Reducing costs while preserving safety - can it be done?

Glad it wasn't just me!
Although railways themselves are just as bad (See: 1940s events with BR liveried 9F hauling maroon mk1s). It surely is the job of heritage railways in general to push this point if it's one they want people to understand?
There are military advisors working in the film industry, are there railway advisors too? I noticed in Anna Karenina that Russia had imported a load of GWR locomotives - surely a boon for Swindon works!

One of the main things (At least IMO) to not underestimate is the impact that little blue locomotive has on sparking an interest in railways in any child born from 1989 onwards. The late rev. Awdry and Britt Allcroft too have probably done wonders for the heritage movement by actually making steam engines relatable for a generation who never experienced it in working life.

 

Indeed, if you adopt the attitude that 'easy option' means that, to put it bluntly, you can boll*ck paid staff (to an extent) but have to tread on eggshells with volunteers.

One very successful railway that I know adopts the stance that all who work on it are employees. Some get paid, others don't, but all are treated the same and have the same responsibilities. That gives it a very professional approach and has a lot of benefits. And it's not obvious to many people whether staff members are paid or not.

As to the question of cash in < cash out, that's a simple business equation. Some railways have found that employing people allows them to operate a service (eg 7 days a week all summer) which would be challenging or impossible if they had to rely on volunteers, just as others have found that they can overhaul engines quicker by using contractors instead of volunteers. Of course, they should only do such things if the financial equations add up.

 

I must say I find the concept that discipline is harder to maintain with volunteers than staff very worrying. When I am working in a safety critical role, I am doing the job and subject to the rules and regulations. If I get it wrong, I expect to be disciplined. Indeed, I have heard it said it is easier to suspend or sack volunteers than staff as the Employment Protection legislation doesn't apply (probably! It is a grey area!). Our passengers deserve that only competent people work the Railway, whether paid or volunteer.

Shortage of volunteers may encourage tolerance of insubordination and even active dissent amongst volunteers that would not be tolerated with staff, although my experience suggests that the mixed workplace can produce the same attitudes regardless of payment or not! I do believe, based on discussions with a couple of people, including those more peripherally involved with railway preservation, that care is needed not to "pander" too much to volunteers, as you risk attracting those in it purely for what they get out of it and not for "the good of the Railway". Too much in the way of rewards, apologising for lack of payment etc. will attract the wrong sort of people and ultimately their presence will deter the right sort! A Railway must operate in accordance with what it, its objectives and its visitors require, not what the most vocal group involved with it - paid or volunteer - shout loudest.

Steven

 

I feel compelled to point out here that what you say only serves to highlight how selective railway enthusiasts can be, zigzag. You criticise the choice of locomotive, yet you didn't find fault with (a) the platform it arrived at being clearly of the Southern Railway and (b) that the concourse they were then miraculously whisked (within nanoseconds) to was St Pancras, not Kings Cross. Both every bit as inaccurate as the train, yet you focused solely on the locomotive.

This begs two questions in my mind. Firstly, which would you say is 'more' wrong - the train or the stations (and, by extension of that, which would be more necessary to be correct)? Secondly, where does it end for the film & TV companies in order to get it 'right'? Programmes like Downton are massively expensive to produce, so compromises have to be made. It was just one very, very short scene in 90 minutes (minus endless ads) of television - so is it really that important?

Only in the vintage vehicle fraternity, I venture. As you said in your post...

Maybe not as a whole, but certainly of the vast majority. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that - just because some of us do, not everyone knows - or cares - whether it's an LNER express loco or an industrial saddle tank. Just as we all don't know X from Y in a million different interests and hobbies that don't happen to be 'our thing.'

Downton Abbey's audience measures in the millions (I believe Sunday's episode was over 9m). I am sure that on internet forums dedicated to 1920s interior decor, architecture, vehicles, social mores, food, accessories and many more... there are people yelling at the telly every time the programme is on, saying this is wrong or that's wrong. But I'd say the vast majority of that 9m audience treat it for what it is - a bit of brain switchoff, inconsequential Sunday telly that is an approximation of what the 1920s was like.

In that context, as long as the transport depicted looks suitably 'vintage', then the vast majority of viewers won't notice and I don't blame the producers for spending more time and effort on getting the stuff right that the majority of the audience would notice. If they went to the trouble of getting every tiny detail 100% correct, the time and expense required would mean that the programme would never get made.

To come back on topic myself - and with all the above in mind - I think any comparision between the historical accuracy of film/TV and what preserved railways try to do is pointless. They are so radically different in terms of how they are funded, produced and presented that a true comparison simply can't be made.

 

I was only being selctive for the sake of brevity, I fully realise that there were numerous other railway faults in the programme but selected just the one above to illustrate the point that the majority of the genral public just want a steam train day out, they arent too concenerned with historical accuracy, and so maybe (back on thread) to reduce costs this is what railways should be offering.

 

Going right back to the start of this thread. I do wonder exactly how many railways fall into the category of failing to maintain their assets in a steady state, at least those necessary for the railways operation and not necessarily the collection of derelict stock they all seem to have. Is it a true perception that most fall into this box or are we just being gloom merchants?
Likewise, are volunteers actually in decline? The HRA ought to be able to answer this one as volunteer days is one of the statistics collected annually for the ORR.

 

Some of the more errr, bizarre, posts have been fed to the firebox, as it were.

 

My point being that there are no doubt many faults, full stop. But does it really matter in 20-odd seconds of footage, when it got the idea across?

In that I completely agree with you. I apologise if you feel I picked on you a bit

But don't many railways recognise this 'divide' between historical accuracy and general bums on seats anyway?

1. Your average everyday running for the general public, school parties and people like me (who are interested in railways, like the atmosphere of restored stations, etc, enjoy the run in a nicely-restored vintage carriage but have too many more important things going on in life to worry that a teak Gresley set is hauled by a 45xx tank, as happened on my recent SVR visit).

2. Thomas, Santa Specials, bonfire night, wartime events and the Halloween 'Spooktacular' (a way too overused portmanteau) to really get the tills ringing for the family market.

3. Steam/diesel galas, photo charters and driver experience courses for the enthusiast market.

Most preserved railways already do these, which seems to address the 'problem' of presenting historical accuracy for those that want it.

Just to play Devil's Advocate here, might this issue of how a railway presents itself in terms of historical accuracy not be more rooted in railway enthusiasts feeling they have a misplaced sense of expectation and entitlement? How many times do you read postings where railway enthusiasts give the clear impression that they think Joe Public is somehow a nuisance, a kind of lower species because they don't know Rocket from a Sprinter? And, more to the point, aren't interested in the distinction?

I have heard and read this kind of snobbery from enthusiasts so many times - whether explicitly stated or merely implied. Sneering comments about Thomas events, the implication that non-enthusiasts who just want to 'ride on a steam train' (whatever it is) are somehow less of a being than those who want to see a preserved railway re-enacted precisely as it was in (say) 1934.

The 'education' argument is all very well and holds a degree of water. The trouble is that any historical re-enaction is only ever a paper-thin facsimile. Even if the details are absolutely correct, the most ardent student of history won't be visiting the railway in 1934 clothes, from a 1934 life. They'll have a smartphone in their pocket and 21st century clothes on their back.. which promptly compromises the historic re-enactment element so much as to render it meaningless.

In addition, not everybody wants a day out with a history PHD thrown in. For many people the sight and smell of a steam loco is enough, plus a clean carriage that's a wee bit different to what they travel to work on, clean toilets and a nice place to have something to eat and drink.

I know I'm drifting from the thread title a bit, but I think it's fundamental to the discussion. True historical accuracy is impossible, so give the majority of the punters what they want and charge extra for the hardcore who want the history qualification thrown in...

... which is what photo charters are all about, isn't it?

 

Oops, duplicate post.

 

Hmm, I'd feel a bit miffed if I saw a film set during the Battle of Britain featuring stock footage of F15s duelling with the spruce goose

 

You mean to say that didn't happen?

 

Didn't the "Battle of Britain" film feature late mark Spitfires dogfighting with Merlin-engined Buchons? In the end, it's always possible to find another layer of nerdiness...

As for historical authenticity on railways: I don't really buy the argument that railways are put off because somehow being more "authentic" is also more expensive. I think the reasons are actually much more prosaic, at least as far as rolling stock is concerned. (With infrastructure, true authenticity does start to get really expensive, notably bullhead chaired rail on wooden sleepers and proper point rodding).

The first is, as we have discussed before, that heritage railways are wildly more successful than the lines were that they run on - that's why the originals closed. Ask the Severn Valley's commercial manager whether he would rather an "authentic" train service of 45xx and a couple of non-corridor coaches carry twenty-odd people; or the "current" service of a big prairie pulling seven or eight corridor coaches and three hundred people. The "authentic" service would see the line closed down in no time.

The other reason is simply a lack of suitable rolling stock, coupled with the difficulties (acute on a line like the Bluebell which tries to represent a wide time period) of matching locos to carriages when both are scarce and have different maintenance schedules. Even those lines happy to represent the 1950s simply don't have enough pre-grouping and grouping era coaches to really show what life on a branch line was like. (Just look at photos from the 1950s - Mark 1s, near ubiquitous on most preserved railways, were actually rare away from mainline services).

The one railway I am familiar with that can run a truly "authentic" service on a regular basis is - needless to say - the IoWSR. But - no disrespect meant - it's a fairly small operation (two trains maxes out the line capacity) and even then, with only two genuinely authentic locos currently serviceable to go with the carriages, as like as not your train of pre-group non-corridors in nice postwar liveries will be pulled by an Austerity!

Tom

 

Sorry Fred, I don't buy it. An admission fee is hard, bankable cash. Retail income is uncertain and marginal- better a bird in the hand than a bird in the bush! Anyway, there is an easy answer, which we use- put the shop, refreshments, etc. outside the ticket barrier. What annoys me is the enthusiasts (mainly) who come in saying "can I just look around?" without buying a ticket, which is what they are able to do on most heritage railways. Most end up buying a ticket, those who don't are freeloaders, who are of no benefit to us. Am I a money grubber? Maybe, but half a century in business has taught me that businesses which fail to secure every opportunity to generate and keep cash income do not survive in the long term.

 

I don't underestimate it, but one shouldn't overestimate it either. Nowadays, the brand appears to be aimed at 0-3 year olds, who have outgrown "Thomas" before they have understood what they have seen.

Anyway, I was only pointing out that something which, based on footfall and turnover seems a "no-brainer", might not, on close examination, be as profitable as it seems.

 

Yes maybe now, although I noticed reruns as far back as series 1 (with Ringo Starr) are still going, and from tiny acorns do mighty oak trees grow.
The current show, well... less said the better really.

 

Fair point but basic economics re supply and demand suggest that the higher the price the lesser the demand. If you insist on a charge then you have to make it at a level that won't discourage potential custom whilst generating sufficient income to make the charge [and its negative effects] worth the adverse factors. In my case I would happily accept a charge of £1:00 for a platform ticket; even be prepared to pay for a working timetable at Gala events noting that many now offer one for £1:00 or free with every admission fee / travel ticket purchased.

I wouldn't call you a money grubber [grabber?] but simply a person trying to maximise a revenue stream; my point is that heritage lines depend on a number of income streams to maintain financial success and what may generate income for one line may not for another. I hope that this thread has identified potential income stream(s) that may be worth either developing or dropping, depending on the results generated by each at the heritage lines who utilise them.

 

Thank you, Tom. I could have replied to Corbs post at length on why his comparison was way too simplistic, so I'm grateful to you for doing so much more succinctly.

 

OK, here's something from the Bluebell Matters thread that nobody has yet mentioned, viz the historical accuracy debate...

Let's say that a railway has as much of its historical presentation as possible correct. I have previously mentioned that, given those who want to witness this historical accuracy (and indeed those staging it) will have their head full of 21st century life, their pockets full of 21st century trinkets, be covered in 21st century clothes and will see it through 21st century eyes, it renders any true historical significance meaningless. (I'll spare you the full lecture in structuralism. For now ).

But there is another key aspect... In order to present and enjoy an accurately 'historic' railway, it needs to be used like one. You would need to use the trains for their real purpose at the time - to use it as a mode of transport, to get from A to B in order to do other things. Nobody in 'the olden days' spent all day travelling up and down a comparatively short stretch of railway, pointing a camera at stuff, eating Kit Kats and hanging out of the window for half the time.

No matter how historically 'accurate' a railway presents its locos, stock and infrastructure, the modern enthusiast will only ever be looking at a modern facsimile of 'history' through a glass window. If that's what they want then fine, but if they want a proper historic experience, they have to be prepared to be totally immersive about it and play their part within it. Not just pitch up in their 13 plate Vauxhall, ride up and down a short stretch of line all day and complain that the GWR tank on the Gresley set doesn't look the part for their 2013 Canon...

 

That's nonsense IMO. To take your argument to its logical conclusion, there is no point in preserving/recreating anything if it's to be viewed by people living in the present. Even the most meticulous recreation will have to compromise somewhere but that doesn't mean it's not worth doing nor does it mean it's not worth seeing.

 

A recreation of the past is surely one of the prime reasons the general public enjoys a steam hauled ride on a HR - the clue is in the name. Whilst it is almost impossible to exactly recreate the past, high viz for track work, modern health and safety practice being just two obvious examples. Maintaining the ambience of a past time is both desirable and possible. If efforts are not made to maintain this ambience, our customers and their cash might not find the HR experience such an attractive proposition. A slow creeping change should be avoided at all costs.