All true, but the question of the absolute costs of the railway are also important, not just the relative costs. Costs like coal and utilities may be rising dramatically, but how much of the railway's cost base do they represent? The question, raised here with reference to the SVR but also applicable to other railways, is whether the underlying cost base of paid staff is proportionate and appropriate. My own takeaway from this is that one of the key determinants of the long term sustainability of heritage railways is in maintaining the right balance between paid and volunteer workers, and ensuring that reliance on paid staff is actively minimised. Earlier, a simple analysis suggested that 27,000 full price day tickets are required to fund the pay of 11 SVR staff. Without comment on the individuals, their roles, or the pay levels, that is a significant fixed cost burden for an SME business like a heritage railway to carry. Given the other high costs that the sector carries - fuel, overhauls, routine maintenance - it raises some important questions about their viability if the wage bill gets too high, Those questions need to be asked in the context of how railways can grow their income. The comment's been made that cost cutting is a limited lever. The other side of that equation is that it the effect of increased income on the bottom line is often more marked than that of reduced costs. That question of increased income needs to include not just fares, but also things like membership income - which reinforces the need to provide motivation to volunteers, who are I suspect both some of the key donors and, more important, ambassadors for their organisations.