Heritage Railways, are they in trouble, generally?

It seems to be the 'natural' progression of life that young people have time to spare for volunteering, but as families and/or careers start to take more of their time they give up the volunteering. Once the kids are grown and careers perhaps plateaued, they have more time available for hobbies. Most railways therefore have a middle age 'gap' when looking at volunteers ages.

I think more of a challenge to heritage railways is the skills lost as older people, who perhaps had relevant skills from their careers, are lost and the newer volunteers lack any relevant skills. Offering training is good, but who is going to do the training if that skill set is not maintained (I think this is a problem for the nation, not just heritage railways)?

 

I would argue there are two types of Heritage Railways. There is the mainly volunteer operate basically at weekends, that can probably survive mainly on the volunteer model.
The others that operate daily (or did pre Covid) for a long period of the year, probably need a lot more of a serviceable loco pool to call on are perhaps working to a model that if not broken has some serious fault cracks. There are now probably fewer (ageing) volunteers to staff a railway 7 days a week and hence some paid staff will be needed. There are various options to reduce costs like running fewer services as the Bluebell does now, but that really saves little in staffing requirement on the day.
Personally I thought retirement would lead to more volunteering but in my case such things were far easier to schedule when in full time work than now when I have a wife with health problems, issues of my own and are unhappy driving in the dark.
Add to that we have the never ending increase in legal requirements, customer expectations (many of which are perhaps unreasonable in modern life, let alone a heritage environment) then the needs are endless for the bigger lines.
No idea if any railway has the level right on paid staff, but do do see roles that should really be paid in my view (such as Customer Services Manager, or whatever you may call, it to guarantee some form of continuity of product and dispute resolution).
Of course you could argue with the "big railway" offering such an awful service most of the time people should not expect too much, but HR lines tend to be tourist attractions and benefit and suffer from that.
Like most I do not have the answer, but I do fear for the future.

 

The smaller railways are I think more resilient, in that they have less financial commitments* and are therefore more easily able to scale back if necessary.
* e.g. Staffing costs. Maintenance overheads.

 

You make a very good point about the lack of engineering skills.

 

I am involved in a voluntary capacity in a heritage railway (Middleton, as it happens) but also the Methodist Church and amateur theatre. The story of a lack of volunteers is the same in all three areas and I would offer the following (in no particular order) as contributory factors:

Increased governance and mandatory training, I understand the reasons for this but frankly it can be offputting and too much like the day job if someone is still working.

Lack of spare time, if still in paid employment the pressure of work is far greater than it once was, so energy and time levels are reduced

Lack of a ready source of volunteers due to early retirement. I was lucky enough to retire at 59 last September but I am very, very lucky in the current climate and state pension is still over 7 years away. We survive, but little spare cash for luxuries. This problem is going to get much, much worse going foward with retirement ages going up and pensions disapearing.

Lack of visitors, customers or audiences. As above, the lack of spare cash for a day out is becoming more common. Costs of everything are increasing and another sweet spot is needed where you can cover costs but still be affordable and attractive. Simply saying "coal costs £x more, energy costs £x more so our fares have gone up" doesn't wash. People are not afraid to simply say "too expensive" and walk away these days, their costs of living have gone up too...

 

the Corbett Arms has closed, and there is more railway run accommodation but otherwise I reckon it’s pretty much the same now.

I’ve never quite worked out the Talyllyn magic, but hordes of 18-35s descend on the place to volunteer from all over the UK (and increasingly the world) and there’s a steady stream of marriages, and days where all the train crew have an average age of twenty something, etc.

I still maintain the TR will be the last preserved railway standing (if it ever comes to it).

 

The corbett arms is being demolished.
I do hear that locals like the influx of volunteers as a way of meeting new people. It's not the sort of thing you could put on the brochure, mind...

As rugby club coach and a dbs-checked parent for the local cubs, I'd say the biggest thing the govt could do is drive inter-operability of qualifications. I need a seperate DBS for both. I also had the Isle of Man first-aid qualification, and I need to do a first aid qual for the rugby. I asked both for details of how the syllabus interracts, to no response.

Volunteer for more than one thing and you spend more time doing mandatory training than volunteering.

But also remember that every one of these courses came about as a result of someone getting killed or seriously harmed as a consequence of failings by an organisation.

 

Your last paragraph is correct but sadly there is an older generation (particularly in the church) who should have this quoted to them when they can't/won't undertake safeguarding training (and others) because "I've worked with children/on these things all my professional life". We have lost good and innocent people in organisations through this line of thought..

 

We are lucky enough to have a GP in our club who does child protection reports. When anybody starts that sort of line, he can give truly shocking reports of why these changes have come in. It's much harder to ignore the reality when near-identical circumstances have allowed apalling things to happen.

 

Stuff like safeguarding is a really difficult balance. I used to wonder why as a PCC member I had to do safeguarding training; when I’d done it, I realised just how little i knew about the issues I might have to consider.

At the same time, that training takes time and is far from pleasant. And when it deters people from taking on essential roles, questions about babies and bathwater come to mind.

 

But whose definition of "necessary" applies? Yours will probably differ from many people.

 

Whilst readily accepting that all or most Heritage Railways are finding the current economic climate challenging - and one or two may fail, there are several which are expanding either actively or are planning for expansion. There are probably more people now volunteering - but they have been spread over more operating railways. I can remember dire warnings about over expansion and closures back in the 80's...and 90's ...and 00's....and 10's.
Whilst it is also true that the number of enthusiasts who remember BR steam is steadily declining - many newer enthusiasts have only known Preserved steam and Diesel. The number of retired people is continuing to increase and generally they are in better health than previous generations. Whilst many are also in financial distress, others are still solvent with disposable income.

 

I suggest that when there are losses being made year on year, and jobs like maintenance are being postponed to save cash, “necessary” is defined as “the railway would break without them” or, for customer facing roles, that the cost of employment is below the revenue that would be lost without them.

 

Precisely, and the answer is probably those staff you need to ensure the railway is safely managed, compliant with applicable law and regulations and has the ability to generate the funds necessary. Its leaders must have the management skills appropriate to business of its size and complexity. A previous post referenced the HRA's Steve Oates "Green Signals" interview which ought to be compulsory viewing for all those involved in heritage railway leadership. He suggests they need to be run as the businesses they undoubtedly are but perhaps a better way of putting it is that they need to be run on sound business principles. That involves effective corporate governance and the HRA has recently issued guidance on expectations of director/trustee competence. and how that may be achieved.

A common challenge is that recent huge cost increases, especially in materials, have fundamentally undermined traditional heritage railway business models based on the belief that the farebox could generate a reasonable surplus. In practice many are now incurring an operating loss from running trains. The key to future succcess looks to be running fewer days , eliminating loss making services and at the same time focussing on innovative experiences and attractions to bring in a cadre of the fare paying public who would previously have shown little of no interest in visiting a traditional heritage railway.
Whatever the level of paid staff the key is getting that wider group of people to enjoy what the railway has to offer.

Volunteering can make a huge contribution financially but perhaps even more important with the culture of altruistic contribution to a shared cause that it involves. However, with the general decline in volunteering in all areas a business model that includes paid staff is likely to become more and more the norm. Paradoxically an operation that has learned how to survive with relativly high levels of paid staff may be better able to cope with a general reduction in volunteering than one dependent almost entirely on a dwindling supply of volunteers.

It's also been suggested in an earlier post that third party (typically local authority) ownership of the track bed could insulate against future collapse of a railway operating entity. That may be illusory. Even if there's enough stock to continue operating after creditors have been paid there's the problem of the essential operating licence which is non transferable. Furthermore many local authorities are committed to net zero. An nice environmentally friendly green lane cycle track may be their preferred alternative to a new fossil fuel burning tenant.

That takes us to the survival elephant in the room. No one has yet found a viable alternative to coal. Even the eco substitues are by and large coal based. Diesel traction is subject to environmental controls that don't apply to steam, particularly smoke and noise nuisance to nearby residential occupiers even if their homes were built long after the railway. An assumption that it will be possible in the medium to long term to import and distribute coal economically ( and to be allowed to burn it) seems brave. Collaboration on research and developmemt of alternative fuels appears to be a key component of a survival strategy for heritage railways of all stripes and sizes, or to put it another way, if they haven't got the fuel to run trains the proportion of volunteers and paid staff becomes completely academic!

 

I’d just like to focus on this part of that post. As written, it begs precisely the question raised by @richards - what is “necessary”?

There’s a legitimate discussion about how to draw people to a railway and persuade them to part with their hard earned cash. But whatever offerings are sold, the essential objective is that income must exceed expenditure*. Employment costs are a core fixed cost, which have to be met month in, month out and cannot easily be “paused” in the way that, say, track repairs can be.

That commercial model needs to determine what work needs to be paid for. If roles aren’t essential to deliver safe operations or earn revenue, then they should not be paid for. If they are essential, then in a charitable model with volunteer support, the first priority should be to seek effective volunteers to perform as many of those tasks as possible.

* - For this purpose, I’m assuming we only need to account for direct costs of operation. The wider questions of society support and voluntary income as a means to fund capital are important, but IMHO a separate topic, of equal importance to the long term sustainability of a heritage railway.

 

I'm sure it's not just heritage railways, but all volunteer run endeavours that require a skill set.

I visited a miniature railway a few days ago where all of the volunteers appeared were over 60- and chatting to some of the members, they have concerns about "what happens next".

I'm always very frustrated when I see/hear whinging about training- it suggests to me the training is being executed very poorly if that is the case- my specialism is training and safety, and there are ways to deliver training for different audiences it *should not* feel like a chore if it is done well.

There is a skills gap/skills shortage, unfortunately with the nature of our education system and the changing nature of industry folk have been steered away from conventional engineering- and we are now seeing this shortage.

I *wish* (as a now 37 year old) I could have gone into the practical/heavy/heritage side of engineering, but the geographical area I grew up in the schools and colleges had limited provision (our school had a fabrication and engineering workshop that was out of bounds- no suitable tutor and seen as too high risk) - the best I could do sensibly was evening classes in welding & fabrication by travelling to Leicester.

The key is in education- and inspiring people early by engaging them.

I have said it elsewhere on the forum, I have a 6 year old who can now (under supervision) bring a 7 1/4 loco into steam, and operate all of the controls except the injectors as the valves are too stiff.......

That's only happened as a result of a couple of older very kind, patient volunteers who have taken time to engage with her and show/teach her as they recognise the predicament we are in, and *enjoy* passing on the knowhow to the next generation.

Chris

 

Heritage railways are first and foremost about management of people, whether they are volunteers, paid staff or customers - ignoring any of those groups is a recipe for trouble, and that's what a CEO should be focusing on; the rest of the job is really to act as a ringmaster, listening to the subordinates and adjudicating where necessary, but not trying to micromanage - but the presupposes that the subordinates are up to managing their own aspect of the show satisfactorily and all too often there's a poor choice and a weak link. That's when the CEO really earns their salary, weeding out the weak link before it does too much damage, but that also means that the CEO theirself really needs to be at the top of their game - the best ones I have met really know their business inside out and could more or less take charge of any particular part of it - so they can spot and deal with problems very early on. Regrettably, such paragons are very rare on the ground and there are a few of them around who are really not up to the job.

 

You were lucky to be able to go to evening classes in welding and fabrication - I think those are very rarely found nowadays.

 

I think also that applies to directors who, generally, are volunteers - but are they always enthusiasts?

The reason for singling out directors is that probably the most important thing they can do is maintain morale. And that comes more naturally if, from the volunteer coalface, you have the feeling that the directors are fundamentally enthusiasts and have the same motivation that you do. In a tough trading climate, inevitably there will be difficult decisions made: prize assets sold, heartfelt projects abandoned or postponed, difficult choices of spending priorities. In that situation, an unpalatable message is more easily absorbed if it is delivered from someone who you feel has the name of the railway running through them like a stick of rock than if it comes from the person with an impressive CV but who has never been a heritage railway volunteer.

I think there have been some interesting case studies recently of railways where morale appears to be on the slide, and at least one major railway where (viewed from the outside) it appears that morale fell but has subsequently recovered by a change of leadership. There are many things on a heritage railway where I think a director taking a strict view of their fiduciary duty and "responsibility to act in the interest of the company / charity" might try to cut a project; but which do wonders for morale out of proportion to their cost. Heritage wagon groups are something I'd suggest in that area. It probably costs peanuts in the grand scheme of things to maintain some wagons, and run them often enough to maintain crew competence, but it says a huge amount to volunteers to feel "yes, we are doing something worthwhile in heritage terms" rather than just "we're transporting people who mostly want to get to the off-railway attraction at the other end".

Volunteers will move mountains, but only if they feel proud of the view they will see once the mountain is moved ...

Tom

 

But if these paid roles fail to meet these criteria, what then? Paid staff are unlikely to take a drop in salary below a certain level. Are there volunteers with the skills, experience and time to take them on?

Visitors don't appear at a heritage railway by magic. They are persuaded (against intense competition) to choose this one location and then encouraged to spend as much as possible, while understanding their different levels of income, family commitments and different motivations for coming in the first place.