Development of volunteer numbers

Hi all,

may I try another dig at my pet subject, the development of volunteer numbers?

"My" society is quite open about it and publishes the number of active volunteers in operations every year in the society magazine which is on sale to the general public. I did a bit of number-crunching with the following results:

- With one exception the number of volunteers has fallen on a year-by-year basis since 2004.
- Volunteer numbers in the years 1994 - 2004 were relatively level (+/- 5 % compared to the average of those years).
- The number of operations volunteers in 2012 was 28 % below the average of the years 1994 - 2004 and 31 % below the peak in 2004.
- The loss of individuals is partly compensated by increased input of the remaining volunteers.

The level of operation had to be cut as a result with the most dramatic cuts for 2013.

How does that compare to other railway preservation societies? Are "we" about average? Are we worse than others or even better?

I tried other threads on here and did some internet research but did not find any figures yet.

Kind regards

Christoph

 

Do you know how your society measures this? Total number of volunteers, or the total number of volunteer days worked? It would affect how it might change the situation. Fewer regular volunteers? More occasional volunteers?

Richard

 

We measure both, number of individuals and number of volunteer days worked and both declined. The comparisons I gave are for the number of individuals. Those for number of volunteer days are slightly better: 2012 was "only" 17 % below average and 27 % below the peak. Basically, the number of individuals declines and as I wrote that is partly but not fully compensated by increased input of the remaining volunteers.

I can't tell exactly what happens. It looks as if some of the stalwarts have dropped out due to age or health but some of the occasional volunteers seem to have gone as well. On the other hand the number of those who do very much has increased. A strange situation, really.

Christoph

 

I think that statistically nationwide this is something every railway management should be doing.
Volunteers are the railways employees, it's skillset, it's resources and enables it's functions to exist.
It's pointless to plan increased operations if volunteers, or costs to subsidize are not available to support it.

I know one line which assigns a "cost" to it's volunteers, that is an annual salary, divided by the number of days worked.
This with the financial costs reflects the true cost of operating the line.

The fact the volunteer isnt paid relates back to the company bottom line... if the cost was added.. would they be profitable...? or how much can they afford to subsidize volunteer effort with paid effort and still achieve the railways goals ?
If the numbers decline or rise, how does that impact the plans for the railway.
Good management should be able to apply this to the trend analysis and predict the fortunes for the years ahead.

It should also consider the reasons why the volunteer numbers change, again like any business.. if it's employees are leaving there must be a reason, and with volunteers it's definitely not due to them being paid.. it could be down to dissatisfaction with the job... (like any other), loss of interest, health/age or costs of doing the job...

Maybe instead of hiring paid staff railways could look to make traveling to / from a line more attractive.. ie pay expenses, yes there may be a tax implication, but if the costs are subsidized some volunteers may find it more attractive.

 

Would it be worth contacting the volunteers who have left to ask why they are no longer involved? Better than guessing why they might have left. Their "value" to the society is significant, if the service has had to be reduced since they left. So it might be worth a phone call and someone's time to find out if there is anything which might get them back, or identify what could be improved to help retain the remaining volunteers.

Richard

 

Honestly, my prime concern at the moment is to have a comparison with other rail or more general transport preservation societies. Most seem to talk about a declining number of volunteers but I have yet to find some figures to put our own into perspective. Is our situation extraordinary or is it just a sign of the times and in line with most other railways (or bus groups, if you like. I'm not limiting it to railways.)?

As for the reasons, they were also reported. Age and health, either own health or that of a close relative, are a major problems. Other reasons reported are job change, house move, and "domestic circumstances", I assume those are marriage or birth of a child.

Unfortunately, from ADB968008s post I gather that the volunteer input might not even be known at some lines!

Christoph



P.S.: If you don't wish to expose the negative development of your own line in public, I will happily accept PMs and keep all identities confidential.

 

Christoph

I work on two of the larger UK heritage lines & have seen no evidence that either carry out an analysis which is as detailed as the one you are doing.

Having said that I am sure that both take an interest in operating duties which occasionally have to be covered by paid staff when normally a volunteer would cover but for whatever reason a volunteer cannot be found.

For operating staff (drivers/firemen/guards/signalmen etc) it is pretty clear whether or not it is normally possible to cover these duties using volunteers on a particular railway and some are already stretched to do this.

For non operating staff it is less easy to see the picture as the work might be less immediate.

With the number of UK lines there is increasing competition for the reasonably finite number of willing volunteers and some lines have realised this and are improving things like volunteer accommodation.

Mid week it is pretty clear that there is a heavy reliance on retired (or winding down) folk as volunteers who are now reaping the benefit of the pension entitlements of their generation. Clearly this input is likely to decline as the next generation are unlikley to be so fortunate. Just as worrying is the age profile of non peak midweek passengers with their pension wealth and spare time both of which are likely to be curtailed in the future.

It has been said before but we may already be past the peak numbers of both volunteers and passengers in this context.

 

This is an important topic. Its my experience over 40 years that most heritage railways are very poor at nurturing their volunteers. The management (of which at times I was one) paid little notice of the people involved except to moan if they did not turn up as expected. I certainly can never recall an enquiry to see if there was a problem if I did not turn up.
On taking over our small railway at Rudyard we resolved to try to do it differently. The background to this is set out in the Autumn 2012 Heywood society magazine.
To extract some numbers. In 2012 we had 35 people on the books who worked in the last year. 17 of these are passed out to drive. Over all the previous 12 years we have had 6 drivers and about a dozen others who have moved on to other railways. We also sadly had 3 drivers who have passed away. In human resource terms this rate of turnover is very low and this is a key measure. Last year we had an unusual large influx of volunteers from another heritage railway and from elsewhere so we had to close the doors for a while.
We expect to invest in our volunteers and I foresee increasing completion for competent people. How long before open poaching commences?

 

Thank you for the replies, especially to Merlin for supplying some figures.

May I ask about the highest and lowest number of volunteers you had in the past? Were they rather steady at the 35 mark, did the number increase (it sounds like it) or has there been a decline at some stage? I am not a Human Resource professional, but I am surprised that a number of people equal to half of your current volunteer workforce has moved on. Any idea why?

I am even more surprised about 1472s experience that either the number of volunteers is not analysed or that the results are not published. I would have thought that if you run a railway you make sure there is someone to run it. Or is it the case that the number of volunteers is so large that it is not a problem to fill all duties and paid staff, where available, only has to cover for short-notice cancellations? Are there restrictions on the number of duties each volunteer can book?

And thank you for calling my bit of number-crunching a detailed analysis. In reality it's a simple spreadsheet with some figures extracted from the society magazine.

Please keep your experience coming, even though I begin to think that I touched a subject hardly anyone had a look at, much to my surprise.

Kind regards

Christoph

 

We started with 2 and now have 35. The numbers jumped to around 8 within 6 months then grew steadily over the years until last year when we had an influx. We have " lost" around 18 people over 12 years so that's just over one and a half a year. I recon that's a turnover rate of around 5%. Normal turnover rates for a large " good employer" for paid employment are often 10% and for a poor one much higher.

We have lost people for a variety of reasons. Some got bored, others had family issues, some we asked to leave and some no clearly felt our organisation was not for them. Our advantage being so small is that we all know each other and their families and circumstances. So we don't have people who disappear without knowing why. Of the original group nobody has left except in a coffin!!
The contribution of the volunteers is immense. We can to some extent pick and choose because they tell us we demonstrate that we value them more than other places.

I do think that the total volunteer numbers and total days worked are key indicators of an organisations health. Instinct and rumour tells me that for many railways the trend is steadily downwards and that in many places the willing volunteers are working harder each year to keep the trains running. Clearly that cant go on forever.
Mike
Steam Train Days Out @ Rudyard Lake Steam Railway Staffordshire

 

All heritage railways are required to submit an annual return to the ORR and one of the key questions is:'Number of working volunteer staff'. Railways also have to provide the number of paid staff and also the Total full time equivalent number of staff, from which it is possible to obtain statistics on the total volunteer hours. Unfortunately, the information provided is generally treated as confidential so the information is not generally available.
In terms of one railway I volunteer on, we have a small membership (c.300) but about 25% of these can be classed as volunteers. My perception is that the number of volunteers is not falling and is probably increasing slightly, at both ends of the age spectrum. However, there is a huge gap in the age profile, with very few volunteers between the ages of 30 and 55. This lack of the relatively experienced, but not 'old' volunteer is the biggest problem we have, especially with the management of all aspects of the organisation. The key personnel (chairman, treasurer, secretary, mech engineer and civil engineer) are all in the 60-75 age group with no real identified successors.

 

Very bad idea, IMHO.

Firstly, from a policy point of view it is enormously problematic. To take two examples: I have a 200 mile round trip to the Bluebell. But normally I stay with my parents who live much closer, meaning a round trip of about half that. So if I claimed expenses, what distance should I claim - the 200 miles I actually travel, or the 100 miles I travel on the actual day I volunteer? And what about groups who are technically separate from the railway, but work on site? For example, currently we have Maunsell Q class 541 being restored by "Bluebell" volunteers; and Maunsell S15 class 847 being restored by "Maunsell Soc" volunteers. Now clearly, the Bluebell can't enforce a policy about volunteer reimbursement on another society. But then you could end up with the bizarre situation of two groups of volunteers working side by side on engines owned by the Maunsell Soc, but those working on 541 got expenses whereas those working on 847 didn't. That is hardly conducive to harmonious working; nor is disharmony in the interest of the railway who need both locos restored.

Then there is the financial consideration. At a rough guess (and it is a guess, not coming from studies of the actual figures by me), I'd suggest we have 100 volunteers working on a typical weekend day, and 30 on a typical weekday. That gives 17,500 volunteer-days. Let's assume the average round trip is 50 miles, at 40p per mile (a fairly typical rate of reimbursement, I think based on an HMRC figure). That's £20 per volunteer per day, or about £350,000 per year. You could put a decent size engine through its ten-yearly for that; more significantly it completely blows any profit the railway might make. (For comparison, the WSR - who are bigger than the Bluebell, so presumably would have a bigger figure, just reported an annual profit of £20k).

And that is before you get to all the logistical problems: audit, the admin of holding bank details of several hundred people to pay them, etc etc.

Finally, there is the fact that some volunteers might claim, but others might not. Not only does that add to admin, but it has the potential to create a "two-tier" volunteer workforce.

Interestingly, the Bluebell debated a motion about volunteer expenses at its last AGM. It was soundly defeated, for the reasons (and no doubt others) above.

Which is not to say volunteers aren't important: if you attached a cost not only to travelling expenses, but to labour as well, the free labour being donated to a railway like the Bluebell would probably be several million pounds per year, which not only wipes out the profit, but is in fact comparable with the gross turnover. So clearly it is an important issue, and one that railway managements would be well advised to consider very seriously, particularly with the demographic and other pressures others have already mentioned. But the route to better engagement I think is not paying for expenses, but things like better welfare facilities (hostels etc, especially for early-shift volunteers); understanding shift patterns that work around people's lives and also better working facilities: the days of expecting people to restore locomotives and carriages stuck out in the open in all weathers might have been acceptable twenty years ago, but is hardly conducive to keeping people motivated through the dark days of winter if they can look at an adjacent line that carries out its work in nice indoor workshops.

Just my opinion, as always.

Tom

 

I'm 100% with Tom on this one and I think that most volunteers are, whichever railway they are from. I don't know of any other hobby where you get paid to attend, and it is a hobby to volunteer. It can be a relatively cheap one, at that. It costs a small fortune to support a football team and you can't claim expenses for going fishing, or to pursue hundreds of other interests. It has been suggested from time to time on the NYMR as one way of getting volunteers to cover more operating turns but you then get the situation that Joe Bloggs lives 5 miles away and Fred Smith is 25 miles away and both are available. It doesn't take much thinking to come to a conclusion of who would get the available turn. General Manager/Bean Counter to Roster Clerk: 'We need to save money, don't roster anyone who has to travel more than a couple of miles if you can avoid it.

 

Just to give an example from outside the heritage railway niche, but inside the wider heritage industry - I'm currently working at a heritage attraction, particularly involved in volunteer recruitment. Due to increased opening hours this season there was a need for an influx of new volunteers, so we conducted a marketing campaign. The current number of expressions of interest is pushing 120, the total number that I think we will actually see become regulars is probably around 80. So there is definitely a segment of the public keen to volunteer.

I think for too long heritage railways have depended on the "Are you interested in railways? Yes? Then come and join us!" approach. If this was how most volunteer marketing was done I don't think we'd have as many volunteers in this country as we do. I think we need to really sell other undeniable advantages and fulfilments that can be gleaned from volunteering - meeting new people, learning new skills, giving something back, having fun, working outdoors. To be sure, we have plenty who get involved for these reasons and with little interest in railways, but by marketing down that road we would get far, far more I think - some of whom, let's be honest, may be more "people persons" and a better face for a railway than some of us enthusiasts!

Another large audience that could do with targeting would be the younger person. There are a lot of people getting involved in volunteering as a means to build up experience for the workplace currently, some undoubtedly come to heritage railways, but again we could market this. We have lots of visitor facing roles that require little or no interest in railways. Some railways already have excellent youth arms - the Ffestiniog really stands out for me, taking on as it does a lot of youngsters on gap years, University summer breaks etc. A valuable commodity! We need to break the completely disingenuous but utterly ingrained stereotype that we're a bunch of anoraked old men who like to sit around in CAMRA pubs and discuss valve travel - we aren't all like that (nothing wrong with that, of course, but unlikely to appeal to a 20-something year old). I've had some cracking - and alcoholic - nights out with friends from the railway, and I know many have far more. So let's sell that social aspect, counter the stereotype. This can be done even simply on the "come and volunteer" leaflet - have a young face on the cover waving the flag, grinning out the cab, etc.

I think a lot of heritage railways could do with professionalising their recruitment offices. This isn't meant to be a criticism of the current officers - no railway has gone under due to lack of volunteers to my knowledge - just a comment that there's a lot of data out there on how to do it which could only be beneficial to the movement.

 

Another option is things like food and accommodation, or even company discount schemes, use of facilities, think of the the benefits of your day job, offered at your hobby. It needn't be financial incentives.

thing is to a lay person, why should they come work for you for free, over say a charity shop, school play, hospital porter or any other museum... If its solely for the love of steam.. Well the gene pool is shrinking not growing, so you need to be creative, think back to your youth and think why did you start up some mad scheme to build a railway anyway..

Here's an example, few years back I volunteered for Oxfam at Glastonbury, in return for helping on collections during the year, I got to volunteer for 2 x8 hour sessions and got the rest of the festival, food and yes showers !! For free.

A social scene "after hours" could be worth its weight in gold to would be volunteers. If a railway had a crèche for kids my wife and I would be there tomorrow and am sure the little one would have a party too.

its not just about running trains and there's plenty of people looking for "something" to do

 

There's volunteering and there's volunteering. I had a discussion with a director of the NYMR who was all in favour of paying expenses. I argued that it was totally against the whole ethos of volunteering on a heritage railway and that, although a director, he didn't volunteer on the railway so had no experience of what volunteering was about. His response was that he did know about volunteering because he worked in a charity shop and he also got expenses for it. I asked him why he did this and his response was that he did it to give something back to the community. I'd suggest that this is not generally why people volunteer on heritage railways; they do it because it is, as I've said, first and foremost, a hobby.

 

Whilst it may have been the case in the past that the vast majority of heritage railway volunteers have come from people interested in trains doing it as a hobby, is it not a very dangerous assumption to run with, that heritage line volunteers will always continue to be, and not (for want of a better phrase, no offence intended) normal people looking to do something that will get them experience/enjoyment/stuff for their cv etc?

 

That happens a lot. It doesn't make any difference to the principle of not paying expenses. If you try to define sub groups of volunteers into those that are fully fledged enthusiasts and those doing it 'for something to do' and treat them differently, you have a problem.
We currently have a young volunteer who fits into the 'experience to put on a CV' category. He has just asked me for a reference. If he is successful and gets the job, I doubt we will see him again. That is disappointing but not a problem. We have helped someone along the way.

 

Very interesting points and ideas are raised in this discussion. I very much like the example of guard_jamie about a successful volunteer recruitment drive. How did you do it?

What I would really like, is some response to my original question: How did the volunteer numbers develop over the years? Apparently the numbers are taken and reported but not to members or the outside world. Is that correct?

I get a feeling that the size of the volunteer problem is pretty unique to us which makes me worry.

Christoph

 

One area for recruitment could be the ethnic minorities. I visit a good many railways and to date I have only seen two members of the ethnic minority groups on any railways. With at least two railways, the KWVR and GCR, being in areas where there are very large populations of Asian heritage people, it could be a good idea.

Regards