North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I’m not sure why you would want to even try to control this even if it were possible without an army of lawyers and a bottomless pit of money, and you didn’t want the free advertising.

The only place I can see this being sensible is where you have websites or forums that might look “official”, but in fact are not. These can be a problem for obvious reasons and I guess this is what was wanting to be controlled. Even then, it requires delicate handling in some areas.

 

Strange how some of the especially southern railways have Facebook groups entitled unofficial ..... railway and get lots of postings on them by people working /volunteering about progress with projects, movements news, general snippets if news etc successfully in my mind. Yes there are the occasional strong debates which surely is good but not really seen anything where people have taken complete umbrage and it all seems to blow over.

 

There's a (relatively inactive) unofficial NYMR forum. It's pretty obscure, calls itself unofficial, and would be unlikely to cause confusion. I don't "do" Facebook so can't comment on that Facebook site, but comments I've heard suggest that it's quite tightly moderated, almost to the point of being official.

 

The vast majority of social media posts are helpful and constructive including those that are critical. However there are too many instances of posters that seem intent on besmirching individuals or denigrating the railway they claim to support. The NYMR is not alone in responding to such behaviour. Many organisations, including other heritage railways, are adopting social media policies that apply to their employees, volunteers and members. Those policies will typically have sanctions in the event of their deliberate and repeated breach on any site. Of course references to the North Yorkshire Moors Railway can continue. Fair use of the name is assured. The problem occurs with sites that, as 21B suggests, imply some affiliation with the NYMR . Those will probably have to stop doing so. Clever wheezes like referring to the North York Moors or describing the site as "Unofficial" are unlikely to work.

 

I would be amazed if you could write an enforceable social media policy that applied to members of an organisation, and I am slightly surprised to see that you even think it possible. After all, a legitimate reason for joining an organisation is that you disagree with it in some way, but wish to influence its direction from within. (Think of organisations like Greenpeace holding shares in oil companies explicitly so they can be represented at AGMs).

There has been a lot, not least in the messaging from the HRA in magazines like Steam Railway, about a sense of railways somehow being under sustained attack on social media and elsewhere, and the tone of the debate being very personal. I'm not sure it has been - you might point to odd instances, but I think this debate (as an example) and others have stuck fairly clearly to debating the substantive points rather than attacking specific individuals in positions of authority. One might also note in passing that in probably the most notorious heritage railway case that has become deeply personal, it was a couple of (former) heritage railway directors personally attacking a volunteer in deeply derogatory and discriminatory way - not the volunteer attacking the directors.

I don't think anyone wants to see any specific heritage railway fail, but that doesn't mean that people can't have strongly held views on whether they think a particular strategic path is correct or not. Perhaps if you are a chairman an attack on your strategy might feel like a personal attack, or an attack on the railway, but there is no law that says that railways invariably perform an optimum business strategy at all times; and strategies change.

The wider point though is to consider why there appears to be a strong element of pent-up frustration from many volunteers. When an organisation under sustained criticism reacts by trying to circumscribe the terms of the debate, perhaps a more reflective stance would be to say "why are we being criticised?" Even if you are completely sure that your analysis of the future landscape for heritage railways is correct, and your roadmap is the only viable path, it is still a valid response to ask yourself "why are we failing to connect with our message?" In the NYMR case, I don't doubt your own personal integrity, or that the vision of heritage railways you have frequently outlined on this and other threads is not sincerely held; or that you are somehow wilfully driving the railway in the wrong direction. But if you are certain that your vision is right and yet it gets sustained criticism, the reflective stance is to consider why that might be, rather than try to cut off the criticism at source.

Tom

 

Tom, I was at pains to emphasize that criticism is welcome. The NYMR is not unique in adopting a social media policy. Those reflect the fact that when you join any membership organisation be it heritage railway or golf club for example there are typically rules about acceptable behaviour. That doesn’t and shouldn’t stifle criticism but it’s the way that is expressed that can cross the line. Standards of acceptable behaviour can be required of employees, volunteers and members alike.

 

Indeed. However, the timing and nature of it, combined with the pressure, make a very bad look indeed. In an organisation that has carefully and deliberately drawn power into the centre, and made it difficult if not impossible for leaders to be held to account, yet that organisation has avoided setting objective standards for how it will exercise its power, the look is appalling.

If it is just the rules of membership, a relatively brief requirement to be courteous and provision that membership or privileges associated with membership can be withdrawn, I'd sort of get it. But this is explicitly about volunteers, not ordinary members, and has been framed in terms that are both highly centralising (On Track will be the central point of communication, restricted to active volunteers) and overtly threatening (3 have been asked not to post, 1 volunteer asked to leave, language about gross misconduct).

This is not a communication that engenders trust, but one that undermines it. If we refer to the WSR thread, the introduction of rules like this was the start of a period in which dissenters were purged from the organisation, while the message was "nothing to see here".

 

If I'm part of a family of 2 adults and 4 kids (as I am although the kids have long fled) I'd be used to paying a lot to get in somewhere so the kids go free is attractive. However, £99 for two adults is way OTT for my half day out. It only becomes a whole day if I combine it with doing something else in Whitby, which then becomes the main attraction and the argument also then tends towards driving to Whitby and paying to park for much less. If those are my thoughts, I'm sure that Joe Public has similar.

 

But you would agree that it is a two-way street? In other words, while those commenting on social media have to abide by certain rules of acceptable behaviour (even this forum does, after all have rules!) there is also a requirement for those leading an organisation under criticism to consider deeply why that may be? A lot of what the HRA seem to have been saying in this area seems to come at it from a perspective of "if you are under attack - draw the wagons into a circle". There doesn't seem to be much consideration that one response to being under attack is to consider why that might be - or even to think "we clearly aren't getting our message understood, let's try changing how we communicate".

There have been two absolutely telling one-liners in the last few pages of this thread:

It feels to me that your mantra for running heritage railway is absolutely legally watertight in terms of structures and governance, but is blind to those two points.

Tom

 

You commented on a "will o' the wisp" character in this thread. I'm afraid I see this combining with a certain circularity when someone who introduces himself, amongst other things, as "Company Secretary of the HRA, chairman of its legal and parliamentary affairs committee." then cites the HRA as an authority for his own views. It brings to mind Mandy Rice-Davis' famous line of "he would say that, wouldn't he".

 

I stand to be corrected but I think it was others who referrred to the HRA 's concerns? It's instructive to look at the Articles of the membership organisation of what I think is Tom's own railway. They include the ability to terminate membership where the board concludes it's continuation is not in the organisation's best interest. That's typical. In other words it's not a social media policy that creates the power to eject a member . It just clarifies the situations in which that existing power can be exercised.

 

I see from the Facebook post that I quoted, that three volunteers have been sanctioned in some way, and another barred. These actions do not signiy an organisation that welcomes or tolerates criticism. IMHO it rather denotes an organisation that is in desperate straits and hiding to conceal the fact. How much have the recent losses wiped from the balance sheet, and how long can they continue if left unchecked? More mportantly, what evidence is there of significant steps being taken to reduce the annual loss - because I for one don't see any evidence of them!

 

Have a look at the announcement that has just been made about this year’s progamme.

 

There seems to be an issue with long lines going to the seasided.................

 

My apologies, I was confusing a recent reference to HRA with your #3588 from a day or so back, in which you referenced HRA.

Such articles do exist, and shouldn't be contentious. I find it notable that these tend to gain emphasis at times when managements are under challenge, and passions rise - and that they are then used against challengers.
The problem, and it was visible elsewhere early last year, is that where passions rise, it is very easy for them to be dismissed as "unreasonable" and then sanctioned. As was demonstrated in that other place last year, when meaningful discussion within the organisation is allowed space to develop, the pressure falls and with them passions. Safety valves exist for a reason, and tying them down is always a bad idea.

 

I don't doubt you believe that - as others have said fair dos for sticking around here and engaging. But it's very hard to see that attitude from other luminaries in the HRA when Chris Price, and I think Steve Oates too, have penned articles in industry magazines that pretty much say to ordinary members and volunteers "back in your box, your leaders know best" seemingly on behalf of directors/trustees everywhere. You may reply to this and say "Oh well that's not what they meant" but the problem is, that's how we all interpreted it.

 

I don't recall Greg Wallace being part of the SMT but I could have missed it

 

it was the Boards reaction to adverse comment from its volunteers. Threaten them instead of sorting out the problems. @Linesisclear is obviously (and sensibly) ignoring it, though.

 

I've looked at the announcement that's on Ontrack and the Facebook group, and this year's programme looks good, so that's a plus, however, I see that the announcement also says another manager is being employed - is that a replacement for someone who has left, or a brand new position?