North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

And yet you seem distinctly reluctant to say what the cost is! Do you actually know, or just have a feeling it is not zero but can’t actually quantify it? How much do you spend on volunteer training, medical, PPE, record keeping etc? How much would that decline if you changed 1000 volunteers into, say, 125 paid staff? (Who obviously still need PPE, training, medical and record keeping etc). We know your current staffing costs (salary, NI, pension etc) is somewhere over £3m. So how much do the volunteers cost? And to save that money, what would the additional staff cost be?

Claiming volunteers are expensive is a bit like saying “fuel is expensive”. Well yes, but you won’t get far without it in the steam railway business. Businesses have costs, but generate value. It just feels like you are looking at a budget and failing to perceive the value delivered by expending that cost. I could save the NYMR half a million quid at a stroke by cancelling all coal and diesel purchases. Not my fault that the trains won’t run, you only asked me to cut costs …

Tom

 

A good rule of thumb is that for every £60 an employee receives in wages, the company will pay another £40 for tax, national insurance, pension, sick pay, maternity pay, equipment, training, etc. Only the latter two are applicable to volunteers, so even at a push, I can't a volunteer costing more than 10% of an employee.

I've never known a place make members and volunteers feel like a burden, rather than an asset. Maybe it goes on behind the scenes elsewhere, but never played out in public.

 

I can't really comment on other departments but within the footplate department all training is still done by volunteers, as are all assessments, so that is at nil cost. These are undertaken by a group of 7 footplate inspectors, all of whom are volunteers. The department is essentially all volunteer but there are a few paid staff in other roles who can drive if necessary. I believe that the signalling and guards inspectors are now paid staff but these have certainly been done by volunteers in times past.

 

There's a lot of distortion going on! I never suggested volunteers were expensive and certainly not compared to employees. I also never disputed their value but have been castigated for simply pointing out that neither they nor members are entirely cost free. I would be more worried about some of the posts if I wasn't confident, having talked to various leaders in the heritage railway sector, that their understanding is grounded in that reality. Steve's recent post criticised me for suggesting that volunteers were not "free labour". The inconvenient truth of that is not just applicable to the NYMR but to the sector generally.

 

But the cost of volunteers is so small compared to paid staff (the only alternative to paying the fraction of money required for volunteers) that I'd argue it's really not worth mentioning. Tom said it's a bit like saying coal costs money, yes it costs money, but you need it. But coal's expensive, volunteers are dirt cheap - I'd say it's closer to being offered free coal and piping up to mention you still have to pay for the transport!

 

Actually, a lot of volunteers are free labour. You’ve concentrated of such things as medicals, training and PPE but most volunteers don’t need medicals, are trained by other volunteers and buy their own uniforms/work clothes/PPE and pay for any transport and accommodation. I guess you’ll now say that someone has to be employed to look after their records and administer them.

 

Just to set the record straight: Volunteers pay for their own PPE / uniforms (except tie), and training is in their own time. Ps I normally volunteer a minimum of 3 days per week during the operating season; some 20+ hrs or 0.5 FTE.

Pps I will volunteer up-to 5 days a week if necessary (ie an unfilled turn) and provided there is no diary clash.

 

You make the point - you represent 0.5 FTE and you incur negligible cost to the railway.

 

Unless there are volunteers willing and able to do that the answer is Yes.

 

I sound like a cracked record to myself. By focusing on one side of the equation - that there are costs to having any personnel - you leave the impression that volunteers are a cost. This is not presented in balance with the value that those volunteers provide, nor is it compared to the much greater cost of using paid employees.

This has two impacts. Firstly, you do yourself an injustice as you leave the impression that you don't respect the value of volunteering. But also, in the context of a railways that a) is financially challenged and b) has an unusually high paybill for the sector, you leave the impression that volunteering is marginal rather than core.

 

Sadly not those at the top of the food chain …

 

The question then becomes, of course, has the NYMR adapted their loss without severe difficulties? It it has, does it not suggest that they were not really needed in the first place? And how many more could be dispensed with without problems? You mentioned that there has been cutting back on expenditure, which is generally regarded as unwelcome - and I'm not sure that is true either. I think all of us who support the railway accept survival measures, but most of us are deeply concerned about the maintenance backlog being stored up for the future - and whether some of it, in reality, will ever get done (I'm thinking of the run round loop at Goathland in particular, in any form, not necessarily the single slip).

 

I would argue that a mix of paid full-time, paid part time seasonal staff and volunteer staff are all equally necessary to operate the railway. I happily work alongside paid part time seasonal staff, the only difference between us is that I choose which days I wish to volunteer whilst the roster clerk then uses part time seasonal staff to fill the gap; the key difference in costs between the paid part time seasonal and myself will be their wage + NI + pension contribution (if appropriate) as all other costs to the railway will be effectively equal.

ps I said earlier I generally volunteer 3 days a week but would happily volunteer more (at least 4 days a week) but I can’t simply afford my additional fuel and food costs (up to £10 / day).

pps, reading earlier comments I continue to voluntarily pay my annual membership fee, but that is my choice, and also pay a monthly Foundation contribution.

 

It is totally true, hence why the railway cannot afford the additional costs of running the teaks this year (even if they might negligible to others) nor restoring at this point in time the single slip at Goathland (hence the run-round loop there has become a long siding): its a case of what monies must be spent to enable the railway to operate.

 

You missed out the second half of my post, though, which was equally relevant to what I was saying:

"I think all of us who support the railway accept survival measures, but most of us are deeply concerned about the maintenance backlog being stored up for the future - and whether some of it, in reality, will ever get done (I'm thinking of the run round loop at Goathland in particular, in any form, not necessarily the single slip)."

 

I completely agree - I find it hard to believe that NYMR or any other railway could operate without paid staff, whether full time or seasonal - and I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting anything of the sort.

The question is how the line is drawn between who are operationally necessary, and who commercially necessary to operate the railway. What strikes a number of people, not just me, is how NYMR has an unusually high payroll, both in terms of the number of employees and the paybill as a proportion of turnover.

In the face of poor results, what's then interesting is not that there have, sadly, been some redundancies, but that leaders on the railway are choosing to emphasise the cost of volunteers over their value. What strikes many as odd is just how large a payroll is required, and how difficult it is to conceive of a world in which the balance is different. If the comments made earlier by @ghost are correct, what is then concerning is the upward pressure on employee headcount even as redundancies are made. Given the roles in question, I'm suspect I'm not alone in wondering how seriously management are focusing on their control of that headcount.

 

I don't think anyone is in disagreement with the fact that maintenance is having to be deferred because of the dire financial situation the railway is in and, in such circumstances, the decisions being made are not wrong. What is of concern is how the railway has got there and the decisions made that led to it. Manpower costs have got to be high on that list and, in my personal view, the employment of people who have no idea of the ethos of railway volunteering and heritage railways and don't really understand their stakeholders. I have mentioned this before and I'll mention it again; the railway wants volunteers to work on shed but not at weekends because a member of paid staff would have to come in and supervise them. When will they realise that the working volunteer is usually only available at weekends?

 

This it seems to me is a significant point. I have seen it elsewhere also. If you feel you have to have a paid member of staff available to manage volunteers, then better ensure that said member of staff is available when the volunteers are!!!!

 

Spot on Steve.

Why does a paid member of staff need to supervise volunteers? Never heard of this before! As long as there is someone competent supervising there is no need for paid staff.

 

Ok Mr Bailey so how would you describe someone like my father who first of all way back in the 1970’s when he became a member at the SVR helped rebuild the down platform at Arley, throughout the 1980’s when my brother and myself came into the world he still put his hand in his pocket via his and my mother’s membership, he’s contributed to various share issues (both the original extension to Kidderminster then again in 1994 to prevent the site being sold off)

There’s going to be 2 2-6-2 tanks entering traffic in the next couple of years that he’s made a contribution to get them into action, he’s also done some practical work with a another group keeping a rake of Teak Carriages in action (you know those ones that are difficult to maintain?)

He’s also part of the all Volunteer team that have had praise for the work they do in the buffet at Bewdley.

I think the only thing’s he’s asked the railway to contribute to were some chef’s jacket’s and food hygiene certificates so they could look and be a bit more professional.

I could also mention the time at last years Autumn diesel gala when he saw that they were low on various items in the buffet and thought nothing of jumping in his car and using his own fuel and temporarily his own cash to go and stock up on those items.

I really don’t want this to sound like ‘oh isn’t my Dad such a superhero, isn’t he great?’
But as a former financial director I know he knows the value of a pound, I’d certainly say that the Severn Valley are most definitely up on the deal with what himself and my family have contributed over the years. And not necessarily in monetary terms. Would you describe him as ‘Not being cost free?’

From your recent posts you do seem to come across as knowing the cost of everything but not appreciating the value of what those who contribute’s worth.

I have to say I find this slightly worrying for someone in a position in an organisation that’s supposed to ‘help and support best practice’ for those that it’s supposed to represent.