that's part of the charity's educational purpose...... but you have to provide the commercial product they want in order to do that.

 

In my experience, the NYMR is different things at different times of the year. Get the fare right and for 8 to 12 weeks a year the trains are full seven days a week.
It's the rest of the year, where you need to entice people to come and where being flexible with the number of days a week and the level of timetable could reduce some costs and concentrate the smaller income from these weeks onto fewer trains.
The market is very fickle and it's a very fine line to tread with the fares. The margin between empty trains and overcrowding can be extremely narrow.
It always struck me that the all of nothing attitude to operating the railway created something of a cliff edge at the beginning and end of a season. Sometimes there are practical reasons for this for engineering reasons but not always.
You can decide how many trains you can run a year with the resources you have and how many operating days you can staff. It is then a question of how you arrange these across the calender to generate the greatest income.
I don't think the timetable has ever been looked at in quite that way because the cost pressures never required that much thought before.

Sawdust.

 

Well ultimately it has to be a people mover to survive and I would say the railway always has been. Evidence in my experience is the product people want is a ride on a steam train at a price they can afford.

Sawdust.

 

"People moving" was perhaps an ill-advised choice of phrase by me. I intended its use in a rather derisory way, but in truth all heritage railways are fundamentally are about "people moving" - perhaps the phrase "experiencing railway travel in a now lost era" would have been a better choice but less pithy!

The point is that heritage railways should be looking at offering a lot more than just a pleasant train ride to a popular destination, but I fear that such is the abyss that the NYMR is falling towards. The focus has fallen on the train ride, rather than trying to immerse passengers on the whole, embracing experience. All the interpretive signs and hands-on exhibits in the world are useless junk, if no-one gets off the train at stations along the way to experience them! The commercial product has to be designed to attract them to do exactly that and I fear that at the moment it is really designed to do exactly the opposite. Perhaps the thinking should move towards making the railway a two-day attraction with one day a "trip to the seaside" and the second an "explore the railway, its heritage and its surroundings" offering. This really is a very condensed version of what I have been suggesting all along, but having put it in very simple terms, perhaps someone at Park Street will read this and understand, before it is too late.