North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Looks like I spoke too soon The 9F has failed and 47077 has taken its place. I’m currently sat in a cold Mk1

 

Not necessarily bankruptcy but the report and accounts of quite a few heritage railways, especially some learger ones, confirm substantial annual losses. The issue across the sector is whether there are business plans that are likely to result in longer term financial sustainability.

 

Message I received last night suggested would be 47077 ex Pickering ,with one of 47,37 or 9f appearing later ,2392 on the internal ,926 first Whitby etc and 37688 second and fourth Whitbys ( or more ).

 

Indeed. But, referring back to what @21B has written about engagement, the Spa Valley shows a very different model for achieving engagement and developing support.

 

Certainly a sustainable business plan is needed. It was needed at least three years ago.

For the last three years please can you advise just how far the NYMR senior management have got in producing such a business plan?

The time to put forward such a plan would be an AGM, which has been postponed, seemingly indefinitely.

To implement such a plan needs the confidence of staff, volunteers, members and supporters. Perhaps you could point at another heritage railway where every one of those groups are openly and repeatedly expressing no confidence in the senior management.

Perhaps you can suggest another heritage railway with unsustainable financial losses which employs seventeen adminstrative staff, five in marketing, who are so bereft of ideas they can't even engare the support of paid up members, let alone the wider public.

Maybe you know of another heritage railway where the local business interests at one end and villages entirely dependant on tourism at the other end are actively calling for the departure of the CEO as damaging to the local communities.

Please tell us of other railways where the draft accounts are so atrocious that they have not yet been signed off?

Can you name another heritage railway where the most important single structure on the line has been allowed to deteriorate so much as to be too weak to carry trains, has been propped against collapse and which cannot be repaired through lack of funding.

A few months ago they were going to spend £3400 on a pathetic perspex award ceremony. The only award I'd give them is the boot.

Many people have, since 1973, supported the line and you are included in that number. Why on earth do you still persist in making excuses for the pernicious, self-interested clique of arrogant half-wits who are presiding over it's destruction.

 

As I expect you know, I agree with you about what has brought the NYMR to the pass it now finds itself in. I'm not at all sure, however, that it's worth pointing it out for the 3,789th time. Imagine you are the managers in question: what would your reaction be to people saying it for the 3,789th time?

I know the reaction to my observation might be 'Well, it's what they deserve, for destroying such a gorgeous line, which had previously been saved by so much hard work, by so many people, over the years.' That might be true - but what good will it do to say it yet again? The ship is still sinking. ('Ha-hah, your end of the ship...')

I wish I had something more constructive to write. Other than my suggestion, to set up a 'shadow NYMR' (perhaps funded in part by those who have been directing their legacies elsewhere, than to the 'original NYMR'), to buy important assets off the original one (the original NYMR seems in a mood to sell things, from what is reported here), I don't have much to suggest. (As the filings, which I think it was @Steve found, show, some of them are already mortgaged to an organization, whose name escapes me, whose role is to hold and protect important heritage assets. The HQ building is mortgaged to a bank, but as far as I'm concerned, good riddance to that, if/when it goes.)

Noel

 

Because my perception, as a former Trustee, is that without their dedication and hard work the railway would have become history some time ago. Indeed quite a few years ago it came perilously close to that under a previous management regime. As usual some of your assertions are just plain wrong e.g. the signing off of the accounts and spending large sums on an award ceremony. The AGM should be held at its traditional time. All that's happened is that it proved impossible to bring the date forward.
You are right about the need for confidence which, at the risk of being repetitive, includes that of the auditors, the lending bank and regulators without which there could be no future.

 

If the story of the award ceremony recounted on here was false, can someone please tell us the true story?

 

Noel,
Examination of the published Report and Accounts over many years will confirm that virtually all the assets of both the PLC and the Trust (with the exception of locomotives owned by the Trust) are charged as security to Santander ( with whom the NYMR has a very positive and supportive relationship.) In addition there are second charges over some property to secure repayment of the funds advanced by the National Lottery Heritage Fund. That's never been hidden. It's in plain sight for members to see. Neither is it recent although the amount of the loans secured has been significantly reduced.
There are restrictions on sale of assets by a charity, especially of any land which requires Charity Commission consent, and, of course, any transfer to protect assets from creditors risks substantial penalties. There are some who look at the unfortunate events at Llangollen and asume they can be a precedent for a phoenix ( or as you suggest a shadow NYMR) to emerge if the worst happened. The circumstances were very different with the failed company being a subsidiary whose finances were not guaranteed by the solvent parent which owned sufficient assets to continue including the vital operating licence. If the NYMR were to fail ( and both companies stand or fall together) the Llangollen outcome would not be replicated.

 

Absolutely so far as the attendance fee is concerned. The modest fee to take part was paid ( and the NYMR won an award) but not the attention grabbing fee for the ceremony.

 

As a former Trustee you know that it is important to protect the railway and certainly dedication plus hard work is important, but I frankly don't see how the current senior managers have been positive in either of those respects. Certainly whatever efforts have been made have consistently failed and that is why change is needed.

My assertions, as you put them, are made on the basis of fact and are direct from those within the railway who know all too well the precarious situation. The accounts have been delayed due to concerns about whether they could be seen to show show that the PLC can continue trading because of significant and growing financial losses. That was two weeks ago. If as you indicate they are just now signed off then why aren't they being made public?

Re the £3400 awards ceremony I made it clear that the management intended to spend that sum and attend. Only after the blatent hypocrisy of that entirely commercial event was exposed was that decision reversed. It would seem the PLC paid £198 for a two-bit piece of pointless plastic which would be scorned by a third rate pub darts team.

If, as you claim, the auditors have confidence in the financial situation why did they so long demur from signing off the accounts as originally presented?.

If Santander Bank have confidence in the financial position why are they not providing essential funding to fix Bridge 42 rather than forcing the PLC to sell off 76079 and scurry round the railway selling off whatever other assets aren't nailed down?

Finally you refer to regulators and I'm not sure whether you mean railway regulators or financial? Regarding the former I see no reason why there would any problem as the NYMR operational staff, paid and volunteer, are far more professional and competent than those responsible for financial prudence. At the moment we are looking at cumulative losses over £1m in the last three years with no business plan in place to rectify that trend next year either.

As to the other points raised by myself and others you, as always, choose to avoid those questions and repeatedly fail to find answers.

 

I can answer that one Pete. The awards ceremony was an entirely commercial enterprise designed to make money. It was not official in anyway, just a scan "Oscar" event for the self deluded. A table for 12 was booked by the NYMR at a cost of £3400. When the facts were exposed the table was belatedly cancelled to avoid further critcisism. The NYMR was given an "award" in absentia for which £198 was payable for a plastic monstrosity unfit to prop open any self respecting door.

 

Can I just nail a couple of misundertstandings . Santander had nothing to do with the sale of 76079 which was agreed at least two years ago . I can confirm from close personal knowledge that the Trustees decision was not driven by financial considerations. The fact is that the capacity of the MPD to carry out the required extensive rebuild of the loco would mean it lanquishing in store for at least ten years. That problem far from unique to the NYMR. It was decided that allowing it to deteriorate further was not responsible treatment of a valuable heritage asset. It would be better to sell it to someone who could return it to steam relatively quickly which the Strathspey railway is in the fortunate position of being able to do.

Santander are helping indirectly with Bridge 42 by agreeing to increase the size of the railway's overdraft facility which is itself a mark of confidence.

The regulator I had in mind is the ORR and particularly its interest in the degree to which leadership and management fulfill the expectations of its RM3 management maturity model.

 

I don't know whether or not a table was booked but, even if it was, it doesn't follow that the cost for attendance would have been borne by the NYMR. For instance I used to attend HRA award ceremonies and HRA conferences as a representive of the NYMR but always paid my own fees and expenses.

 

Couldn't have put it better myself! (except to remind you that, until recently he was a member of the group mentioned in you last sentence, and instigated many of the changes that led to its development!).

 

I have been informed that they didn't win this award - in fact they seem to have come third - out of a field that seems to have numbered three! If they did win, it has been kept very low key.

The shortlist:

Air Astana and Definition

Clarkson Group and Emperor

North Yorkshire Moors Railway


The winners:

Gold – Air Astana and Definition

Silver – Clarkson and Emperor

Bronze – North Yorkshire Moors Railway

 

In the context of a delayed AGM, and strong rumours of preparations for a fire sale of assets, I regard the bank's support as a wasting asset. As regards ORR and its confidence, I find it somewhat concerning that the question of that confidence is even being raised here - the fact that it is necessary to maintain their confidence in itself raises doubt in my mind about whether that confidence is actually at risk.