North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I have heard that Santander have increased their lending to the NYMR because the Trust Board have transferred Trust assets to them to provide additional security. I'm not sure how that translates to confidence on the part of Santander.

As the railway lurches from one financial crisis to another, it would be interesting to find out how the ORR regards NYMR's leadership and management in fulfiling the expectations of its RM3 management maturity model.

 

A table for 12 was booked. It was booked by the NYMR.

£3400 was invoiced to the NYMR.

When this became widely known the booking was cancelled.

You say you didn't know this. That just goes to show how wrong the Trustees have been in allowing the PLC to spend money that we can't afford.

 

Please see my earlier post. Santander's security over assets already applied to virtually everything apart from those locomotives owned by the Trust. If banks lose confidence they tend to withdraw overdraft facilities not increase them.

 

So, Santander who until recently had a legal charge against some of the NYMR Historical trust assets now hold a legal charge over "virtually everything apart from those locomotives". That isn't confidence, it's knowing that as and when the losses become even more unmanageable than they are now everything belongs to Santander.

That isn't a business plan. It's abject failure.

All the Trustees who have allowed this to happen are a disgrace to preservation and it's ideals and are unfit to remain in office.

 

I can confirm that the trust has underwritten PLC borrowing from day one.
I think what has changed since my time on trust board is that the borrowing used to be only seasonal, with the railway going into credit in the early summer.
For several years at least NELPG would loan their overhaul fund to the NYMR over the winter, also the owners of some locomotives on pay per mile contracts would waive their fees for the Santa special period. Over time the period in debt each year reduced in length and amount until a few years before I stood down the NYMR was in credit all year round. This remained the case until the declining health of Jos de Crau meant that due to Dutch inheritance tax rules the NYMR had to buy all his Locomotives and carriages or else they would have been sold to others. There was an appeal to cover this but it wasn't very successful, so was covered by borrowing. Sadly after this point the railway became addicted to cheap credit, for example buying 76079 on HP, this coupled with match funding requirements for HLF funded projects and major infrastructure renewal added to the pressure. Some of the board members from my time who had been in office in 1984 were very wary of grant funding as the match funding requirement of a big project in the early 80s is what caused Midland Bank to foreclose on the railways overdraft. Fortunately the trust officers were able to make a case to Nat West, who then became the railways bank until the switch to Santander in the early 2000s.
It was knowledge of all the above that made me realise the course the NYMR was on 8 years ago. I forecast that without reducing the number of paid staff and applying the savings to reducing borrowing and increased spending on maintenance, that all the jobs of the railways employees would be put at risk.
Lineisclear then said that he couldn't see any posts that could be cut and the borrowing didn't matter because interest rates were low. I warned that with each passing year the likelihood of an event causing a major shock to the business larger than the foot and mouth crisis became more probable and the railway could be fatally wounded by such a shock.
So here we are 8 years later, Lineisclear has no regrets, wouldn't have done anything differently, still doesn't see the need to cut costs and his solution is to hope that someone shakes the magic money tree.
People with capital may well be standing in the wings but they will remain there as long as they perceive that the railway is profligate with the wage bill.

Sawdust.

 

That is a nonsensical reply, imho! Having sold 76079, what locos apart from those like those of NELPG, 92134, 34027 and the S15 etc. which are privately own, what other locos do the Plc (i.e. not the Trust) own? Odd diesels, perhaps?

 

You mean 34101.
Owned locos are iirc;
80135
80136
45428
75029
D7628
D5032
D2207
Possibly some of the shunters
A J94?

30926 & 3672 belong to the Cliff Brown trust and I doubt they could be sold.
Of the carriage stock the most vulnerable are the Pullmans and RF.

Sawdust.

 

The writing has been on the wall for some time and I'm now walking away. My"capital in the wings" was in my will and, without wishing to boast, would have been about £800,000 to the railway.

Lineisclear can do and say what he thinks but that sum is now destined elsewhere due to his contemptable actions and attitude..

Trustees who betray the trust placed in them to give away that which has been built by others over 53 years can look elsewhere for finance.

Santander have hired him and his co-conspirators a larger umbrella. What will he do when they want it back.

 

Your mistake is the word "recently". The security granted over assets goes way back and has been fully disclosed in the Report and Accounts each year. There hasn't been any change in the scope of that security for some time apart from newly acquired assets being included.

 

The irony is, if it survives at the cost of losing the best of the rolling assets, the NYMR will be more reliant on NELPG and LNERCA, both of whom I think will feel hard done by, by the NYMR in recent years.

Sawdust.

 

As a registered museum some assets are specifically excluded from being borrowed against and can only be transferred to another similar body.

Sawdust.

 

I suspect you're conflating the standard charity "asset lock" with accredited museum status. It's correct that if a charity is wound up any remaining assets must be distributed to other similar charities i.e. they do not accrue to the charity's members. The important point is that the asset lock only applies to any remaining assets after liability to creditors has been settled.

 

How do the accreditors of museums consider disposals for cash?

 

Whether assets are disposed of for cash or other valuable consideration is probably irrelevant. If your question is directed to the sale of 76079 the basis of the decision to sell is important. As confirmed earlier it was manifest that the railway would not have the capacity to rebuild the loco for many years so a precious heritage artefact would deteriorate further. Disposal in such cases is quite proper for an accredited museum.

 

Well AFAIK the NVR and WSR have had recent appeals for operating costs. Many railways it seems have goner down a path of disposing of some assets, either by sale or scrap. Something I seem to remember you also find unacceptable.
Various lines have "turned the corner" financially in the last 2 or 3 years by a change in strategy such as fewer trains or more diesel services or both.
My local line, mainly by design, but also due to fire risk, ended up with only 1 day of a 2 steam service during the school summer holidays.
Yes the Spa Valley seems to have found a nice place in the market and good for them, but what works for a 5 .5 mile line in Kent is not going to necessarily the answer for a 24 mile (which should be only 18 I guess in your view) in North Yorkshire.

 

I was thinking less of 76079 (I don't dispute the logic of the decision, even if I think it tells a sorry story), and more of the rumours of assets being listed for disposal. If I remember correctly, the whole railways is accredited so presumably anything of heritage value would have to be formally deaccessioned.

I have in mind the fuss a few years ago when Northampton Museum disposed of items for financial reasons, and the sanctions that they faced within the museum sector.

 

Therein lies the challenge of how the Core Collection of a museum is defined. As I understand the current initiative its is very much to realise value from scrap sales and it's that opportunity that is being evaluated. Perhaps one person's scrap is another's prized artefact but I expect common sense would be the yardstick. I don't have access to the museum accreditation documentation but my understanding is that restrictions would apply only to the core collection of artefacts rather than, say, freehold property. The security granted is a floating charge but it can only crystallise over those assets that genuinely are not part of the Core Collection of artefects.

 

You could add the Severn Valley and your local line to the list of those who faced significant financial issues in recent years, but I don't think any of them have sunk as low as the NYMR. You could add Llangollen, where the problem appears to have been an incompetent management, and that one I think should tell you that the NYMR's Trust Board need to take action very soon.

For most railways, the last couple of seasons have been reasonable and they have survived and moved on the earthquakes caused by Covid and are not still using it as an excuse - except for the denizens of 12 Park Street. The other lines you mention as "having turned the corner" have indeed, as you have thoughtfully outlined, changed their strategies - but the NYMR has not. It's not the need for change that most of us question, but the absence of any significant changes that have made a positive difference.

 

I find that an extremely revealing answer, which tells me much more than perhaps intended.

Setting aside whether "common sense" is a reliable basis on which to assess whether items are "scrap" or "prized artefact", I am intrigued to see that the answer is framed in terms of the security held by the bank. If the intent is to sell "scrap", then the clear implication is that this is being driven by a need to keep the bank content. I very much hope that the Trustees have a full inventory of the "Core Collection" showing acquisitions and disposals - if there is any doubt (and I note that "scrap" identified has reportedly included items not belonging to the NYMR) then proving title could be a significant challenge

As an aside, when dealing with my late father's estate, my fellow executors and I found that we achieved much greater value in selling items of value than "scrap", which often required us to pay for disposal rather than realising any significant cash sums.