North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Last year at this time, there was much coverage of the financial situation in the papers. There was significant sympathy for the line's situation from the public. However, the railway seemed to be saying that this was old news and there was no financial problem. The bank had 'every confidence' despite a shortfall of around half a million. A year on and there's another shortfall almost as large.
Having denied there was a problem in '24, are people going to be as sympathetic when the new slashed timetable plan appears?

Is it wise to charge £49.50 for free further multiple visits in 2024, but the same amount for a single visit in 2025? Under 16s went free in '24, now they are to pay around £12.50.
To me, this seems an ill thought out approach which will deter visitors.

 

The NYMR's Wartime Weekend had simply grown to be too big and in truth had lost focus on its raison d'etre. There was a vehicle parade that meant closing off various streets in Pickering, with all its attendant costs, closure of the Pickering Station car park for displays which meant to only the loss of carpark revenue but also the cost of providing alternative parking at Pickering showground and a shuttle bus service to the railway. On top of that there were problems with the Nazi reenactors. All of these really gave the railway nothing but trouble and or expense for which there was no return. However, cancelling such a popular event because of the issues seems to me to be the epitome of lazy, risk averse management. It could have been refocused to omit the involvement of the off-railway events, and those involving closure of the car park, and destressing the wartime "feel" of the event, which I don't really think is what people come for - it is the feeling of community spirit back then that attracts them, and most are happy to dress up in period civilian costumes. Other railways have successfully done it - e.g. the Mid Hants with its "home from the war" events - so why can't the NYMR. I'm tempted to think it's because the event was originally primarily arranged by volunteers, and as time came by the "professional management" became increasingly involved, displacing the volunteers and causing them to drift away, but decided it was just too much work for themselves, but I'm sure I'm going too be told that isn't true.......

 

I just see the outcome of an ongoing succession of ill thought out kneejerk decisions. Until we get a CEO with a holistic approach to managing the business, which includes taking the measures to grow it back to where it was, I can't see much changing, sadly.

 

Yes but what is your point it is no longer an issue?
I think you could talk to most business owners in any sector and they will tell you they are still feeling some impact, that may never go away, so to use a Covid term "The New Normal"
Certainly my local line has not got pax numbers back to pre Covid levels, shopkeepers in the town we know say things have never to back to pre Covid levels.
Other global issues may have more impact now, but at a personal level it still impacts my behaviour. Any train travel is now on a risk and reward basis so I chose quieter days which means less travel. Gala attendance is now usually a Sunday as there are less people attending. Yes I will be in a minority, but I am sure I will not be the only one who has changed their habits in the past 5 years.

 

I suggest it's seen today as evidence of two companies working in harmony and, more particularly, an example of the benefits of a membership charity owning the railway. The developing trend is towards unity and simplification of corporate structures that have often evolved in a haphazard fashion. Some are seeking to convert their operating entities into Charitable Community Benefit Societies offering the prospect of harmonised leadership with reduced regulatory compliance costs plus all the benefits of charitable status. The SVR's current "One Railway" proposals are a good example but other railways are at different stages on the same journey to improve corporate governance and its effectiveness.

 

The structure may be appropriate. How you operate the structure will be more important.

 

The two boards may work in harmony but they certainly don’t work in harmony with the volunteers. I guess they don’t count, though. Nor Joe Public, it would seem if single tickets aren’t being offered.

 

Why is ANPR being introduced at Pickering? Is the present kit worn out?

 

Perhaps working in harmony with each other, but it would appear that the board has forgotten to bring the volunteers with it.

 

That depends on the weight you give to the opinions of disaffected former volunteers and those who may not be either NYMR volunteers or even members. Sadly it isn't always possible to please everyone all of the time but any upset volunteer must be, and is, cause for concern. There are opportunities through volunteer grievance procedures, volunteer surveys and the open forums for concerns to be raised. The results tell a very different and more balanced story.

 

I give huge weight to the opinions of people like @Steve and @60044 who have put in decades of work to the NYMR. It also shouldn’t matter whether someone on here is a member or volunteer of the railway-many are very experienced people from other railways or are experienced in finance or law in their professional lives. Their non-membership of the NYMR doesn’t preclude their points being valid.

Looking at things cynically, if I was a volunteer with a grievance against the management, I don’t think I’d be bothering to put myself through a grievance procedure that was setup by and/or run by the board. The results would seem inevitable. (See ELR & WSR for examples).
Surveys rarely tell an accurate story.

 

Possibly - but previous discussions about the weaknesses of such processes need to be kept in mind.

Meanwhile, I’d suggest that the effectiveness of the arrangements is better seen through the results of the combined organisation. I’d suggest that significant ongoing deficits and a series of strategic changes point to underlying issues. Meanwhile, I note that references to “disaffected former volunteers” and others (in which I must number myself) are not accompanied by answers to questions about the number and average service of remaining volunteers.

Organisations exist to serve purposes. By definition, their success is measured externally against results. Good governance is an important part of how they deliver, but is a means to an end, not an end. From a helicopter view, it does not appear that NYMR is delivering on those outcomes.

 

Oh come on! I was responding to your comments as you well know.

As I said, I give huge weight to long serving volunteers who are no longer volunteering or are reconsidering volunteering due to the management.

 

Personally I do attach huge significance to the opinions of those who no longer volunteer for any reason including the valued opportunity to talk to some posters on here face to face.

 

I'm sorry, but these replies come across as a trivialising and patronising response, focusing as it seems to on the discussion here. Its author also follows the NYMR Volunteers page on Facebook and will know that there is plenty of adverse comment on the same lines from those who are still actively involved with the NYMR, the general feeling being that the paid management are floundering by carrying out experiments in pricing. Are all of these critics misguided? Sadly, there seems to be no inclination to listen to any of the criticisms, suggestions or complaints that are raised either here or there, despite them coming from people who, on the whole, have far more experience of the railway longer term, and I fear it's all going to end badly. The volunteers will be left to clear up the mess, as they always do, and the (by then) unpaid staff will be too busy looking for new employment to care about the years of prior work that they will have come close to destroying.

 

I don’t think anyone is in any doubt that if the operating company fails, it will be the end of the railway. The question then is how to prevent that.

One prescription is to try to do as much as possible with volunteers; and to try to make the railway the destination, rather than just transport to somewhere else.

The other seems to be to use paid staff for many roles; to base the service plan around Whitby; and to attempt to get major grants to cover the inevitable operating shortfall.

It feels like option 2 is the plan, so we have to wait and see if it is sustainable. But it does seem the vision is a “high cost / high income” model, which is therefore very susceptible to any shortfall on the “high income” side.

The risks seem to me several: firstly that during a downturn, income can decline more quickly than costs can be cut. Secondly, there is no such thing as a free lunch - I can’t believe major grants come without costly strings. (A grant of £x doesn’t plug an £x budget deficit if it requires expenditure of close to £x to deliver to the satisfaction of the grant-giving body). And the third problem is the opportunity cost: if you feel members and volunteers are less useful than major grants, you may find more genuinely altruistic donations and legacies dry up.

The question is how far you are prepared to stress test option 2 before feeling confident it has either worked or failed.

Tom

 

It seems that the NYMR's self appointed spokesperson seems to prefer mudslinging to rational argument! I have never expressed a wish to see the NYMR fail but, rather like the Doomsday clock (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgmkdz0297o) I fear that event is growing steadily closer, and I would far, far rather seeing action to prevent it! As Jamessquared has discussed, his option 2 seems to be the preferred route forward, but that seems to me to fly in the face of reality. What grant awarding bodies provide income shortfall support? I cannot think of any, and if they exist the queue at their doors must be a long one, and the chances of obtaining their support must represent a very long shot. What happens if they don't come through? - but even if they might, what would be the NYMR's case for support? That they provide a hundred or so full time jobs? I imagine that's less than the supermarkets in Pickering provide between them! There seems to be a view at the NYMR that it is a significant local business. As a large fish in the small pond of Pickering it is, but one doesn't have to venture much further afield to realise that in terms of bigger ponds it is actually a small fish! But to realise that one needs a sense of proportion nd that seems to be sadly lacking among the NYMR management as well. And then, what about the national economic situation? - where is the money from these grants going to come from, and where do priorities lie? As budgets for social care become ever more strained I'd have thought that the priorities for charitable expenditure will tilt in that direction. So, I am convinced that it's far more sensible to be chasing additional income, and as the Whitby trains seem to be fully patronised, and there is little or no scope for adding any more, the big area left is to encourage more use of the Pickering-Goathland in the Hours between the peak Whitby services. I'd like to know why Lineisclear thinks my reasoning is wrong!