Strathspey Railway

Our agreement is limited, and I think you are conflating very different issues.

I see very few here who are expressing concerns about majority votes. What I do see are concerns about voting mechanisms (notably proxies) that empower boards so that they do not have to worry about actually winning support, as they know that they will get a slug of proxies to use as they see fit.

Nomination committees are a different kettle of fish. I accept that many will not vote against a recommendation, and therefore that the influence of a nominations committee will be profound. However, taking that fairly banal observation and formalising it creates a moat around the board, which cannot fail to undermine the sense of accountability of that board. We see the political impact of that in various threads about the WSR. Many dictatorships start with promises of liberality, before the new leader develops a dangerously strong belief in their superior wisdom. I prefer structures to be built to avoid that possibility.

I recognise the distinction between an operational business and supporting charity, and the distinctly different emphases in both. However, in heritage rail, I believe that makes it more rather than less important that those running the supporting/parent organisation focus on why it exists, and step back from how it is run. That “why” must include the formal charitable objects, but must not be constrained to those - they are rarely an adequate description of the intent and purposes of heritage railways.

My experience elsewhere as a trustee/director, and also as a school governor, supports this. I am a layperson, not expert in most of the matters I am asked to consider. My role, and that of my fellows, is strategic, and about acting as a critical friend to those running the place. We might not have the specific issues of railway safety, but there are life and death matters that we have to consider, as well as profound impacts on the communities we serve.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

To bring some levity to this thread, a photo has popped up of 828 and Clyde/ Lady Ingrid in steam together at Spa Valley. Pretty sure these two were never in service together.

Photo: Matt Dives

 

Just to correct the record ( and you invited me to do so) the NYMR Nominations Committee is chaired by an independent expert in charity governance.
Of the twelve elected Trustees eight are current working volunteers. Hardly an "overwhelming " take over by so called business orientated people!

 

As they say, there can be lies, damn lies and statistics! IIRC some of those regular volunteers are relatively recent recruits - I was told that when they came round the LNERCA workshop at Kirby Moorside they didn't appear to show much knowledge or understanding of what was happening on the railway in general and the Chairman accompanying them wasn't particularly clued in either! -Perhaps you can understand why I have a sense of unease? Also, the nominations committee might have an independent Chairman, but what about the other members? Is the Chairman a working member, and does he have a working grasp of the railways needs apart from its legal obligations? Or are are they a (distant!) secondary concern?

 

I am a member of several railways societies. Mostly because I visited, liked the place, and so I view my 20 quid membership as a donation- that is pretty much how memberships are sold. And you get a comic now and then. When the magazine comes, I'll look though it, but likely not actually read it. An ad to donate to x project may get some attention, and money, but thats about it.
I am exactly the sort of member who should not be voting at the AGM, because I do not know what is going on. Consequently, I do not give my proxy votes to anyone. I used to send off the form, but logic:
Logically, if there is a divided opinion on a matter, and those who understand the situation are divided 75/25%, then the ignorant, if informed, would likely also be divided 75/25%.
If 100 people turn up, and voted 25 for, and 75 against, then that is simple.
If 100 non-attendees give their proxies to a chairman, he then has the power to change that vote to 125 for, and 75 against, whereas the informed opinion of those proxies would likely have kept the original outcome.
If people like me cannot be bothered to put a few Xs on a postal ballot, and if we aren't actually interested enough to find out some facts and decide where we those Xs should go, we do not deserve a vote. Nor does the chairman deserve our votes. And a good chairman, or a board, which is not at loggerheads which its membership, should not want my proxy.
I completely understand why volunteers who do the graft to keep railways running might resent some bloke who visited in 2016 having an equal vote to them for £20 when they are annually giving hundreds of hours for nothing.

 

There's a lot of sense in that post although one correction is needed. Appointing the chairman ( or anyone else for that matter) only gives them
discretion as to how to vote if that is what the member/shareholder has decided. They can always direct the proxy to vote for or against.
What is impliedly being suggested. I think, is that those members and volunteers who are more aware and more involved should have more voting influence. Ross mentions being a member of several railway societies but most heritage railways are no longer in that category. They are typically incorporated as companies, charities and CIO's, CIC's or Community Benefit Societies. Company, charity or community benefit society law will then constrain their freedom to operate on anything other than a one vote per member or one vote per share basis. It's one of the downside of the essential protection afforded by incorporation.

 

Published: 16:40, 26 October 2023. Strathspey Herald

| Updated: 16:52, 26 October 2023

Strathspey steam railway faces 'uncertain financial future' after walk-out

Bosses at the Strathspey steam railway have admitted that the attraction is facing an uncertain financial future as they continue to try and resolve a walk-out by staff members and volunteers.

The Strathspey Railway Company has said that for now the focus is on running the remainder of the services scheduled for this season.

The last of these services on the Aviemore-Broomhill line is timetabled to run on Sunday before a hoped for return with the popular festive express trains.

Forty-two staff and volunteers backed an expression of no confidence delivered to the SRC’s board at a meeting in the Cairngorm Hotel in Aviemore last Tuesday evening (October 17) but the directors refused to stand down.

Allegations of bullying, harassment and staff safety failings have been directed at some of the board’s chiefs – these have been denied although the SRC admits there are areas for improvements.

Services on the heritage railway, scaled back at this time of year, have continued to run in the meantime.

A SRC spokesman told the Strathy yesterday: “The SRC board together with an increasing number of volunteers and employees are currently focused on delivering the final passenger steam services of the 2023 timetabled season.

“The SRC board continues to proactively discuss with volunteers and employees the best way forward for the railway in what, at present, remains an uncertain financial future.

“Currently a number of volunteers are in dialogue with the board as it seeks to strengthen identified weaknesses.

“These include human resources, general management and communication.

“The SRC board continues to encourage volunteers and employees to engage with them and intends to prioritise this during the non-operational month of November prior to the start of the festive seasonal services.”

It emerged in a lengthy statement issued to the Strathy on Friday by the SRC on the dispute that the accident involving the Flying Scotsman on September 29 at the line’s Aviemore station will result in a six-figure loss of income and that is before the cost of resolving insurance.

Mike Gale, a paid locomotive driver, is one of those now refusing to work for the SRC.

Several key positions have also been vacated including operations manager, outdoor superintendent and engineering manager as well as drivers and firemen.

Mr Gale warned: “The railway’s future is at risk unless these two or three directors move on. It is really sad to see that we could lose the railway which is one of the best businesses in the area.

“They are struggling to run the current services as they are stretched so thin.

“They are trying to cover the operations themselves but this is using people who are not regular workers on the railway.”

Mr Gale estimates at least 20 core staff and volunteers have walked-out.

He continued: “The finances are in doubt – they are really struggling. They need money in the tin and without this they will have to close the business.

“If the SRC board looked after their staff then the workers would sort these issues of cash flow and safety, but they just haven’t.”

Mr Gale said there is a Strathspey Railway Association (SRA) meeting scheduled for November 4. “They are the majority shareholder but if they do not do something soon then the business will be gone.

“Ultimately we all want the railway to be successful but these directors have dug in their heels and they do not understand that many staff and volunteers are so upset with the way the railway has been run.

“There are people who are very capable and ready to step in and take over on the board.”

He added: “A lot of people will come back and help if change is made but the longer this goes on the harder it will be to fix the railway.”

Mr Gale believes the appointment of a ‘right’ general manager is vital. “They know they need someone but they do not want to let go of any power,” he claimed.

 

Without getting into the truth or not of this dispute perhaps sharing this insight into how to solve the cash flow issue to the rest of the HR movement would help everyone.

 

One suggestion is that the boards of certain lines need to recognise that if there is disquiet amongst the troops, they are the problem and not them. How many pages of discussion would that have saved ?

 

It is a pity that none of the directors were willing to realise that their position was untenable and resign, even one going might have shifted things the right way

 

People like that though don’t seem to see that they’re in the wrong though do they?

 

Given that the HRA seem to have a default position of "back the board", it only serves to reinforce their own views.

 

If Board members would only read forums they would find answers* to everything they need to know about how to run their railways.

* Although more than likely they would find many conflicting answers to problems they didn't even know they had.

 

All figures of course being before any insurance is considered

 

Such as being charity led and able to claim gift aid on fares? Given that many are cash-strapped, you could be forgiven for thinking it would be an obvious thing to do.

 

But beware the pitfalls that @Lineisclear constantly highlights ! Be sure your "Charitable purposes" cover everything you want, or are likely to want, to do !

 

But maybe by taking a leaf out of the likes of the Reggie Hanks, Chris Green and Jon Dunster book by having a walk around and chinwag they might learn something?

 

Happened to me some years ago when I visited a site and made a donation, intended as a one-off ; the site and organisation being at the opposite end of the country from me. They took my address "in order to send an acknowledgement", following which I found myself enrolled as a member. It was a couple of years before I dropped off again, in the meantime most of my donation had been used up in mailing me documents and magazines that I hadn't wanted in the first place. The question this raises is whether it is worthwhile signing up, either as members or shareholders, people who just make one-off small donations. Obviously there is the hope that they can be touched up for more later on but does this in fact work ? Or are societies/companies encumbering themselves with a large "tail' of people who, as described by Ross, have little or no further interest in their operations but cost money to service and can have an unfortunate influence on voting if they choose to exercise that right.
For myself, I am happy to donate to whatever appeals to me but I do not usually take out membership unless I can play an active role or provide regular funding, which is what then justifies my vote.

 

It would never catch on