Talyllyn Finances

Incidentally the name Dartmouth Steam Railway was adopted a few years ago after, I was told, a survey was taken and it was the preferred name chosen by the passengers who took part in the survey. The reason, I am sure, was that Dartmouth is the destination of most travellers, especially on the morning trains, very few stay at Kingswear or the intermediate stations - the exception being Churston where the bus awaits to take those who wish to visit the former home of Agatha Christie - a very well visited NT house. Buses and boats are all part of the company set up: the railway just one part.
It is a commercial line, it has to stand on its feet as it has very few volunteer staff who are prepared to work for zilch and make monies available through subscriptions. The line is not long and there is no real need for much 'history'. There is more than enough history in Dartmouth for those who are interested. Whilst the line does look mainline, in a few areas, but that is by necessity of protecting passengers and staff, it does travel through very varied scenery - views of sea, river and farmland - which is unparalleled in beauty.

As far as I can see it is all a matter of perception. Perceived value that lines give in monetary terms, travel and facilities, is most important in all its aspects.
What is the perception of the majority of passengers? I believe most peoples memories are quite selective therefore I suggest that something that 'appears' old will be sufficient for many and the appearance of steam locomotives only enhances that view. Diesels are usually only used on work trains and stock movements on the DSR.

 

The difficulty of the choice is that whilst the railway might be primarily for the benefit of the volunteers,the moment that they elect to allow public access they have to meet the demands of that public - especially if access is granted to help defray the costs of operation. Once the public is admitted, demand grows for improvements or extensions hence the conflict between what the operator wants and what the public demands. A case in point is Carnforth where visitors to the site were welcomed upto the mid 1980s when the owners were forced to choose between a public amenity requiring safety factors for public admission or a workshops facility with safety factors required by the Shops & Factories Acts supplemented by H&S legislation. We know which choice was made - and many heritage lines are still facing similar choices between public access and commercial activity.

As I have noted in various discussions and writings all heritage lines will reach a point when they need to allow public access and - if growth continues - the financial implications require a more commercial approach that may - and I repeat MAY - conflict with the non-commercial approach of the volunteers. Once the commercial obligations are accepted, the choice of organisation can vary from the enthusiast attitude of the SVR (despite its under-pinning by commercial framework) to the purely commercial attitude of the DSR with its nod to enthusiasts by virtue of livery changes. I have sampled both during this year and - whilst quite different in approach - I have enjoyed the visits and the ambience that each have generated. More important, however, is that each is part of its immediate environment and reacts accordingly; the DSR as a day trip out in a holiday centre, the SVR as a commercial activity looking for day visitors in an area with similar attractions seeking day visitors.

In this context the TR is akin to others of its ilk. It must determine what its market(s) are then identify how to tap into them. If it elects to remain a small-size operation with any "losses" covered by donations and voluntary financial support of members then that is a valid option for its survival - as long as it can guarantee the continued level of support is sufficient to meet any financial shortfall. The questions raised by the current situation at the TR, however, is one that needs to be faced by all heritage lines - what size of operation do we wish to be; how can / will it be funded and is that financial model a long-term option or a short-term option needing frequent review by those in charge of running the operation.

 

A lot of this discussion - about the conflicts between "preservation-focused" and "commercially-focused" railways seems to be making assumptions about volunteers as if they were a single monolithic entity, all exclusively focused on "preservation". I don't think that is true or especially helpful.

People volunteer for all manner of reasons, but I think if you have to make broad characterisations, within volunteers you will tend to find the "preservationists" and the "operators". Very loosely, the former tend to be sticklers for some measure of historical accuracy in locomotives, rolling stock, station presentation etc, whereas the latter tend to be more concerned with the challenges of running a service. (Of course, quite often running a service in a mechanism that preserves traditional operating methods is itself a form of preservation - many of us, for example, prefer to shunt using hand signals or lamps rather than radios!)

The point is, neither group can function without the other, and neither has a monopoly on "authenticity". Without a strong ethos of "preservationists" doing their best to ensure that carriages, stations etc have a period feel, there isn't much attraction for the paying public to generate the need for the operators to run trains. But without the operators working out efficient ways to run a service using costly legacy equipment (and also working out ways to extract "additional spend" in non-authentic shops and cafes), the preservationists won't have the money to enable the next restoration project to go ahead. As for which group has a monopoly on authenticity: it is possible to put together a train containing half a dozen beautifully restored pre-grouping carriages, each from a different company: each carriage is a historical time capsule in its own right, but putting them together is no more or less authentic than running a more homogenous train with carriages that clearly belong together, but which never ran on the line in question.

With regard the question "are lines run primarily for volunteers": the implicit financial contribution from volunteers in terms of doing job without pay is such that, if they all disappeared, most lines would be dead in the water. On the other hand, coal, water, oil and all the other things cost real cash. So with the exception of a very few lines that are essentially the plaything of a wealthy individual, no line can be said to be run purely for the benefit of volunteers, but neither can most lines afford to move in a direction that causes widespread disaffection amongst the volunteer base.

Tom

 

Is it? If the volunteer don't enjoy themselves, then they won't come and at best you end up with a Dartmouth Steam Railway (bare basics', though nothing like as 'not preservation' as people like to make out, I would suggest!) and probably end up with nothing at all. But to me one of the challenges faces railways is that those with a deep passion for the line, who have been involved since 'the start' - either the line's start or them being old enough to be involved, risk being overwhelmed by those for whom it is somewhere to go, involved only for a short time, often since retirement, and who do expect not to have to do what the operation requires of them but the operation to do what they fancy! In some roles, the two differing aspirations can fit nicely but in all too many, they provide a conflict, and all too often the ones who work hardest (and hence are getting on with it rather than being busy telling everyone how things should be) get drowned out by those who want the 'easy life' I have mentioned, and at worst get pushed out completely!

And isn't the point that the aim of preserved railways - I have always preferred 'preserved railways' to the 'heritage railways' name - is to preserve, is to keep the line, and the sight and sound of steam, in operation. I doubt anywhere could survive just on the financial contributions the volunteers, and indeed wider memberships, of the lines would or even could make - they need passengers - what are Railways without traffic and few preserved lines have much chance for goods traffic, so passengers are what they are for. Also, without public access, much external funding would disappear - keeping just the volunteers happy would not last very long because very soon there would be nothing for them to volunteer on!

'Commercial' (or perhaps 'business-like') is seen as a dirty word, suggesting it is automatically the opposite of 'preservation' or even 'enjoyment'. If the line goes bust, nothing is preserved and I can tell you that nothing removes the 'enjoyment' experienced by volunteers as much as being expected to front a badly run, badly organised service which always goes wrong, where things break down regularly, facilities are poor and the passengers are clearly not enjoying themselves - and making sure the front line volunteers know it!

Railways need memberships - front line active and otherwise - that are engaged with what the Railway is there for - preservation, restoration, providing a quality service - that people are proud to say they are a part of and will go the extra mile to support and work for. Railways where everyone is allowed to feel a part, feel valued, whether long standing or newly arrived - respected for what they can bring 'to the party'. Surely no-one could feel proud to be part a private club, there for the entertainment of a select few which doesn't even necessarily include all those working as volunteers let alone the fare paying public. A closed shop where 'the outsiders' are made to feel unwelcome or just plain told to go if their face doesn't (or no longer) fits. Such organisations will fail because of lack of funds from all sources, become the select few may have such massive egos that they think they alone matter but they will inevitably be proven wrong!

Steven

 

Spot on Tom - 'preservation' and 'commercial' should be perfect 'bed-fellows' in many ways, preservation creating the quality 'product' for the commercial people to encourage people to pay to use (or otherwise support), generating the cash to enable the preservationist to main and enhance what they are preserving. That is certainly what I saw plenty of evidence of - along with a lot of often unnecessary conflict based on pre-conceptions and prejudice as to peoples' approach and attitude to preservation and operation and lack of willingness to make necessary compromises - in my years of active experience, with a growing business and often just a handful of individuals who really cared about the heritage aspects enabling preservation, restoration and 'commercial' activities to co-exist and complement each other perfectly.

Steven

 

Please bear in mind that your 'local' supermarket is in fact 99% of the time part of a massive trading entity well able to face of suppliers and get lower wholesale prices. Look at the recent Unilver versus Tesco spat - no small trader could expect to take on the might of Unilever and win - it took an industry giant in the form of Tesco (and even the Unilever didn't back down straight away) that prevented significant prices rises.

In short price comparisons with supermarkets is totally unfair when assessing catering prices at Heritage railways . If you want to play that game then you need to compare them to local independent traders who face similar issues.

 

Just so true. You are right.

The question is how would one handle a situation where persons are much as the above. Without offending them , encouraging them of the better way forward for the group concerned and the host railway. Unfortunately some people do not accept the term compromise in the interest of the railway.

Regards.

 

You can go the local supermarket and pay a lower amount, in the same way people turn up at preserved railways and eat their own food they have brought with them.

Or you can eat and drink at the facilities offered by the railway knowing you will be contributing to the finances of the railway.

Also note that the supermarket doesn't usually pay for nor provide somewhere to eat or drink the products you buy. It's a bit like asking why should you pay a different price in a pub or restaurant compared with a supermarket.

 

Wow, that was heartfelt, a painful parting of the ways obviously. Voluntary bodies are difficult employers. As John Winton put it in "The Little Wonder" re the departure of Allan Garraway, who was preservation royalty, "The Festiniog is an ungrateful mistress".

 

even that bottle in the supermarket is a bit of a rip off, you can but a 2 litre bottle in Tesco for 17p whilst the small bottles will cost much more.

 

Interesting debate. To an extent some arrangements could be likened to a sports club where the members pay a fee that is kept at a modest level by the income from commercial activities. It is very easy to lose sight of the fact that the railway is there for the volunteers but equally, failure of the commercial activities must jeopardise all that they have achieved. I wonder if any FTSE 100 companies have donations and legacies as a part of their annual income stream ?

 

But a small-scale heritage railway cafe won't be able to buy their supplies at anywhere near that price. So they have no chance of competing with the local supermarkets.

Again, we need to think about the average visitor. Not the enthusiast who comes with their cheese and pickle sandwich and flask of tea from home. I'm talking about the family who are looking for an enjoyable day out. Part of that day out is decent food and they are prepared to pay the (local) going rate for this. I would think twice about a bottle of water costing £3, but I accept that a small-scale cafe would need to charge something like £1.50 to cover their costs and make some profit (for the benefit of the railway).

Nowadays, I would also expect a cafe to provide a decent cup of coffee, not just instant Nescafe and hot water from an urn. Heritage railways need to keep up with their visitors' preferences, or they will miss the opportunities to raise significant revenue.

 

Much of this discussion is far too philosophical. The purpose of subsidiary trading organisations is to produce income for the parent company to carry out its purpose which, in the case of steam railways, is to keep the railway running. Grants, legacies or whatever are not there to subsidise the subsidiary organisations. Easy to say but if the subsidiary functions lose money then they have to be sorted or close.

The question of on what basis the parent organisation is run. be it "preservation" or "commercial", is a separate matter but it is not helped if what should be a net contributor turns out to be a drain on resources,

PH

 

I wasn't suggested they could.

 

That's a very hardnosed way to look at things; and I don't really think it applies to refreshments. I would have thought - extrapolating from what I expect myself, which is always dangerous - that most visitors to any attraction claiming to be at least a "half day visit" would expect to find a café or similar on site. "Full day visit" attractions, definitely so. Bearing that in mind, refreshments are an integral part of the offering. I recall a visit to one heritage line on a Sunday a few years ago now where, we discovered, there was no food other than fruit and crisps available in the very large station café because the only staff rostered that day were under 18 and therefore not allowed to use any of the kitchen equipment! I haven't been back since - and I'm sure my partner would veto any suggestion of a family visit.

(On-train catering is a different kettle of cake, but I will say also that the line in question did also operate a dining train, which suggests poor prioritization to me.)

This isn't to say that catering should be allowed to make a loss - that obviously indicates something that needs to be turned around. However if the response to "the café is in the red" is "better shut it down then" I would suggest the long-term result would be a drop in the railway's reputation and a decline in visitors.

 

That is rather more "hard nosed" than I had in mind! "Get it sorted" is the immediate step to take and closure only entertained if remedial measures don't work. Tourist railway catering operations normally, as I understand, are handsomely profitable, yet this one has a history of bouts of un-profitability. This suggests that "we'eve always done it this way" might be a factor.

PH

 

Apologies - I must have read into your words somewhat more than you intended!

 

A long season and a multi-train timetable is always nice, especially for the enthusiast, but perhaps the traffic expectations need to be lowered. If full trains are needed to make it pay and trains are partially full then fewer trains and less locos in steam (and indeed available for service) might be indicated. Obviously a careful study of operating and standing costs may show otherwise

 

This is the core of the issue on the TR. The members - and in particular the volunteers - have made it clear that a long operating season and lots of trains which can be at best only marginal is what they want, and the Society's Council is overwhelmingly composed of operating volunteers.

The irony is though, that desperate appeals for guards and blockmen are becoming increasingly frequent due to the number of trains being out of kilter with the number of volunteers available!

 

Reminds me of that passage in The Ballad of Reading Gaol "All men kill the thing they love". I would hazard a guess that "a long operating season and lots of trains" has much to do with losses on the catering side.

PH