The Elephant in the room...

there will be the temptation as revenue declines to run more pulman type dining trains and less "normal" schedule services, or to run only DMU on timetabled services and keep steam to the dining market, after all, if you can run dining trains thaat make a profit more often at the cost of the general public timetable which you lose money on, you will at least keep the wolf from the door for a while , but then at the price of long term servival.

 

Ah, I see - thanks.

I'd take issue with your last sentence though. I'm sure Bean Counter can fill us in on the specifics, but a lot of heritage railway costs are fixed, particularly (but not exclusively) on the infrastructure side. Paint peels, roofs start to leak, creeping plants insinuate themselves into bridge abutments, culverts get blocked whether you are running trains or not. Given that, and assuming you have the passengers to make each train at least pay its own variable costs, then generally running a bigger service is better, since it means those fixed costs are shared between a bigger number of passengers, so the contribution from each passenger can be lower.

Tom

 

If the legacy is used for the purpose that the legator intended, that may indeed create an additional long-term operating cost, without contributing to earnings.
There is, however, a greater danger- if a legacy or donation comes to be regarded as part of general cash-flow and merely used to keep the operation afloat. You may think that such dubious things don't happen, but reading the latest issue of the magazine of one major HR, I was surprised to learn that the line's chairman, a well respected member of the HR community, was bemoaning the fact that this is happening and, given the parlous state of the railway's revenue, there is no alternative. Is that line the only one in this position, or are they just more honest about their situation.

 

I have just read carefully through the entire topic before responding. One word not prominent is "volunteer" and surely it is the volunteers who make the difference between lets say at best breaking even, and making a thumping loss. Why? Because to provide the quality of services and special events with paid staff would make the whole operation just too expensive.
I guess we must accept that a heritage line is never going to make " a profit" solely by running steam-hauled services, break even is attainable with a volunteer ticket office person, guard, train crew, buffet car staff, station staff, and signallers. The huge cost which we toil with is keeping our ageing and very expensive steam motive power and rolling stock overhauled and in reliable good daily service. (As well of course some heritage lines are blessed with "difficult" infrastructure to maintain, slipping land, ageing tunnels bridges and viaducts...)
Now I apprecaite that heritage lines have upper age limits for "safety critical" work as volunteers, but just look round the next time you patronise your favourite line, what does the average age of the volunteers tell you? The big question is whether there are going to be sufficient active and motivated over -60's coming through in your volunteer system to repace those that become too old, or sadly--as amply illustrated in the latest SVR News--drop off this mortal coil, in one instance whilst preparing the buffet car for its days work.
Santa specials are a huge money earner on the SVR, but each year there are appeals for helpers, not just "on the day", but in respect of the considerable work of preparing for and then dismantling the "Santa" infrastructure at Arley, and from the appeals for help it is clear that it is the same few each year who bust a gut to get the show up and running.
C & W and motive power overhauls in works are perhaps a different issue somewhat, with paid staff a necessity,and many lines are getting their act together with apprenticeship training schemes to try and bring on a new generation of engineers, but a feature you see, again on the SVR for instance, is the active participation of volunteers on a given loco overhaul alongside the paid staff.

Finally, the question of professional or commercial management has been mentioned in this topic, Maybe you do need people at the top working alongside the enthusiast board members, but to me the key appears to be that "management" whether enthusiast or professional, carries the membership and volunteers with them on the journey. Every so often we find discord breaks out between the top and the coal face, the last I think being at the Glos-Warks, but they are not the first and certainly wont be the last. Why does this happen? Is it a failure to communicate with the "rank and file", or is there another underlying reason?

46118

 

I think it's pretty much a given that volunteer numbers are likely to decline as the Trainspotter Generation of the fifties and sixties ,sadly, dies out. That is the Elephant of this thread I thought.

 

An excellent post 46118 and one that one cannot find any fault with, well done. There is a serious gap IMHO in the volunteer structure between the retired and the youngsters/ young apprentices, the former usually not allowed to be "hands on" because of "elf and safety".

We at the wagon group on the MHR have done out best to overcome this by all being CRB checked and allowing the youngsters to be hands on in the main, but of course under supervision. They certainly thrive on it and indeed there is a waiting list to join us on a rota system not only giving them practical skills but also people skills and working as a team.

These kids are the future of Railway preservation and we ignore at our peril.

Kind regards
Chris:

 

you mean the latter I take it?

 

Good post by 46118. I was wondering when volunteers would come round. Their "free" labour is what makes it possible to operate most of our railways at all, and without them we would be left with a very small number of lines (RER and Paignton & Kingswear for example) that have sufficient traffic and low enough costs to be able to run with fulltime staff largely or completely. There are few railways that have the necessary balance of visitors and costs to enable that to happen.

The plain fact is that Heritage Railways measured by "normal" standards cannot survive. The existence of the HR is due to volunteers. To date the majority of standard gauge lines have been able to live off the residual life left in the equipment they preserved. The reason that some tough choices are being faced now is that that residual life is pretty much used up. So whether it is rail or locomotives the equipment is needing big money spent on it. The small ex-BR diesels that were preserved 25 years ago are a prime example. Many now lie dumped having had the remaining life sucked from them, and require big sums to return them to use. Sums that can't be recouped through running fees.

If you want a railway (steam) run on strictly commercial lines, then the Paignton line is what you get (standard gauge wise anyway). You need to be in an area with a vast number of visitors and run a very stripped back operation. Think how much more infrastructure they would have if it were volunteer run.

I am not myself so worried about the money continuing to be available. I think that there will still be people wanting to ride our trains, and donate to us. I don't even think that loss of the 50s and 60s trainspotter cadre over the next few is so critical, but attracting, training, engaging and retaining volunteers (of all ages and backgrounds) in the face of competition from all the other forms of entertainment, that exist and the increasing demands of longer and possibly busier working lives will be. I don't know how we'll do that, perhaps that's another debate, but I think it starts with thinking very carefully about the motivations of a volunteer and what makes for a good or bad experience.

I think that there will be two types of railway in the future. Those that can afford to pay (full or part time) substantial numbers of staff and those that have found ways to keep their volunteers happy.

 

Thankyou for your excellent responses. Two quick points: First, I'm not sure that the current cohort of over-60's do necessarily come from the "trainspotter" generation. Whilst this is only hypothesis on my part, I bet the volunteers come from a much wider and diverse background. Gents and ladies retiring and looking for a social outlet, ie being amongst others and feeling they are doing something useful. Some are individuals who feel they can usefully continue their working lifetime talents, engineering, woodwork, pattern making, ( yes we do have one on the SVR, and very valuable he is too...). Others are happy to learn a new skill, for instance the ladies and gents you see on the Glos-Warks C & W Blog painting coaches at Winchcombe, or becoming a "trolly-dolly" on service trains, running the gift shop or cafe. The list is long and diverse, and of course it does not have to be necessarily " heavy manual" work if the body is starting to wear a little!

Second point: Back in the summer I happened to arrive at Bridgnorth on what was apparently a "volunteer preview" day, there were probably 40 or so people of all ages, young, middle age and older, male and female, being shown round the shed/works, and no doubt other potential volunteer situations on the day. What stuck me though was that the party were of diverse ages, from teenages through to retirees, but certainly no bias towards the older age groups. This in itself should give us hope that new volunteers of all ages will continue to come foreward at take over as others feel they have done their bit, and father time catches up, as he inevitably does.

Here is a link to a video from the SVR Volunteer Liason Office. Sadly Peter Edkins the then VLO, is no longer with us. http://svr-vlo.org.uk/induction-course.html

In short, if volunteers are the key to ongoing success, then I think there is hope. As the poster above mentions, each heritage operation must have in place a proper regime for keeping its volunteers informed and happy, and ensure that they can work alongside the paid staff in harmony. On the SVR we have a volunteer liason officer who is there to recuit and inform, keep volunteer records to ensure they have passed the necessary safety or practical tests, and generally keep track of who is doing what, or in the case of signalling, who "would like" to do that, because I think there is still a waiting list for signalbox training.

46118

 

Heritage railways are required to report various things to the ORR (via the HRA) each year and one of those statistics is the number of volunteer days. Although there is concern amongst many about the number of volunteers declining, it is a statistical fact that the number of volunteer days is still climbing (I think up 4% for last year). There are quite a lot of younger volunteers coming into the ranks, the big problem is keeping them active in later years in competition with WAGS and the need to pay the bills. The 50's/60's railway enthusiast that spawned the movement generally continued to volunteer through such things so they have matured with the movement and that is a big difference between yesterday's new volunteers and today's. The other big difference is that we did our own thing and made our own rules so it was generally fun. Today, you can't do your own thing and the rules are made for you so making it fun is so much harder. Yet it still needs to be fun, even if it is of a different sort.

 

Volunteers are definitely the key. I'm 14 and happily painting coaches at Winchcombe, I think there are about half a dozen young people at Winchcombe, perhaps a dozen or so "working age" people and then the rest retired. this might not necessarily be due to the fact that those retired were avid trainspotters in the 50's, just that they have more time on their hands than those in work or study. So when working people retire, they will have more time, and as has been pointed out, many people volunteer for social reasons, so even those with no interest could still turn up. As for 'elf 'n' safety with younger people, I haven't noticed much. I have to have someone keeping a vague eye on me (I'm only a painter, not as if I'm wielding plasma cutters ) , but even that isn't needed when I turn 16.

 

Once again 46118 , you have hit the nail on the head with "keeping it,s volunteers informed and happy".

I cannot speak for other Railways about passing information, but we at the wagon group do a weekly progress report with pictures that is sent firstly to group members followed a few days later onto the main website as do other departments within the Railway though perhaps not as frequently.

We do try to make all members part of a team and everyone has something to offer the gang no matter what their skill though there are the inevitable niggles that happen from time to time, .

Would you believe that we now have 35 members in the wagon team with ages ranging from 14 to 74, not bad in 8 years methinks, and we also diversify into other departments too helping out when we can.

Regards
CW

 

So that's all ok then, everything in the garden's lovely! I don't think so. Quite apart from whether the number of volunteer days reported are accurate, those figures cover the whole HR sector. With the number of new lines and the extension and expansion of existing ones, I would suggest that a 4% increase across the board is hardly adequate.
The member who started this thread did not mention volunteers, but concentrated, rightly in my view, on more direct economic factors. The issue of whether we have enough volunteers, though important, is marginal in economic terms, in the sense that without them HRs become more dependent on paid employees and outside contractors, thereby increasing costs. On the other hand, droves of volunteers, however enthusiastic, will not save a railway which is bankrupt through profligate spending and/or the inability to earn enough to cover costs.

 

One other thing that has not been said, but i think is just as important is that your board struture is robust enough to ensure that the railway is ran correctly and does not become one persons ego trip, past history shows plenty of instances where managers have acted in their own interests and to the detriment of the organisation they are suppossed to be looking after this is even more important when heritage railways are going to rely more on unpaid labour than on paid staff. nothing upsets people more than feeling that they do not count, after all if you upset the volounteers, they go else where,

 

One interesting statistic taken from the SVR volunteer induction video was the comment that the railway had 100 paid staff and around 1500 volunteers.

Take those figures with some caution though, the video must have been made a few years ago, given that it features a number of locomotives no longer in ticket.

Martin is quite right in his post above, above all a recipe for disaster is for a railway to be seen as one person's ego trip. It has happened, hasn't it?

46118

 

Which was my opening gambit. How many railways do cover the cost of keeping the track and related structures and buildings and locos and carriages in a fit state from ticket and other related sales. From a number of railways I've been on, they either don't earn enough or divert the money elsewhere....hence the continual call for funds and why you have to be prepared to disappear up to your arm pits when you sit down in some compartments.

 

When talking about volunteers, there is a difference between "weekend" and "midweek" volunteers, at least for lines that have substantial midweek operations (and accepting the fact that many volunteers do both).

In days past, retirement in your mid fifties wasn't that uncommon. Those people could easily look forward to 15 - 20 years of volunteering, and were easily available midweek, often at short notice. Particularly, they were a ready source of operational volunteers for turns at short notice - film jobs, photo charters, etc. Whereas these days, retirement before your mid sixties is largely a thing of the past: by time most people retire at, say, 65, you have maybe only five years or so that you are available to volunteer midweek on a regular basis. Midweek is much harder for working people to cover, since they normally need to take holiday (unless they have an advantageous shift pattern) - so taking a week on the railway once a year is about the limit for most working people mid week. As retirement age increases, that problem is only likely to get worse, unless there is also an acceptance that changing levels of health and fitness mean people are safe to continue in safety-critical operational roles to an older age.

So while there are plenty of examples of lines that are doing a good job at attracting younger volunteers, on the operational side in particular, that is a great help at weekends, but there is still a big gap midweek.

Tom

 

I am not sure that there are so many new schemes that you can draw that conclusion, but you may have a point.

I can't agree with the second point. The availability of volunteer labour (in all its many forms) is the single most important economic factor in ensuring the future of most railways. Your post actually seems to contradict itself, because as you rightly point out that the fewer volunteers you have the more paid staff you need, so as paid staff are the single biggest cost that can be avoided thanks to the unique nature of our businesses clearly they are vital.

I am not sure that I agree with the last sentence either. Obviously it is preferable that the railway is managed on prudent financial terms, but there are many cases even of recent years when enthusiastic volunteers have rescued lines from financial ruin by raising the money needed. G&WR for example.

Vast majority of heritage railways cannot earn enough money to complete cover the full costs of running, the infrastructure costs and operating costs from ticket fares alone. The best can cover the cost of their daily operation (including keeping the running fleet of locos and carriages in working order), but cannot earn enough to build reserves to cover significant capex or sudden unexpected events. It has always been like that. It is why they were preserved in the first place. It is a sustainable position providing it is worked at constantly as the evidence of the last 50 years would tend to show. It is not a comfortable or easy existence as any of the GMs of our railways will tell you. It is a constant cash flow battle, but it is of course a delicate balancing act. There are three things that need to be in balance:
1. The surplus of ticket sales over operating costs to cover normal expenses including bridge maintenance, but excluding "acts of God" or major works such as an extension
2. The availability of external sources of income (lottery, donations, legacies etc) which hopefully is used for the "nice to haves", for capital investment in the business or dealing with the "acts of God"
3. Availability of enough volunteer labour to do all the jobs that need doing to deliver the service that generates the ticket revenue.

There are three ways that item 3 can get you. Either by not increasing the volunteer pool vast enough to keep up with the development of the service and the infrastructure, or by not replenishing the pool even to stay still. the third way is more subtle, but in the 1970s 25% of the workforce of this country was employed in manufacturing, and many of those would therefore have had some mechanical aptitude. Today the number is 9% (or thereabouts) and there has been a decline in the types of practical skills that we use within the general population. So you might grow your pool, but still not have enough fish with the right skill set in it.

 

No, I'm not contradicting myself, but simply disagreeing with your and several earlier poster's assertion, that "availability of volunteer labour is the single most important factor...." etc. Volunteers are immensely important, but sound management is even more so. The trouble is that it is becoming more difficult to attract suitable volunteers, i.e. those who are willing to, or capable of, doing all the wide range of jobs necessary to run a railway. It's no good saying "it's always worked in the past", the world has changed a great deal in the past 20 years and those changes are accelerating. As a result, predicting the future availability of useful volunteers becomes even more difficult than predicting future income.
So, we come back to prudent management. I don't visit as many HRs as I would wish, but from those that I have visited in recent years I have no doubt that some, including some big operations, are in difficulties already. The answer must be strict cost control, even to the point of changing or cutting back on operations, and extreme caution regarding any new investment.
Finally, I fully agree with your last paragraph.

 

I agree with you that sound management is vitally important, possibly on par with the availability of a good volunteer force.

However, as happens at Heritage Railways the management can be poor with some members of the board having their own agenda leading to volunteers being treated as the great unwashed and leaving in droves.

I say again that communication is the key here.

Regards
Chris: