North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

My main sadness about the Teaks (aside from them being currently out of service) is that when they do return they'll only be available to ride in for a premium charge. I'm quite miffed about that.

 

There's a lot that can be hidden in a simple 'yes' though. One can imagine, for instance, a dissaffected volunteer continuing to volunteer, but on fewer days, and focusing more on pet projects if they feel disillusioned with the railway as a whole.

Sent from my PGT-N19 using Tapatalk

 

Sorry but that’s drawing a mistaken conclusion from the question you asked. When I said to my colleagues that I was giving up the almost universal response was to agree with my sentiments but say ‘Why give up doing something you enjoy; just grin and bear things.’ Their answer to the question is obviously going to be ‘Yes’. Did you ask the question ‘Are you dissatisfied with the way railway is run?’

 

I don't think I'd be quite so sanguine from a question like that. Most volunteers put in a huge emotional investment into their line, I'd argue far more than the typical paid employee. (For most volunteers, the actual act of volunteering is expensive in both cash and opportunity-cost terms: you have to be really committed to do it). But that means the wrench of actively making the decision to walk away is huge. You are essentially asking people to give up their hobby: that's a really big decision. (You might say that they could continue the hobby at a different site. Well - possibly, but heritage railways aren't common on the ground; moreover if you are in an operational grade, you are likely to start again at the bottom of the ladder of progression).

So if you get 90% of people saying "yes" to "do you intend to carry on volunteering?", it's not far removed from getting 90% yes to "do you intend to carry on breathing?" I'd be asking why the answer is only 90% and not 99% ...

Tom

 

Absolutely. Volunteers frequently spend more years volunteering than any other activity they undertake. You also have to be very careful about the answers they give. An example….

A very longstanding and industrious volunteer left. He was asked why have you stopped, and gave the answer to the trustee who asked that they couldn’t face the drive down anymore. Fair enough as it was a 40min each way run they made two or three times a week.

I asked them what had triggered their decision to stop volunteering. They told me that the problem was that with certain board actions they no longer felt that it was worth the time and the travel to continue as they no longer felt aligned with the direction of the railway.

The problem is that when the trust breaks, you’re not going to get a straight answer, or you are going to get a partial answer. In this instance the first person to ask was part of the issue, but they weren’t going to learn that because the volunteer felt it would be “wasted breath”. In addition the question isn’t “why did you leave” but why now? There are always reasons to stop. It’s when those reasons outweigh the reasons not to do so.

In the example, the trustee went on their way happy with the answer and secure in the belief that there was nothing the railway could have done/had done. That confirmation bias is evident again and again and again in the pages of this forum, not just with regard to the NYMR.

 

I wonder how many volunteers like me just never fill in these satisfaction surveys - I cant believe I'm alone in filing them in the bin. The problem as I see it is in the title, which suggests that there is an expectation of satisfaction. If you realy want to know the volunteers true feelings it would be better to send out a dissatisfaction survey and pay heed to what is highlighted. I still volunteer and try to keep out of the politics but that doesn't mean that I dont share much of the current frustration felt by many on the railway.

Peter

 

Volunteers stick around so long that they have often (sadly) seen the same crap script played out a couple of times or more just with different characters. “Grin and bear it” is something I have heard so often!

 

That time and money the volunteer puts in doesn’t seem to be appreciated, in fact the opposite . I’ve even known a Trust Board member go into print saying that volunteers cost the railway time and money. Not a word about the amount volunteers save.
Fortunately, I haven’t lost the hobby that I have pursued for over 60 years as I’m still enjoying my time elsewhere.

 

Was hoping for something other than bars.

 

Hi Peter, after reading your post above how do I put this? It sounds remarkably similar to several conversations I had with my Father and other people at a certain railway in the West Midlands that not so long ago had a few similar problems.

Is there somebody like Mr Dunster up in North Yorkshire?

 

So how do other railways manage to keep volunteers on side?

How do other railways use those volunteers as much as possible and to the full extent of their skills without putting blockades at their every step?

I’m not saying that all railways are issue free, but when it comes to volunteer relations the NYMR seems to regularly surface as being very poor.

I know you won’t accept this, but maybe your obsession with the charity and law side of the railway has taken the R out of the NYMR

 

In fairness to @Lineisclear, reading what’s been said on here, I don’t think he or his views on the application of charity law are anywhere near the root of the problem - it’s very clear that there is a long standing issue with the relative roles of paid staff and volunteers. That does not alter my frustration that on his watch that imbalance appears to have been entrenched rather than challenged.

 

Slightly off topic I have experienced management who hold volunteers in contempt especially if they want their steam railway to maintain its historic and original members origin’s.
Even experienced full time paid staff denigrating volunteers in public on a crowded platform.

 

You could be hitting nails quite well there. There is a lot of dissatisfaction that the old traditional Trust board, largely consisting of enthusiastic volunteers who knew about railways, was swept away to be largely replaced by outsiders who knew about charities and a nominations committee introduced to vet and approve any person putting up for election. If they don’t have the knowledge and experience required they don’t get a chance to stand. This was raised at the last AGM and brushed aside with references to company law and what people would have to do to change it (at their own expense. )

 

To be fair, I have witnessed at more than one railway the opposite of this - volunteers denigrating paid staff in front of visitors (i.e. me).

Sent from my SM-S926B using Tapatalk

 

Firstly, accounts on here suggest that the issue is much deeper - back to supervision of shed volunteers.

Second, the use of a nominations committee to act as a vetoing body is deeply corrosive to a membership organisation. The objective of charity trustee knowledge and a balance of skills is absolutely justified; the method deeply corrosive. If rumours are correct that at least some of the blocked candidates specifically did have the required knowledge & experience, that becomes especially true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Firstly, accounts on here suggest that the issue is much deeper - back to supervision of shed volunteers.

Second, the use of a nominations committee to act as a vetoing body is deeply corrosive to a membership organisation. The objective of charity trustee knowledge and a balance of skills is absolutely justified; the method deeply corrosive. If rumours are correct that at least some of the blocked candidates specifically did have the required knowledge & experience, that becomes especially true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

What does that trustee use for a brain? Of course there are costs, but what about the benefits?

 

The premium surcharge. Does it go towards the overhaul or maintenance of the Teaks or does it go in the days general takings?

 

Line Item Brain.