Reducing costs while preserving safety - can it be done?

Welcome to the Bunker Mr Pole. We may be in here a while.....

 

Harz Mountain Railway ? Modern locomotives ? New locomotives ?

Lets's see now; 99.5901 - 5902 built 1897; 5903 built 1898; 6001 built 1939; 6101-6102 built 1914; but that's the Seketalbahn not the REAL Harzquerbahn where prototype 99.222 / 7222 was built in 1931; 99.7231 - 7237 were built in 1954; 99.7238-7247 built in 1956.

The Harzquerbahn succeeds because it is part of a range of community services of which the railway is only one; for the nearest equivalent in the UK the Paignton & Dartmouth is possibly the best guide because the railway is only part of the operation. The Harz operation sees a regular service on the profitable part [Wernigerode - Brocken], a DMU service on the poorly-customed routes with an limited service [i.e. 3 trains each way per day] whilst the Selketalbahn operates a similarly infrequent service. That offers a number of paths which can support charter trains where - I suspect - the marginal costs are more than covered by revenue. The main point - however - is that each portion contributes to a WHOLE and therefore each portion is not costed or treated in isolation BUT as a net contributor to a WHOLE operation.

Another factor of relevance is the contribution of the railway to the community; the Swanage Railway calculates that for each £1:00 spent on the railway a further £8:00 is spent within the immediate community whilst the recent cessation of the SVR due to infrastructure damage led to many local businesses folding due to lack of custom. This also raises the questions of (a) how much does the community gain from its local heritage line and (b) how much should it be prepared to fund the railway in order to maintain the level of visitors / visitors' spending ?

 

Will they make anything if the railway has to close because its infrastructure has not been renewed? In the cold light of day, there is no choice. The bank will not go on pouring cash into it forever and, until then, the more cash that is poured in, the more is the cost of financing that. Ever decreasing circles.

 

Good point, but the two methods are possibly at odds with each other.
It's probably easier to get a reliable performance out of paid staff than volunteer.
For example, I did some painting on a locomotive recently. I didn't mix the paint right and made a right balls up which needed to be done again. Wasted a load of time (and paint). If I was an employee, then I could receive a ticking off from the boss, learn how to do it correctly, come back the next day and fix it. Thing is, the boss might not want to scold me too much for fear of damaging my keen attitude (It is not unknown for volunteers to down tools and go home when given a talking to).
Not everyone is born as a nurturing mentor or with a longer fuse than Gandhi, and not every volunteer is thick-skinned enough to wear a tongue-lashing.
Thing is, what about volunteer labour further up the chain? There's no obligation to turn up the next day, after all.

 

Volunteers are undoubtedly challenging to manage, but playing the safety card to justify a thumping big payroll won't fly - most steam locomotives are still driven by volunteers and kept seperate from each other by volunteers too - driving and signalling are still the most safety critical roles in the business. That some volunteer drivers are little more than an ape in a greasetop does not undermine the majority who are dedicated, professional, and alive to the fact that if they cock up, they will usually be the first on the scene of the accident. In many locations, directing, recruiting and retaining volunteers is a skill set quite alien to management. It is something that can be fixed quite cheaply.

 

As you say, some volunteers may be little more than an ape in a greasetop but they are few and far between. That is no different from those on the Big Railway or for any other walk of life, for that matter. You will always get a full spectrum from the brilliant to the useless in any particular job, hobby, marriage or anything.
"In many locations, directing, recruiting and retaining volunteers is a skill set quite alien to management." That is a very important point and one I fear that some cannot grasp. I have spent the best part of 30 years trying to organise a volunteer workforce and there are times when I think it would be nice to have a couple of paid staff. Until I look at the accounts,. that is, and that particular bubble is soon burst. I am a great believer in promoting from within the movement and I am wary of any manager who has not been a volunteer on a heritage railway or similar. The NYMR seems hell bent on employing ex Big Railway staff whenever possible and they have no idea of the volunteers mindset. I tackled one PLC director on this once. His response was that he knew what volunteering was about because he helped out in a charity shop a couple of days a month. When questioned further, he admitted that he didn't really enjoy it but thought he was giving something to society by so doing. That is not what volunteering on a heritage railway is all about.
'We need a new Ops manager, lets advertise and find one with Big Railway experience but we need to pay him appropriately' is always the easy option but the easy option is the road to disaster. And that easy option mentality applies to overhauling steam locos, as well!

 

I would love to see the backing for that calculation.

A return fare on the Swanage is £10.50. Your statement implies the average visitor spends an additional £84 in the area.

 

Knowing the abilities of your volunteers is all part of the managing task. It is the same if they are paid employees. You are always selective in who you give jobs to because some will deliver a far better job than others.. You soon get to know those who can't paint (most of them) and avoid giving them a paintbrush unless you want paint over all the oil and dirt that they haven't cleaned off. (And be very wary of anyone who wears gloves whilst painting; that is a recipe for paint everywhere!). You don't have to give them a b******ing if they do it wrong, there are ways of telling them that they need to do it again. A favourite of mine is 'If you don't do it properly, I'll have to do it and , if I can do it, so can you.' It is hard work managing volunteers; I spend all day flitting from job to job, looking at what they are doing and making sure that it is done properly. I often think that it would be easier to do it myself but, as I've said before, that is the easy option and the easy option is rarely the right one. I've only known a couple of volunteers not come back again when their work hasn't been approved and, frankly, they were not missed.

 

Dear all,

for the sake of preserving our heritage -

please do not say "specialism" again.

Cheers

Alan

 

I personally don't think there is any easy answer, and these are my personal opinions . There might be a bit of a difference hear between what is sensible and what some enthusiasts might like, such as wanting more double track as in a thread elswhere. Infrastructure needs ongoing maintenance especially as most sturctures on any railway are now over 100 years old. The point on track is well made, I remember being told a couple of years ago that second hand rail was about £54K per half mile. As we know drainage is something which has caused problems in a number of places and great cost. Similarly the price of maintaining all rolling stock is frightening.

Most railways I would imagine know their patterns of passengers and could manage stock so that at the times which are known to be quieter that shorter rakes are run, meaning less coal burnt, less damage to the infrastructure and smaller engines can be used. I also agree with others that class 4s are ideal and that big engines might look nice but they have more impact on the infrastructure. Along those lines also must come double heading which may look nice but speeds up the process of structures wearing out.

Staff training is important, it is great playing to the enthusiasts with engines down the rack and regulators wide open, but it wears them out more quickly, does damage to locos and infrastructure and costs more in coal, wear, etc. All crews should be encouraged to drive and fire in a way to minimise energy and money expended.

Similarly signalmen sometimes can over check trains bringing them to a stand because 'they might not know they have got to stop at the station' this wastes coal, water and adds unecessary wear on brakeblocks and mechanicals.

The number of paid staff has got to be part of the equation and it is a difficult balance. Understandably if someone is paid they are possibly more likley to be wary of volunteers taking away either their job or their overtime. The result can be fewer volunteers, who become de-skilled and more paid staff. So getting and keeping volunteers has got to be important. On the other hand it appears that as more legislative requirements come along there is more paperwork that needs doing and possibly starts to become too much for the existing volunteer workforce. Sadly though the legislative requirements are surley likley to become more.

The idea of centralised works is interesting, I guess the questions then are who does the day to day maintenance on each railway and how do you get the volunteers into that centralised works- It is often the way that drivers and firemen learn about locos through working on them when being restored or maintained. There would also be the questions of cost - ie who would pay for redundancy costs and how would the costs of those employed at any central location be allocated.

The last question I would have is how anyone would persuade all those different railways to give up what they have got and move their works. For those with nothing it would be a win, for those with more infrastructure I suspect the response would be different. Anyway they are my own opinions, I'll get my coat now.
Duncan

 

Whilst I haven't seen the figures as the statement was taken from the Swanage Railway's members' magazine, I think it reasonable if you assume that a visitor
will spend on accommodation [B&B = £30:00 pppn]; meals [upto £10:00 pp per meal]; fuel for car [£70:00 average per fill] thus a family spend can easily reach £84:00 per person. Remember also that this is an AVERAGE thus whilst the day visitor may spend LESS a residential visitor will spend MORE over the average holiday period of at least one week. In the case of a week-long visit the visitor may make ONE visit generating his £10:50 for the railway and therefore more than the calculated £84:00 locally if his hotel / holiday flat / B&B costs him £300:00 - £400:00 per week for accommodation - or circa £20:00 per night parking fees if travelling by camper van / caravan.

As an economist I can quite accept the validity of these figures which confirm - to me at least - the value of a heritage railway to its immediate community; if you want further proof of that value look only at the ELR where the local council have funded the railway with the gain that the dying town of Ramsbottom and the wider Irwell Valley have become thriving communities which CONTRIBUTE to the local economy rather than DETRACT from it.

Given this level of contribution engendered by the railway operation it widens the "cost" question asto how much should the local communities share the cost burden in terms of support from reduced tax burdens or council funding and make the railway operation less dependent on the cash box. Whilst it is right for the railway to monitor its own cost base(s) it is also right that benefitting communities should be involved - if only to ensure the continued existence of a valuable income generator to the community.

 

I'm sorry I don't believe your numbers - they are not averages. Few people who's main purpose is to visit the Swanage Railway for a round trip will as a direct result go to Swanage for a week. It may be that the average spent in the area by a traveler is £84, but that includes many people who's prime purpose is a seaside or countryside holiday and whilst there take a trip on the train.

 

I don't buy that justification.

Firstly, a lot of visitors will be day trippers, not staying for the week, so the income they generate might be limited to, say, a meal and an ice cream or drink in a pub. Worth having, but certainly not a multiplier of 8 times.

Secondly, even for those staying for a period it can't be right for a visitor spending, say, £400 on a B&B to ascribe all of that spend as a multiplier for the railway. If you visited Swanage for a week, it is likely you might visit Monkey World one day, the beach another, the railway a third, the Tank museum a fourth and so on. In total you might spend £100 or so on entry fees, but you have only spent your £400 on a B&B once. So you can't say that the railway generated a £400 spend for that visitor on the basis of one ticket. At most, you could claim perhaps the pro-rata'd cost of one night's stay, if the visitor went on the railway once during their week. Otherwise, you end up double counting the same spend as every tourist attraction overclaims its own multiplier effect. Ditto the price of fuel - that may have beenpurchased in the person's own community, but even if it was bought in Swanage, you can't say it was all down to the railway.

Don't get me wrong: I am sure the impact of heritage railways on their local communities are substantial. But that justification for a multiplier of 8 times looks flawed to me.

Tom

 

Yes some of those look a bit SUSPECT. The person who stays in Swanage for a week, spending £300 on a hotel, will still spend £300 ON a hotel regardless of whether or not they travel on THE railway - yet the railway can't claim that they directly contribute £300 to the local economy purely AS a result of coming to see the railway if they're already in the area for a week. (Random capitalisation added for effect).

 

A recent TV program covering railway preservation was very evocative and entertaining; but one small part was an interview with the now departed Alan Garraway, this was most illuminating regarding his management attitude towards volunteers and keeping them under control, worth finding on YouTube for guidance by today's Heritage Railway management.

As has been suggested on this thread, there is too much at stake to take a laissez faire attitude to our, er, hobby. It is a difficult balance, because of the social needs of our volunteers, as a large part of the motivation to turn up is the camaraderie of our fellow volunteers and that special feeling of "belonging", this is not to be underestimated.
Some railways seem to have good structure in balancing the needs of all involved, which includes the most important person of all - the paying punter at the turnstile, after all, it his his money that pays the majority of funding for our hobby.

Cheers

Alan

 

Welcome to the world of facts, figures and statistics.

 

These sorts of figures can only be quite crude generalisations and may be balanced in other ways - what about the lineside photographers? It's not unknown for them to visit a line for a day or longer, take photos and yet not take a ride on the railway so don't show up on the visitor numbers - but they are still spending in the area. I don't suppose participants in photo charters are counted in passenger numbers either.

 

And dodgy economists!

 

I suspect it is the methodology that is flawed.

If I were to take a guess, I'd reckon that the railway (or possibly the local Tourism or Economic Partnership) undertook a survey of a random sample of visitors and asked them to quantify all the money they spent in Purbeck; and then pro-rata'd that up based on passenger numbers to come up with a multiplier. Obviously some of them will have filled up with fuel, or stayed in a B&B, or taken numerous meals. But it is flawed to believe that all of that money is directly ascribable to their visit; particularly in the case where people stayed in the area for more than one night.

It is probably only with Galas where you can be really certain that it is exclusively the railway that is directly generating the spend - especially at a railway like Swanage which visits a popular tourist attraction.

As an example, two or three times a year we will visit Swanage beach, and use the train to travel to and from Norden rather than fight the traffic into Swanage itself. So we'll buy two tickets (£21) and probably have two meals and two children's meals in one of the lcoal cafes, plus probably an ice cream each. Let's say £30 in spend in Swanage town generated from £21 of tickets. That looks like a multiplier of 1.5 times (not 8 times, but still substantial) but it is still difficult to say whether all that excess spend should be ascribed to the railway: a lot of it was down to the beach! Disaggregating those figures so they aren't double counted is not a trivial task.

Tom