Five volunteers SUSPENDED from NYMR

[roythebus1]

Having been a committee member of a bus museum in the south many years ago, I've witnessed various "splinter groups" there keeping funding under the Group's name in pots on the shelf as it were. The management committee knew nothing of these funds which i understand were considerable, as were the vehicle parts stocks of which ownership was never really identified. The founder members got a freehold property for a good price  back in the day. All that was put at risk by the splinter groups, the activities of one of the subsidiary companies and its "manager" trousering funds for his own benefit, you get the picture.

 

Fortunately a more serious group took over the reins and negotiated a deal with a couple of very well-known local museums to move the bus organisation to a modern site. The sale of the old premises up the road increased considerably over the years as it was sold for "very desirable" expensive housing. 

 

But I understand here's still friction between various factions! I'm glad in a lot of ways I walked away from that organisation many years ago.

 

Back on to railways, I was a member of an off-shore railway when it was set up and am still a member. Never had any problems there, they own everything. It's well managed. My local railway, founded slightly before that has its own way of doing things. I volunteered there for a few years. A lot of groups own rolling stock, locos, assets and they seem to have more favour than ordinary members. I didn't do a lot there due to other commitments and some comments were made in my general direction as to the ability of certain volunteers to do things. Considering I'd been a BR driver for 15 years and an LT guard for nearly 4 years I was a bit put out. i'm used to railway banter, the black humour, but this was different. I've not been back.

 

[roythebus1]

There's also been the "scandal" on several railways I'm aware of of those males who prefer the attention of younger members. That sort of thing also happens in the preserved bus world. Some of those who have been caught weren't subject to DBS checks as they weren't invented back in the day, everything was hashed up. I know when I ran a bus company in south London I unknowingly employed at least five such individuals over the years. As I said, there were n DBS checks then, and the surprising one was someone who was a fellow director. He was only sussed when he took his computer for repair. He'd never been caught until then.

But I digress.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Conflict between the employed management of volunteer dependent organisations and the volunteers afflicts most such organisations dependent on largely volunteer effort. The only preventive in my experience is to require the management employees to also rotate through  volunteer roles in their own time, so that they are continuously aware of 'what makes it happen' and are kept up to date with volunteer concerns.

 

Otherwise, alienation is a risk, and with this abuses can intrude and in time become established, and this is possible from both sides. The resulting mess that is exposed in the correction leads to reputational harm, and is very slow to heal: essentially for so long as those affected are still in life...

 

On 18/12/2023 at 00:33, jjb1970 said:

The Bovington connection is worrying...

I wouldn't be unduly concerned, because unlike a preservation line it doesn't have to go into 'real operation' on any scale, and there's deffo no ammunition.

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Conflict between the employed management of volunteer dependent organisations and the volunteers afflicts most such organisations dependent on largely volunteer effort. The only preventive in my experience is to require the management employees to also rotate through  volunteer roles in their own time, so that they are continuously aware of 'what makes it happen' and are kept up to date with volunteer concerns.

 

Otherwise, alienation is a risk, and with this abuses can intrude and in time become established, and this is possible from both sides. The resulting mess that is exposed in the correction leads to reputational harm, and is very slow to heal: essentially for so long as those affected are still in life...

Not just in organisations with a lot of volunteers, but potentially (in my experience) in any organisation where there is a disconnect between front of house/visitor-facing and office/management staff, and where the latter don’t understand the way the operation works, or the pressures on operational staff (‘operational staff’ not necessarily meant in the very specific way it’s sometimes used in a railway context). It’s a big problem in some museum and heritage organisations, often exacerbated by differences in pay or the value that is seen to be attributed to different roles (which is perhaps a way in which it relates to volunteers as well). One way that I’ve seen this addressed in a museum context is by having new starters shadow front of house staff so that they understand the operational side of things and its importance to the organisation. There’s also issues like lack of contact, if the visitor-facing staff are working various shift patterns including some weekends while the office staff always work Monday to Friday (especially if the latter work from home for some of this anyway). This perhaps applies even more to volunteers as they may not come in that often (perhaps mostly at weekends), and when they do may not have a consistent staff contact.

 

A lot of the same points apply to volunteers, especially making them feel valued and those managing volunteers making the effort to get to know them and understand what motivates them to volunteer. The only issue I’d have with your post is the bit I’ve put in bold, as I don’t think that an organisation can require its paid staff to effectively also volunteer in their spare time, and I’m not sure I particularly like the precedent this would set.

 

I also think there’s a lot to be said for hiring a specific volunteer manager, as opposed to giving that task to someone who is already overstretched with other priorities. Unfortunately, while they’ve been successful in a lot of organisations that have them, volunteer managers do seem to be one of the roles that gets cut whenever there are funding pressures.

 

I don’t have any inside knowledge of the current NYMR situation but from what I’ve read I gather that at times the Whitby services are full to capacity, and possibly that the railway needs them to be to make the Whitby operation worthwhile. In my experience situations like this (where everything is very busy, sold out/at capacity and everyone involved in the operation is therefore potentially needing to push very hard to make it happen) are not ideal for volunteer involvement and don’t create ideal conditions for positive interactions between volunteers and management (not least because the managers themselves may also be under pressure to ‘do more with less’). And the skillset required to manage the Whitby operation presumably favours those with experience of the ‘big railway’, whereas skills like volunteer management, discretionary spend customer service and looking after historic objects are more usually associated with people who’ve come from a heritage rail or museum sector background.

[009 micro modeller]

21 hours ago, roythebus1 said:

There's also been the "scandal" on several railways I'm aware of of those males who prefer the attention of younger members. That sort of thing also happens in the preserved bus world. Some of those who have been caught weren't subject to DBS checks as they weren't invented back in the day, everything was hashed up. I know when I ran a bus company in south London I unknowingly employed at least five such individuals over the years. As I said, there were n DBS checks then, and the surprising one was someone who was a fellow director. He was only sussed when he took his computer for repair. He'd never been caught until then.

But I digress.

Is this perhaps another argument for having a volunteer manager? DBS checks etc. are the sort of admin that can be missed (or not correctly processed), especially if it has to be done for a large number of volunteers or employees.

[Blandford1969]

1 hour ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Is this perhaps another argument for having a volunteer manager? DBS checks etc. are the sort of admin that can be missed (or not correctly processed), especially if it has to be done for a large number of volunteers or employees.

DBS checks can only be carried out in certain circumstances where the person will be a:

Teacher

Childminder

Social Worker

Medical professional

Foster Carer

 

Most people on railways do not come into contact with minors so this is a bit of a red herring. Its worth adding you that on many railways the structure means volunteers do have a 'manager' be that Station Master, Gaurds/Signaling/Loco Inspector etc. 

[rodent279]

35 minutes ago, Blandford1969 said:

DBS checks can only be carried out in certain circumstances where the person will be a:

Teacher

Childminder

Social Worker

Medical professional

Foster Carer

 

Most people on railways do not come into contact with minors so this is a bit of a red herring. Its worth adding you that on many railways the structure means volunteers do have a 'manager' be that Station Master, Gaurds/Signaling/Loco Inspector etc. 

I as a coach at a running club have to have DBS checks carried out and a DBS certificate issued before I can get my coaches licence reissued. I don't coach minors, that is handled by a separate Juniors Club coach.

Edited December 29, 2023 by rodent279

[009 micro modeller]

8 minutes ago, Blandford1969 said:

DBS checks can only be carried out in certain circumstances where the person will be a:

Teacher

Childminder

Social Worker

Medical professional

Foster Carer

Not quite correct, if they’re ‘basic’ DBS checks, as I assume would usually be the case in a heritage railway context. But it’s largely correct when referring to ‘enhanced’ checks as you have to be in ‘regulated activity’ (generally covered by the list you gave but sometimes a bit more complex than that). There is some debate over whether people like museum educators (especially if they’re freelance, or volunteers supporting such a position) or people who supervise young or vulnerable volunteers should have DBS checks, and it depends on the specifics of their role and how much contact they will have (so as you rightly point out it isn’t good practice to do the checks ‘just in case’, as covered in this thread). Remember you can also have a check for working with vulnerable adults, although again it’s only a small number of people that really need one.

 

As an example, currently I have a basic check for my main museum job (where I do come into contact with children and potentially vulnerable adults, but not in a way that could possibly be construed as requiring an enhanced check. I do have an enhanced check for one of my other jobs that involves working regularly in a school, with weekly contact with the same group of children (frequency of contact being iirc an important distinction). Finally for my other job (mostly museum-based but occasionally going into schools, but only for one-off sessions under direct supervision) I also only have to have a basic check.

 

But anyway, DBS was only an example of a potentially relevant ‘admin’ task relating to volunteers, it’s a bit off-topic for this thread.

 

49 minutes ago, Blandford1969 said:

Its worth adding you that on many railways the structure means volunteers do have a 'manager' be that Station Master, Gaurds/Signaling/Loco Inspector etc. 

 

Arguably this doesn’t duplicate the function of a volunteer manager though, in the same way that in other organisations (including other types of museum) with a mixture of paid staff and volunteers the presence of senior managers for each department and line managers etc. under them doesn’t make the role of a volunteer manager redundant. It’s slightly different from managing paid workers and the volunteer manager’s role could involve other stuff like matching prospective volunteers’ skills to roles that need doing, recruiting new volunteers and organising events for volunteers to attend. Given the sort of issues discussed in this thread it could even involve helping to mediate disputes between volunteers and management (maybe ‘volunteer coordinator’ is a better term for this sort of role - it’s one I’ve also seen used).

[Bucoops]

1 hour ago, Blandford1969 said:

DBS checks can only be carried out in certain circumstances where the person will be a:

Teacher

Childminder

Social Worker

Medical professional

Foster Carer

 

Most people on railways do not come into contact with minors so this is a bit of a red herring. Its worth adding you that on many railways the structure means volunteers do have a 'manager' be that Station Master, Gaurds/Signaling/Loco Inspector etc. 

 

Enhanced ones yes, basic ones can be applied for by anyone.

[009 micro modeller]

1 minute ago, Bucoops said:

 

Enhanced ones yes, basic ones can be applied for by anyone.

Exactly. Actually, while we’re on this tangent about DBS checks, it’s worth pointing out that whether the person being checked is a paid employee or a volunteer does not affect the level of check needed. I’ve had voluntary roles in the past where I’ve needed an enhanced one, and equally I’ve subsequently had paid jobs where only a basic one was needed.

[roythebus1]

Other roles that need DBS checks are taxi and private hire drivers, school bus drivers to name a few that I've been involved with. One of my local railways stopped having "Thomas" days after the owners of the "Thomas" brand insisted everyone at the railway had a DBS check Those who didn't have one were in effect prohibited from certain areas of the railway on Thomas days. It was impractical so they no longer have Thomas days.

 

DBS checks are only of any value for those who have been caught wrong-doing. For those like my former colleague who hadn't been caught he was merrily driving school buses with clean DBS checks before he had his computer repaired. 

 

You can have volunteer managers i.e. people who manage things that are unpaid, or volunteer managers may or may not be paid to manage volunteers! Most heritage railway paid managers that I've met also feel obliged to do voluntary work at the railway as well, but then of course statutory rest periods ought to come into the equation.

 

It seems that a lot of railways still have these "stakeholder" groups who own a certain asset which I find a bit unsettling at times.

Edited December 29, 2023 by roythebus1

[Boris]

When I think about the number of people on the NYMR who have later been convicted as nonces it makes me shiver.  One was that bad they got 10 years behind bars.  They've got way better at weeding them out thankfully.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Boris

[pete_mcfarlane]

2 hours ago, roythebus1 said:

DBS checks are only of any value for those who have been caught wrong-doing. For those like my former colleague who hadn't been caught he was merrily driving school buses with clean DBS checks before he had his computer repaired. 

I think the motivation behind DBS checks was to stop repeat offenders from moving to a different part of the country (where nobody knows them) and starting all over again. 

 

[Cwmtwrch]

12 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

I think the motivation behind DBS checks was to stop repeat offenders from moving to a different part of the country (where nobody knows them) and starting all over again. 

It was. It is also why certain types of convictions or cautions remain permanently visible on standard and enhanced checks. Although, as a mildly cynical ex-colleague once said, CRB checks [as they were then] were out of date the day after issue; they can only reflect the past not the future.

[009 micro modeller]

20 hours ago, roythebus1 said:

One of my local railways stopped having "Thomas" days after the owners of the "Thomas" brand insisted everyone at the railway had a DBS check Those who didn't have one were in effect prohibited from certain areas of the railway on Thomas days. It was impractical so they no longer have Thomas days.

That sounds like a great example of a situation where some people involved probably should have had one (at least a basic one), but a blanket requirement for everyone to have them ‘just in case’ isn’t really appropriate (so the railway was right to decide this was unreasonable). There’s a data privacy angle to these things that’s probably assumed more importance more recently (with GDPR etc.) than it had when the checks were introduced. Personally if it came down to a choice between the two I’d prefer safeguarding good practice to override GDPR, but I can also understand why it isn’t good practice to just insist everyone has a DBS check on slightly tenuous grounds.

 

19 hours ago, Boris said:

When I think about the number of people on the NYMR who have later been convicted as nonces it makes me shiver.  One was that bad they got 10 years behind bars.  They've got way better at weeding them out thankfully.

Weren’t there a few such situations on some other railways a few years ago, leading to the safeguarding for Thomas events and similar being (quite rightly) tightened up, but sometimes also leading to impractical situations as described above?

 

4 hours ago, Cwmtwrch said:

CRB checks [as they were then] were out of date the day after issue; they can only reflect the past not the future.

The DBS update service allows the checks to be registered (for a small fee per year - much less than the cost of doing a new DBS check and generally involving less hassle, but it has to be done soon after the certificate is received) and then made viewable by new employers, and updated with new information. It also means the update service can just be paid for each year, rather than doing another check from scratch every 3 years etc. However, this seems mainly to be of value to people like myself who have a DBS check but may want to do other work with a different organisation requiring the same level of check, or freelancers (and their employers) who need to do a check but don’t always have the time to wait for it to come back, or don’t want to have to do yet another application for each new organisation.

 

20 hours ago, roythebus1 said:

You can have volunteer managers i.e. people who manage things that are unpaid, or volunteer managers may or may not be paid to manage volunteers!

Exactly, although I was referring to people whose role is specifically to manage volunteers (which they may do alongside something else as well). Some heritage sector organisations that have a lot of volunteers now have this as a paid role, although it is generally a bit more involved than just day to day allocation of volunteer shifts.

 

20 hours ago, roythebus1 said:

Most heritage railway paid managers that I've met also feel obliged to do voluntary work at the railway as well, but then of course statutory rest periods ought to come into the equation.

Indeed, and that is commendable. My point was that an employer cannot contractually insist on volunteering in this way, and taking a more general view of employment rights this is probably a good thing.

 

20 hours ago, roythebus1 said:

It seems that a lot of railways still have these "stakeholder" groups who own a certain asset which I find a bit unsettling at times.

Yes, it especially seems a bit unhelpful in the context of a railway run either by a democratically-run membership organisation, or a charity that would like to to engage with the wider local community.

[Northmoor]

4 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

That sounds like a great example of a situation where some people involved probably should have had one (at least a basic one), but a blanket requirement for everyone to have them ‘just in case’ isn’t really appropriate (so the railway was right to decide this was unreasonable).

I was referring to people whose role is specifically to manage volunteers (which they may do alongside something else as well). Some heritage sector organisations that have a lot of volunteers now have this as a paid role, although it is generally a bit more involved than just day to day allocation of volunteer shifts.

First point, organisations that agreed to do this would raise my eyebrows.  I would be concerned that they saw insisting upon DBS checks primarily as a single action to cover a certain part of their anatomy, rather than thinking that implementing a range of safeguarding process might be necessary.

 

Second point, it is the larger and more successful heritage organisations that have such a paid role.  There is a chicken and egg scenario in that only a larger organisation can afford another salary, but I would argue that more than a few preserved railways should devote much more management time to recruitment, training and retention of volunteers and rather less to what locomotives they should hire for next year's big gala weekend.  You need to manage what paid employees deliver for you, why would you not need to manage what volunteers deliver for you?

[009 micro modeller]

44 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

First point, organisations that agreed to do this would raise my eyebrows.  I would be concerned that they saw insisting upon DBS checks primarily as a single action to cover a certain part of their anatomy, rather than thinking that implementing a range of safeguarding process might be necessary.

That’s another good point - it gives the impression that they’re almost ticking a box for their own benefit, rather than taking any genuine interest in safeguarding or how it works, or what else might be necessary. For instance, in the example given above, did the Thomas organisation ask the railway who its safeguarding lead was, or give details of how to contact their own if needed? Did they provide a copy of their safeguarding policy and ask that everyone involved reads it? That (or other things like it) seems a much more relevant and reasonable first step.

 

49 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Second point, it is the larger and more successful heritage organisations that have such a paid role.  There is a chicken and egg scenario in that only a larger organisation can afford another salary, but I would argue that more than a few preserved railways should devote much more management time to recruitment, training and retention of volunteers and rather less to what locomotives they should hire for next year's big gala weekend.  You need to manage what paid employees deliver for you, why would you not need to manage what volunteers deliver for you?

Yes, and as above it is often a role that gets cut when money is tight. However, as was explained in a museum conference talk I attended a couple of years ago, volunteer labour is usually not completely ‘free’ in the way sometimes assumed (yes it is in a direct sense in that they aren’t paid a wage, but not in terms of the way that volunteers are supported, or recruited, or trained etc. etc.). It’s a bit different in organisations where everyone involved is a volunteer but even then (in my experience) they can benefit from some volunteers taking on higher level organisational and committee-type roles to support others.

[Michael Hodgson]

All this about different sorts of DBS checks all very well but has it been suggested that these five volunteers who were suspended are subject of unsuitability problems of that nature?  If all they were doing at NYMR is scraping boiler barrels or painting wagons, I don't see the relevance.  I was under the impression the issue was to do with friction with the main preservation group and some argument over rental of premises they used for accommodation while working there.

 

In any case, whilst some heritage railway staff such as guards and ticketing staff do come into contact with minors, surely any children visiting the line are accompanied by their parents who one would hope would supervise them and steer them away from anybody displaying inappropriate behaviour?

[009 micro modeller]

46 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

All this about different sorts of DBS checks all very well but has it been suggested that these five volunteers who were suspended are subject of unsuitability problems of that nature? 

Sorry, I don’t think so, I think it’s just the usual thread drift from the mention of them here and my post in response to that:

 

On 28/12/2023 at 21:02, roythebus1 said:

There's also been the "scandal" on several railways I'm aware of of those males who prefer the attention of younger members. That sort of thing also happens in the preserved bus world. Some of those who have been caught weren't subject to DBS checks as they weren't invented back in the day, everything was hashed up. I know when I ran a bus company in south London I unknowingly employed at least five such individuals over the years. As I said, there were n DBS checks then, and the surprising one was someone who was a fellow director. He was only sussed when he took his computer for repair. He'd never been caught until then.

But I digress.

Edit: it is kind of relevant to volunteer management generally but not to this specific situation.

Edited December 30, 2023 by 009 micro modeller

[009 micro modeller]

47 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

In any case, whilst some heritage railway staff such as guards and ticketing staff do come into contact with minors, surely any children visiting the line are accompanied by their parents who one would hope would supervise them and steer them away from anybody displaying inappropriate behaviour?

That sounds like a situation where a basic check might be sensible but an enhanced one is not justified (compare for instance my visitor-facing museum job, for which I’m required to have the former but not the latter - I think this is related to Safer Recruitment guidance which is also sometimes used for voluntary roles). For enhanced checks, the only relevant situations that spring to mind are if there are specific education staff or volunteers who handle things like school visits (although even then they may not actually need enhanced checks) or (perhaps more relevantly for heritage railways), people who regularly supervise or train young volunteers.

[adb968008]

Quote

The current management regime at the railway seem to have forgotten that the railway was set up by volunteers in the late 1960s, with many of these people dedicating most of their life and spare time, over many years, making the railway what it is today. These newer staff have scrapped the original ethos which built the railway and are now scrapping the volunteers who helped to create it.

 

"The heritage steam railway is being transformed into a multi-million pound theme park with little regard for the original aims of the hard-working individuals who rescued it from oblivion in the late 1960s and early 70s.”

This quote could be applied over and over to many preserved lines.

 

Sadly lifetime volunteers are often steam rollered by younger management with no respect for this history and devotion of those who made it possible to be in the positions of power they now hold.

It is this which will in my opinion turn some lines from preservation groups with differing aims and one overall vision into self sustaining viable heritage charitable businesses, which are essentially charities for profit or as close as, and others which could simply be destroyed and end up folding in the future due to lack of funds or volunteers.

 

Both which will leave the enthusiastic volunteer without a place to go, and reduce that volunteer resource into a basic unpaid employee where they can go.

 

Sadly theres no alternative really, as volunteer supply is drying up, so railways do need to stand on their own feet, and establish to run in that manner.

 

In this specific scenario, it reads as if the nymr has tossed away a crutch that was helping it to walk because it no longer needs it and its getting in the way… cruel, harsh but volunteers have to accept that besides being an enthusiast they are really just an unpaid employee… years of service, emotion, enthusiasm are purely in the eyes of the beholder and have no long term value once the business plan reaches certain milestones, your value to a railway exists until you clock off that day. In this instance a reason was found to justify clocking them off permanently.

 

The best thing those volunteers can do, is find another railway that hasnt progressed to that stage and is still more open and willing to harness the skills they offer, or write it off and do something else.

 

Loco /Rolling stock groups seem much less afflicted with these issues, as they can move between railways, and invariably there is always a shortage so railways are more willing to accommodate them, though occasionally a group does go pop. I can certainly think of one loco group that would change its financial fortunes with paint alone, but is completely resistant to change and a chequered exit history from various sites, which may not help them get favours.

Edited December 31, 2023 by adb968008

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

This quote could be applied over and over to many preserved lines.

 

Sadly lifetime volunteers are often steam rollered by younger management with no respect for this history and devotion of those who made it possible to be in the positions of power they now hold.

It is this which will in my opinion turn some lines into self sustaining viable heritage businesses, which are essentially charities for profit or as close as, and others which could simply be destroyed and end up folding in the future…

 

Both which will leave the enthusiastic volunteer without a place, and reduce that resource into a basic unpaid employee.

 

Sadly theres no alternative really, as volunteer supply is drying up, so railways do need to stand on their own feet.

 

In this specific scenario, it reads as if the nymr has tossed away a crutch that was helping it to walk because it no longer needs it and its getting in the way… cruel, harsh but volunteers have to accept that besides being an enthusiast they are really just an unpaid employee… years of service, emotion, enthusiasm are purely in the eyes of the beholder and have no long term value once the business plan reaches certain milestones.

While we must respect the legacy of the 1960s and '70s volunteers, it is a very different world now.  The "product" needs to be different now because the public would simply not accept what was on offer 50 years ago.  Likewise, what can be achieved now is very different because of how it is funded.  Much was achieved in that era by volunteers because they were applying their 9-5 skills, which is how so many early Barry scrapyard survivors were restored using volunteers' heavy engineering skills.  There are far fewer people out there with those skills now, so restoration is increasingly delivered by professionals and funded through major appeals and grants.  Obtaining the latter requires a skillset from managers that wouldn't have even been considered in the amateur 1970s.

 

Perhaps, if the railways concerned are attracting record numbers of visitors and earning record income, the modern managers may feel that they are being proved right.  We are still in the aftermath of a pandemic and therefore we are seeing the pent-up demand for travel, days out and holidays being released.  I will believe this management style was right when times are difficult (and economically, we are very likely to experience that over the next decade) and these railways continue to grow.  It's worth remembering that even when times were (relatively) very hard during the late 70s and early 80s, heritage railways were opening at the rate of about 5-6 a year and - probably due to a lot of volunteer goodwill and loyalty - very few schemes closed.

[adb968008]

16 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

While we must respect the legacy of the 1960s and '70s volunteers, it is a very different world now.  The "product" needs to be different now because the public would simply not accept what was on offer 50 years ago.  Likewise, what can be achieved now is very different because of how it is funded.  Much was achieved in that era by volunteers because they were applying their 9-5 skills, which is how so many early Barry scrapyard survivors were restored using volunteers' heavy engineering skills.  There are far fewer people out there with those skills now, so restoration is increasingly delivered by professionals and funded through major appeals and grants.  Obtaining the latter requires a skillset from managers that wouldn't have even been considered in the amateur 1970s.

 

Perhaps, if the railways concerned are attracting record numbers of visitors and earning record income, the modern managers may feel that they are being proved right.  We are still in the aftermath of a pandemic and therefore we are seeing the pent-up demand for travel, days out and holidays being released.  I will believe this management style was right when times are difficult (and economically, we are very likely to experience that over the next decade) and these railways continue to grow.  It's worth remembering that even when times were (relatively) very hard during the late 70s and early 80s, heritage railways were opening at the rate of about 5-6 a year and - probably due to a lot of volunteer goodwill and loyalty - very few schemes closed.

Yes but the spirit of what was the desire from those in the 1960’s should be respected.

Much of the charity conversion took place in the 90’s with the aims of lottery funding. Much of those funding sources have gone and don't look to be coming back.

 

But one aspect of such charities now, is their divorce of their founding groups, which means the divorce of founding principles.

 

i myself contributed to Dumbleton Halls preservation in the early 1980’s, I certainly didn’t do it with the aim of making money for Warner Brothers in Japan when I did.
 

I used to eagerly read the “Dumbleton Hall news” pocket book publications, I still might have a few, but the SDR management today decided it was a nice little earner, but it wasnt a life and death decision to sell it.

Weve seen other lines where charity management incoming is more associated with career advancement, or prestige and social status (one chairman blasts the internet with his picture on every message). This isnt inline with founding principles imo.

 

Edited December 31, 2023 by adb968008

[009 micro modeller]

19 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

While we must respect the legacy of the 1960s and '70s volunteers, it is a very different world now.  The "product" needs to be different now because the public would simply not accept what was on offer 50 years ago.  Likewise, what can be achieved now is very different because of how it is funded.  Much was achieved in that era by volunteers because they were applying their 9-5 skills, which is how so many early Barry scrapyard survivors were restored using volunteers' heavy engineering skills.  There are far fewer people out there with those skills now, so restoration is increasingly delivered by professionals and funded through major appeals and grants.  Obtaining the latter requires a skillset from managers that wouldn't have even been considered in the amateur 1970s.

 

Perhaps, if the railways concerned are attracting record numbers of visitors and earning record income, the modern managers may feel that they are being proved right.  We are still in the aftermath of a pandemic and therefore we are seeing the pent-up demand for travel, days out and holidays being released.  I will believe this management style was right when times are difficult (and economically, we are very likely to experience that over the next decade) and these railways continue to grow.  It's worth remembering that even when times were (relatively) very hard during the late 70s and early 80s, heritage railways were opening at the rate of about 5-6 a year and - probably due to a lot of volunteer goodwill and loyalty - very few schemes closed.

 

10 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Yes but the spirit of what was the desire from those in the 1960’s should be respected.

 

i myself contributed to Dumbleton Halls preservation in the early 1980’s, I certainly didn’t do it with the aim of making money for Warner Brothers in Japan when I did, but the SDR management today decided it was a nice little earner.

 

 

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

This quote could be applied over and over to many preserved lines.

 

Sadly lifetime volunteers are often steam rollered by younger management with no respect for this history and devotion of those who made it possible to be in the positions of power they now hold.

It is this which will in my opinion turn some lines from preservation groups with differing aims and one overall vision into self sustaining viable heritage charitable businesses, which are essentially charities for profit or as close as, and others which could simply be destroyed and end up folding in the future due to lack of funds or volunteers.

 

Both which will leave the enthusiastic volunteer without a place to go, and reduce that volunteer resource into a basic unpaid employee where they can go.

 

Sadly theres no alternative really, as volunteer supply is drying up, so railways do need to stand on their own feet, and establish to run in that manner.

 

In this specific scenario, it reads as if the nymr has tossed away a crutch that was helping it to walk because it no longer needs it and its getting in the way… cruel, harsh but volunteers have to accept that besides being an enthusiast they are really just an unpaid employee… years of service, emotion, enthusiasm are purely in the eyes of the beholder and have no long term value once the business plan reaches certain milestones, your value to a railway exists until you clock off that day. In this instance a reason was found to justify clocking them off permanently.

 

The best thing those volunteers can do, is find another railway that hasnt progressed to that stage and is still more open and willing to harness the skills they offer, or write it off and do something else.

 

Loco /Rolling stock groups seem much less afflicted with these issues, as they can move between railways, and invariably there is always a shortage so railways are more willing to accommodate them, though occasionally a group does go pop. I can certainly think of one loco group that would change its financial fortunes with paint alone, but is completely resistant to change and a chequered exit history from various sites, which may not help them get favours.

I agree with some of this but it seems like a few different concepts are being raised here. I can’t agree that it’s specifically younger managers that are responsible for this sort of thing - in a lot of cases it is people who come from a corporate management background and don’t understand the heritage sector (which happens elsewhere in the sector, not just on railways) or how to run an organisation involving a high number of volunteers, but on several heritage railways recently there seem to have been conflicts within trustee boards, some of which involving incumbent trustees being unreasonably resistant to new ideas. In this context I note that the guidance for trustee recruitment from the Association of Independent Museums (which some railways are members of) advises organisations to recruit widely, possibly creating a bit of a dilemma for those that traditionally choose trustees from amongst their existing members. Also I see that the NYMR has removed the requirement for volunteers to be members. Which on one hand is good because it removes a previous barrier to volunteering (the cost of membership), but I suppose there’s a counter-argument that the non-member volunteers will not have as much control over the organisation (though they can obviously still choose to become members anyway, if they want).

 

The SDR Dumbleton Hall decision doesn’t sit right with me (not least because of the ethics of disposing of something that effectively only exists because of volunteer and fundraising efforts over a long period). But if the loco was treated as a museum object and deaccession guidelines were properly followed, then yes it could have been sold or given away, but typically it would have to be offered to other accredited museums (including heritage railways) that would provide an appropriate home, and not to a purely commercial enterprise for export (I realise the Warner Brothers attraction in Japan has at times been vaguely described as a ‘prop museum,’ but that’s not really the same thing - in any case, it’s not even the same loco used in the films). So in that particular example following a process that is typically used within the wider heritage sector might have actually produced a better outcome.

 

I’m not sure I understand the point about ‘charities for profit’ - charities can make a profit (and increasingly heritage sector charities have to run their core operation in a more commercial way due to funding challenges) but if they are being run properly they have to then use that profit in fulfilment of their charitable objectives (often in this case including things like public education, preservation of artefacts etc. etc.). I would generally argue that providing opportunities to volunteer is important even if the organisation doesn’t ultimately depend on volunteers, because volunteering is a good way for people to engage with heritage and hopefully provides an enjoyable and fulfilling activity, but I’m not so sure about a requirement to respect the desires of volunteers from many years ago, if this is at odds with the wider charitable objectives or what the organisation and those involved with it now need (which could have changed significantly in the intervening years).

[john new]

10 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

 

I agree with some of this but it seems like a few different concepts are being raised here. I can’t agree that it’s specifically younger managers that are responsible for this sort of thing - in a lot of cases it is people who come from a corporate management background and don’t understand the heritage sector (which happens elsewhere in the sector, not just on railways) or how to run an organisation involving a high number of volunteers, but on several heritage railways recently there seem to have been conflicts within trustee boards, some of which involving incumbent trustees being unreasonably resistant to new ideas. In this context I note that the guidance for trustee recruitment from the Association of Independent Museums (which some railways are members of) advises organisations to recruit widely, possibly creating a bit of a dilemma for those that traditionally choose trustees from amongst their existing members. Also I see that the NYMR has removed the requirement for volunteers to be members. Which on one hand is good because it removes a previous barrier to volunteering (the cost of membership), but I suppose there’s a counter-argument that the non-member volunteers will not have as much control over the organisation (though they can obviously still choose to become members anyway, if they want).

 

The SDR Dumbleton Hall decision doesn’t sit right with me (not least because of the ethics of disposing of something that effectively only exists because of volunteer and fundraising efforts over a long period). But if the loco was treated as a museum object and deaccession guidelines were properly followed, then yes it could have been sold or given away, but typically it would have to be offered to other accredited museums (including heritage railways) that would provide an appropriate home, and not to a purely commercial enterprise for export (I realise the Warner Brothers attraction in Japan has at times been vaguely described as a ‘prop museum,’ but that’s not really the same thing - in any case, it’s not even the same loco used in the films). So in that particular example following a process that is typically used within the wider heritage sector might have actually produced a better outcome.

 

I’m not sure I understand the point about ‘charities for profit’ - charities can make a profit (and increasingly heritage sector charities have to run their core operation in a more commercial way due to funding challenges) but if they are being run properly they have to then use that profit in fulfilment of their charitable objectives (often in this case including things like public education, preservation of artefacts etc. etc.). I would generally argue that providing opportunities to volunteer is important even if the organisation doesn’t ultimately depend on volunteers, because volunteering is a good way for people to engage with heritage and hopefully provides an enjoyable and fulfilling activity, but I’m not so sure about a requirement to respect the desires of volunteers from many years ago, if this is at odds with the wider charitable objectives or what the organisation and those involved with it now need (which could have changed significantly in the intervening years).

As my wife is a trustee of one of the, now two, local museums on the island fully concur regarding the deaccession policy. The problem I guess for many heritage museums across the board including heritage railways is were the exhibits/artefacts ever properly accessioned in the first place?