North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

(Sigh) - Not any more, I fear. I wonder what they do with all the beef dripping nowadays? I suspect most of it ends up a sewer fatbergs..... Probably not suitable as a locomotive fuel in that form, though.

 

Indeed, together with the other fixed costs such as infrastructure repair and replacement, insurance etc. However, that's only an argument for running more days and services if additional revenue generated exceeds the avoidable cost incurred in doing so. Sometimes less is more.
I'm not sure how you put a realistc financial value on the work done by volunteers? Obviously if it had otherwise to be done by paid staff or contractors there's a readily calculable benefit but some things might just not be done at all or done differently.

 

If I recall correctly, they changed to oil firing specifically to reduce fire risk. What did they do about that when they subsequently reverted to coal? I know they have very recently been spraying the WHR lineside, but that has presumably not been a frequent practice.

 

I realise that the comparisons might be messy, but a simple calculation would be to treat each volunteer hour at a notional rate (even national minimum wage, grossed up for the costs of employment) and mutiply the hours by that number. Even at the narrowest, most actuarial, level, those hours have value which can be computed - and will provide the opportunity cost if they were to be paid for.

More generally, I agree with you on avoidable costs - provided that the equation is properly set. That means considering not just absolute loadings, but also the possible loss of demand from offering a reduced offering. And, given the many previous discussions about Whitby vs "internal" demand, in the case of NYMR, I'd also suggest looking very strongly indeed at how additional demand can be generated outside the handful of Whitby paths, given that these are where the additional production capacity lies.

Edit. As an aside, I do wonder if the internal costing model for NYMR uses a notional cost per mile for each train, in an attempt to identify that train's contribution to overall cost. It's a good model, but one which can make costs seem higher than they really are. That's because, by using a pre-determined formula to apportion fixed costs, genuinely marginal costs are still treated as fully loaded.

 

So it should be....but sadly, it isn't.

 

This debate is really just an expansion of the boring very debates I used to have about the value of in house versus outsourcing in my day job. But instead of just being A or B you have a C which is volunteer activity.
Now I would argue volunteer activity is a cost avoidance not a cost saving. What you price that cost avoidance rate at is up for debate, and would I suggest varies by Heritage Line, but it is not the cost of employing someone to do the role as paid staff as volunteers do come at a cost (as @Lineisclear has said a number of times) and these costs would be such things as training, insurance, maybe uniforms,
H & S equipment etc. You may need to duplicate some of these things if say 5 volunteers undertake what one paid staff member could do.
I also found the comment about paid staff not volunteering interesting as we went through a phase of quite a few years where all management grade staff were expected to undertake at least 20 days each year volunteering for the company. I guess something similar could be written into employment contracts that would cover a few volunteer days for paid staff.

The one thing that is very clear for the big lines (or what have been referred to as Premier League Lines) it is equally as hard, if not harder than pulling this all together to get a genuine cost base than for a more "normal" business.

 

It is hard, and there are comparison points with costs incurred for employees. But, while I deplore those who know the cost everything and value of nothing, if you do not have any idea of the cost, your view of the value will be compromised.

In the context of NYMR in particular, the question that keeps coming round is how the cost base drives the fares. I suspect I'm far from alone in having a strong suspicion that one reason that the railway "needs" to charge such high fares is to sustain an employed workforce, and that the questions of the trade-off between staff and volunteers are compromised by some of the underlying assumptions.

 

If paid staff were obliged to volunteer I don't think they could be classed as volunteers. The essence of volunteering, surprise surprise, is that it's entirely voluntary so the individual must be under no obligation to turn up or to remain at work. It's possible to set expectations but not obligations. As far as paid staff also volunteering is concerned it depends on whether the role they volunteer for is the same as the "day job". If it is then establshing when their paid role ceases and the volunteer one begins can be challenging. It would also be right for there to be concern that the individual is having adequate time off from work.

 

Some employers (including) mine give paid volunteering time for projects supported by the company. I suspect @Gladiator 5076 has this in mind, where I think being paid to volunteer for the same organisation that employs you would be confusing at best.

I'm familiar with the challenge of balancing volunteering and paid work in a voluntary organisation context, and it's not without challenges. However, including respecting working time restrictions, a key aspect is the attitude - it very much depends what question is asked.

 

Adequate time of from work a quaint concept that only seemed to exist in the pilot and cabin crew fraternity, where the rules were set by the regulator. However TOC staff work rest days (sometimes when it suits them) so it is no different to that really in my view.

 

No ours was "compulsory" volunteering for the company. So yes this would not be in the day role, normally some front line role during time of strikes or bad weather but your contributions were recorded and raised during annual appraisal interviews. Often this was after a full day in the office or at weekends.
As an aside it was the terminal volunteering and the abuse received from angry passengers that made me think it could not be that bad being a mainline railtour steward. With two notable exceptions that proved to be true.

 

Which begs the question of whether there is a viable alternative of operating at a similar level while terminating employees ( not cheap!) and replacing them with volunteers whose absence encouraged reliance on paid staff in the first place! Alternatively operate at a level that's possible with the realistically available volunteer resource which could reduce income below the level needed to cover other fixed costs. Whilst the NYMR has a relatively high proportion of paid staff it's not wildly out of kilter with some other large heritage railways. If, as seems to be the case, there's a general decline in volunteering (not just on heritage railways) then the entitities most at risk may be those where income from all sources, including low fares, can't sustain an unavoidable increased level of employment.

 

Those are fair questions, but that rather presumes that the paid roles are essential too. I'm not alone in having my doubts about some of those roles mentioned, and especially the value that they are generating.

That, again, brings us back to questions of culture and especially how volunteering is encouraged.

 

Which in turn is a fair question. I agree there should be no non-essential paid roles or employees who are not delivering value. The doubts you and others have may have on both those counts may be based on assumptions which could be misleading.

 

They may, and I don't like discussing individuals. But I share the view of others on here about the value being received from those moneys, under the headings that they are recorded under.

 

I don't see an inherent problem with paid staff volunteering for the same organisation, whether that is in the same department or another. (And I know it happens on our railway). In many ways you could see it as a positive in terms of "organisational commitment", something many employers really desire.

I do think that should be subject to some controls, notably:

• There is no compulsion to volunteer
• The person remains compliant with your fatigue policy
• Their volunteering doesn't adversely affect their performance in their substantive paid role.

In many ways those would be the same regardless of your substantive employer.

A point was made earlier about an attitude of not wishing to see paid staff volunteer, because their breaks were supposed to enable a complete break from the railway. While I can understand that point of view, the counter-argument is that ultimately, my free time is my free time, so what I do with it is none of the employer's business. In other words, the NYMR as an employer shouldn't care what one of their employees does at the weekends, provided it is not adversely affecting their performance in the day job, complies with fatigue management etc etc. Quite likely if someone is passionately interested in railways and you say "we don't want you volunteering here" they'll probably still volunteer on a railway, just somewhere else. So the "no compulsion" bit works both ways.

With regard "when their paid role ceases and the volunteer one begins can be challenging" - I'm not so sure that is difficult. If you are short of a loco crew and go into the workshop to get someone with relevant skills to drive that day's train - that's paid work, and I'd expect the person concerned to be paid for the hours they spend. In doing so, you have lost a day of productivity in the workshop in order to cover a vacancy in your roster. If the same person is also on the volunteer roster and comes in at the weekend to drive the same train - that's a volunteer day. (And you haven't lost a day of workshop productivity, because they weren't scheduled to be working that day anyway).

Tom

 

Though given other issues discussed, you might want to consider whether having them work in the workshop on the weekend, and volunteer to drive on a weekday, might deliver better overall value for the organisation.

 

Back when I managed some HLF projects some twenty years ago, volunteer time could be included in your contribution to the project and given a notional cost. At that time simple labour was costed at £50/day, skilled labour (e.g. an electrician) at £150/day and a manager at £300/day. These are obviously not relevant today but the up-to-date equivalent could easily be used in quantifying volunteer input.

 

I am aware of one heritage attraction where this has been an issue, leading to a member of staff leaving in messy circumstances.

Folk in safety critical roles should *absolutely* have time out from those roles.

Folk more generally sometimes need some assistance with their time management to ensure they don't burn out.

Chris