Reducing costs while preserving safety - can it be done?

I believe the original survey was carried out by one of the universities for the West Somerset Railway, and the multiplier that they came up with was three-fold rather than eightfold. Still quite a compelling argument.

 

Give us a clue then like the name of the programme or better still a link to it?

 

Golden Age of Steam Trains or something. There were two episodes, one on the narrow gauge lines (Talyllyn & Ffestiniog) and one on the standard gauge (SVR & K&WR).

 

Garraway came to civilian railways from the Royal Engineers (Tn) and was splendidly prickly, but he had been the OC of Detmold Military Railway in the wreckage of occupied post war Germany - shabby worn out engines, dilletante staff and indifferent or hostile locals speaking an inpenetrable language were no strangers to him. He was probably the best equipped man in the country to get the FR out of its 1950 coma.

 

Thanks - not as insightful as I was hoping it might be. The age when preserved steam had hands on enthusiasts coming out of it's ears has passed. Now most preserved railways are commercial operations with a large, but shrinking volunteer workforce who understand that they have to turn up on time. Managing such a workforce is a big challenge. most managers who rely on "positional authority" (which most do -because they control if you get paid) are out of their depth dealing with people who do it for no financial reward. It becomes more of a leadership challenge and very few people have good leadership skills.

 

Interestingly I have just come off the phone to an Ops Manager (paid) on a preserved line who was unaware of this thread, but has hit most of the nails that have been discussed here in his provisional 10 year plan. I wish him well with getting through it all - but it was good to hear a degree of awareness is already there with some folk.

 

Oh no. Someone has mentioned the "L Word". Even a passing mention can be enough to make you look like Batemans' unfortunate cartoon twerp who pulled the communication cord on the Cheltenham Flyer. Leadership these days seems about as fashionable as flared trousers or pubic hair on porn stars.

But having some is usually a Good Thing. Railways have long been a hierarchical disciplined service with a clear Line of Command. If we accept - and it is hard to make a contra-argument - that the movement simply does not have enough money, reality means applying critical scrutiny to engorged payrolls.

I cannot believe that volunteers are unable to accept discipline - and the b*llockings that go with it -just because they are volunteers. If we look at another business that features discipline, training, professional standards, and (forgive me) Leadership, and calls for its volunteers to make rather bigger sacrifices than railways - we need only look at the Territorial Army. Nor do I accept that volunteering has had its day just because modern youth appears obsessed with its Playstation and smoking upstairs on buses. There are some bloody good volunteers whose age suggests they have only ever seen working BR steam on Youtube. They are involved because of the social side mentioned earlier and because the rhythm and tempo of railway life has an appeal that transcends nostalgia. They eschew the twaddle about preserving heritage for future generations because they ARE the future generation. They do it because it is fun. Many of them are just as good if not better than us Old Gits.

I suggest that making it fun for more of them is cheaper than appointing ostensibly maleable paid staff with their Comets Tail of NI contributions, workplace pension schmes, tribunals and payroll costs. This throws a burden of leadership back on the management, but that isn't what they are there for?

 

You forgot to mention their 1950s attitude to industrial relations and dislike of working alongside volunteers as problems that also seem to crop up from time to time!

 

This is an interesting thread with some high quality discussion points put forward.

Whilst many of my thought shave been aired by others already I would like to throw a couple of issues into the ring, I’m not sure of the answers to them but they may be items which us and the railways should consider when looking to generate the maximum surplus to re-invest into the railway to ensure its continued operation.

I’ve said this in some form or another in the past but do the railways actually know clearly what their product and market is, and I’m not so sure they do have a really crystal clear vision of what they stand for, what they want to achieve, and what their customer wants. If railways were to understand this then maybe they could act to put in place measures appropriate (revenue and cost) to produce the product required by the customer at the right price point for the customer and with the right cost base to ensure the future.

So, at the extremes of the product offering spectrum is the railway actually positioned, where it wants to be positioned, and where do its customers want it positioned. At the extremes of the product spectrum we have a railway which provides a ride behind a steam loco because you don’t seem them so often these days where the customer doesn’t really care (or know) about the stock or the historical accuracy, whilst at the other end do we want to have as true (within modern H&S regulations) an historical accuracy as we can get - correct loco, stock, location, etc all restored to historically accurate condition). I would suggest that we are nearer to the first example than the second.

The first scenario will cost less money than the second to provide, the second could provide greater revenue if sold correctly.

The birth of the heritage railway movement is where the seeds of this issue arise – we had groups and societies saving lines because they were closing, to keep the railway and steam alive in whatever form, they had little concern for historical accuracy or the selling of a heritage experience. Heritage railways were not created to sell heritage, if they had been they would be very different beast I’m sure, what has happened is that they were saved and then evolved into the heritage arena. So what has evolved in the intervening 40 odd years is the creation of a ‘false’ heritage. Yes we have steam locos, yes we have stock that that you don’t see on the big railway any more (such as compartment stock) we have enamel signs for soap, chocolate and Castrol, we have the odd red phone box, and lots of hanging baskets at the more idyllic stations. But is this accurate, no it’s a pastiche of past and no more real than Disneyland.

Now this is fine if that’s what the members want, and can sell it to the public at the correct income and cost structure. But what about turning things around and asking what do the majority of customers want, do they want pre-war stock with the correct veneers and upholstery, or are they happy with a fluorescent lit Mk1. Do they spend more or come more often if a line can field a variety of motive power in term s of size, shapes, colours, names, ages – do they notice, do they care, do they spend more. Is it a ride they want or a trip down memory lane (or perceived memory lane nowadays)?

Do railways need to adapt to be more of a journey provider rather than a heritage provider? Can a journey provider railway be run at less cost? Should railways provide journeys and also an accurate heritage experience at a substantial premium, should really accurate heritage experience be limited in its availability and so push up the price able to be charged. Such examples might be run service with DMU/Diesel/Basic Steam/Historically Accurate Steam, with fares and operating dates tailored accordingly.

Can we maintain an infrastructure of buildings, pw, and stock to run such a service on a lower cost base then at present (do we need overhauls to mainline standards if the loco will just potter up and down the branch, do we need to ensure that pw/infrastructure lasts for 20, 50, or 100 years – these things need costing out thoroughly, but I’m not sure any railway or the movement in general does or knows how to do these things, do we look at short term cash flow vs. longer term costs and bottom line), how would passenger numbers and revenue react, what is the bottom line change.

Running reduced services has been put forward, and I think has a great deal of merit. But if costs cannot be substantially cut then what about a shakeup in the revenue area, events and revenue generation appear to have gone stale and follow a number of regular themes (spring gala, 1940s weekend, summertime fish and chips, Thomas/Peppa, autumn gala, Wizard/Halloween, and then the Santas). What about some shake-ups to other services, earlier starts occasionally, I’m surprised that no-one has really evaluated summer evening running (not dining), premium ticket events (not driving experiences), use of dining assets away from regular services (static dining in the platform – you don’t have to steam a loco).

Lots of questions and thoughts going round in my head.

 

Picking up on one of Zigzag's points, and just to muddy the waters still further, do many Special Events actually make money? They bring the numbers in for sure, but the arrangement costs are collosal - hiring a Spitfire for 30 mins is enough to induce a heart attack in most Finance Directors, and some engines are clocking up more miles on low loaders flitting from one enthusiast gala to another - at £3000 per one way trip - than they are managing under their own steam. And there is a nasty little tendency for total visitor numbers at an event to be pumped up by conflating the extra attendees with those who would have come anyway, and are unaware of any event. An earlier poster expressed surprise at how many "normal families" turned up at a recent enthusiast gala. I would imagine there are a number of families who were a bit surprised to find their chosen tourist attraction over-run by loud camera-laden enthusiasts pushing them out of the way in pursuit of yet another Master Shot. If you spend £30,000 on an event, and only 3000 extra tickets are sold, why did you bother? Chasing turnover is, as many others have pointed ou, just folly.

 

You seem to forget that special events give a great deal of satisfaction to volunteers. They get he chance to see and work on other bits of kit. It's a way of saying thank you for all the hard work they put in. Even if no extra money is made, the boost to morale should never be under estimated. Just out of interest, are you or have you ever been a volunteer on a heritage railway?

 

What is becoming clear from the wide ranging ideas being proposed on this thread, is that there are plenty of reasons to be hopeful for the future.

That there are possibilities to save on unnecessary expenditure is clear, without infringing on safety. As an aside, all my safety examinations have had a volunteer examiner - the paperwork goes back to paid staff who could be anywhere. The one common factor in almost every proposal, is that they are just the seed of further ideas that should be considered. How or if they might be considered is the great leap !

 

Gios, I think the great leap (or at least something tangible rather than just chatter) can only be to collate the many ideas that have been aired here and pass them to HRA and the Grand Junction Club in executive summary form. There are signs that "trade & professional" players are taking an interest in what is being said here, see the contribution from Mr Coulis above. I think it would be mildly useful for other Directors, managers and investors to see it. This I will do once, as invariably happens, the thread dies of exhaustioin and boredom and everyone who has something to say has done so.

 

Again, it's a sweeping generalisation to question if all special events make money. Ironically, its ones like the wartime weekends, (providing one doesn't book a Spitfire !) beer festivals and of course the dreaded TTTE - in other words events aimed largely at the general public. The day of the mega gala has now gone, I think and it will be interesting to see how the NYMR fares this weekend with just six engines and no visitor other than the S160 that has been there all summer. It may prove that profitability will improve even if visitor numbers are down, because of lower costs. It'll be even more interesting to compare it with the following LNER weekend, when (reputedly) one of the most expensive visitors is there.

Apropos the "more is less" argument, I may incur the displeasure of Mr. Bean Counter by stating that the argument that 2/3 of the costs of a railway day are fixed and only 1/3 are variable and that it therefore makes sense to run trains doesn't hold water, in my view. What it means in practice is that unless trains run reasonably profitably one is just running harder to stand still, wearing out the rolling stock, infrastructure etc for no real gain. My experience is that if it is clearly advertised that trains will not run on certain days of the week potential customers will turn up on the days when they do instead, and the result is higher load factors on fewer trains. This is one of the easier economies to make and an important one when most lines are finding it a struggle to keep their rolling stock in good order, having used up the residual life present when it was withdrawn from BR.

 

Do they give a great deal of satisfaction to volunteers. I for one do my best to avoid them and I know I'm not alone. I doubt that they are a morale booster, either. Galas can also produce a side effect that any roster clerk can relate to. That is trying to find sufficient staff to cover the periods either side of a gala because galas swallow up staff and a lot of volunteers won't/can't be there two weekends on the trot.

 

I was on the footplate during the Ffestiniog Railway's 'Steam 150' event (albeit on the Welsh Highland) and again during the WHR's 'Big & Small' event a few weeks ago. No-one I saw, volunteer or paid staff, seemed to be having a bad time. I thought it was great fun, lots of variety and lots of people around both railways. Perhaps there will be the cynics and killjoys that stay away from these type of events but they're a nice change from the norm.

 

Bringing in a big tender loco by road is likely to set a railway back at least £8K over a W/E and it will have to put a lot of extra bums on seats to repay that, the more so because the majority of those interested in these visitors are the very fickle railway enthusiasts and not Mr & Mrs Smith and family. £8K would probably be better spent on advertising in terms of added patronage.

 

That may have been the idea at the start but heritage railways are now pulling in far more passengers, at least per train, than the lines were in BR days. If they had to survive on the sort of ridership they had in BR days, they'd be bust no matter how much volunteer effort was put into them. Actually, paid effort put into all the aspects of railway operation from professional marketing to driving the trains can result in a more successful product, bringing in far more revenue to balance out the extra cost, than one that relies on a bunch of volunteers and is thus restricted in what it can do.

Heritage railways today are tourist attractions and they have to compete with other professionally-run attractions. There is room for volunteers - the National Trust uses volunteers very successfully, but not in a core role.

 

As a matter of interest, to me anyhow, are you a retired Big Railway manager or a Heritage Railway manager? I ask this because I think one railway I know seems to have the idea that an ex Big Railway manager, with Big Railway mentality, is the right person to manage a heritage railway.

 

I side with your doubts...and not just out of sympathy to hard-pressed Roster Clerks who find no-one wants to answer their increasingly desperate phone calls. Most of the volunteers I have worked with enjoy what I can only call Good Old Fashioned Railway Working - being punctual, safe and courteous, turning out a clean train and clean stations, not kippering the neighbours with excessive smoke, putting smiles on visitors faces. I am not convinced they need an enthusiast weekend to make them feel appreciated. If they want to play with a bit of foreign kit, most of them know they only have to ask at the said bit of kits' home railway and they will be welcomed as fellow professionals. If they are going to insist the foreign kit comes to them to be played with, we are in more trouble than I thought!

Nor am I convinced that the cost of hired engines justifies the extra visitors, unless your own fleet is having a massive hissy fit and has collapsed. There is nothing wrong with losing money, or providing free entertainment for lineside photographers, so long as you know you are doing it, don't mind doing it, and have enough spare cash in the bank to cover it.

W14 speaks with the conviction of a retired professional railway manager (as do I) but may not have noticed that when BR withdrew its countenance from a branch line they took away their grubby DMUs and often indifferent workforce, which are not much missed, but also the Public Service Obligation Grant, which was a lifeline and allowed the state railways to exist in a financial bubble. If the arguement is that paid employees are better than volunteers, can we please see some hard numbers to back it up? Because all I can see is a lot of railways who are struggling to meet their payroll costs and depreciation of their decaying assets. ..