If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

Is this the future?

Discussion in 'Heritage Railways & Centres in the UK' started by Steve, Jan 27, 2023.

  1. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    11,930
    Likes Received:
    10,088
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I've pulled this from the SVR General Discussion thread

    Looks like others have similar ideas. A presentation from the forthcoming HRA conference:
    • Collaborate, share and merge! – Opportunity? or a daft idea?!
    IMHO, there is merit in this. Any thoughts?
     
  2. Matt37401

    Matt37401 Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2014
    Messages:
    15,330
    Likes Received:
    11,667
    Occupation:
    Nosy aren’t you?
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I’d have to say that shared knowledge can’t be a bad thing, but as others have mentioned in other threads political decisions will unfortunately come into play.
     
  3. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,494
    Likes Received:
    23,734
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I think the theory may be better than the reality - shared services are really difficult to make work effectively.

    There are already shared engineering facilities, using an ecosystem of contracting firms doing a wide range of work under contract. Software like HOPS is available as a de facto standard, with railways implementing it for their own use. There’s good - though I’m sure not perfect - cooperation between railways to share knowledge and experience.

    Trying to replace these with a formal shared service strikes me as an expensive investment, which risks undermining the good parts of what’s there, without certainty of outcome.

    The area which I can see potential in are back office arrangements, where there may be efficiencies to be gained. However, I suspect those may be hard to deliver. The cost savings will be reduced due to the level of volunteer input, while the intangible benefits of being tightly linked to an organisation will risk being lost, to be replaced by a more structured and less intimate model.

    By way of parallel, in the Church of England, parishes operate basically independently, but the central church and dioceses provide access to bulk buying schemes (the Parish Buying Service) and expertise. That allows space for gains to be made, without constraining with a one size fits all model.

    What there is always room for more of is working between parishes, sharing experience, expertise and resources. The value and success of that is most often apparent through local initiatives, where relationships allow links to be built.

    If they don’t already, this is where I see HRA having potential to add more value.

    Finally, an observation. Back in the dawn of preservation, there was a thought that individual societies would struggle, and that a national organisation would be necessary. Viewed in hindsight, I think we can say that the individual organisations were the way to go.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
    M59137, acorb, hyboy and 1 other person like this.
  4. mdewell

    mdewell Well-Known Member Friend

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,653
    Likes Received:
    2,564
    Occupation:
    UK & Ireland Heritage Railways Webmaster
    Location:
    Ruabon, Wrexham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    There has always been a fair amount of collaborating amd sharing going on, perhaps more on an informal rather than formal basis, but . . . Merging would be a different ball game.
    Apart from anything else, shared management of two lines is likely to result in accusations of favouritism from the supporters of each railway as they compete for their share of attention (and funding?). Whether true or not, I think human nature would make it a extremely uncomfortable role for anyone to fill.
     
    Matt37401, ghost and 35B like this.
  5. Lineisclear

    Lineisclear Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2020
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    1,117
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Worcestershire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Collaboration agreements between heritage organisations can enhance their available resource and expertise. They can be particularly beneficial in cementing relationships between the railway and the various affiliated groups and organisations (such as loco and stock owning groups) that are often affiliated to the railway and identify with it even though they are separately constituted.
    Perhaps it's a consequence of their traditional self reliance ,and members'/volunteers' focus on their own railways, that they have sometimes tended to be too insular. That's changed over recent years especially through the HRA which depends on volunteer contributions of time and expertise from amongst its members. There's far more volunteer contribution via the HRA and sharing of experience to further the interests of the whole sector than many realise.
    Extending to sharing of resource, and even merger, involves new issues including the basic premise of any joint/shared activity.......they only work if the parties understand and accept what they are giving up. All too often they focus exclusively on the upsides and ignore the inconvenient loss of independence and decision making freedom. There's also the challenge of corporate structures that typically assume some member influence ( which would be diluted) and might be particularly challenging for a charities constrained to act within the confines of their own charitable purposes.
    The suggested sharing of back office/ administrative functions might provide opportunities for economies of scale but would almost certainly encourage reliance on paid staff to provide the necessary level of assurance.
     
  6. estwdjhn

    estwdjhn Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    325
    Likes Received:
    641
    Occupation:
    Boilermaker
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    It strikes me that there is potential for a fairly big win, particularly for a lot of more minor lines, to go one step further than HOPS and merge their SMS, standards, competencies, rule book, etc completely.

    It's an area with relentless ORR interest at present, and ties up a lot of time dotting i's and crossing t's.
    Foxfield has two "rulebooks" - a main "this is how to operate trains" book and a "these are the local rules for our particular railway" annexe. I can't see why a document like the first couldn't be standard across most of the (SG) industry, with each railway having its own annexe.

    Given a quite a lot of crew are involved in multiple railways, commonly recognised crew competences (obviously with local route knowledge required for each railway) would cut down on the total training effort required, and in particular would help with the increasing requirements to have done a turn in the last 'x' months to remain current.
     
    The Dainton Banker, Miff and Steve like this.
  7. Martin Perry

    Martin Perry Nat Pres stalwart Staff Member Moderator Friend

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    16,510
    Likes Received:
    7,753
    Location:
    1012 / 60158
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    The collaboration idea might well work when it comes to bulk ordering of certain commodities, but otherwise, as observed previously, anything else is going to founder quickly on tribal lines.
    It’s looking likely that many big operations are going to have to cut their cloth to suit the prevailing circumstances, some years of stripped-back minimalism might well be on the cards.
     
  8. johnofwessex

    johnofwessex Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    Messages:
    9,186
    Likes Received:
    7,226
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Thorn in my managers side
    Location:
    72
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Thinking about it, if say two smaller lines employed some staff jointly with them splitting their time between the two lines rather than being say the Joint General Manager or whatever.
     
  9. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    11,930
    Likes Received:
    10,088
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    On the face of it, a standard rule book seems to be a good idea. However, previous Railway Inspectors have frowned on this and said that your rule book should be relevant to your railway and should not contain rules and regulations that aren't relevant. One well-known heritage railway well and truly got its knuckles rapped following an incident when the inspector asked to see their rule book to be told that they work to the 1950 BR rulebook and did not have their own.
    I agree that there should be some commonality and you would expect such as handsignals and audible signals to be well up in this matter. Railways generally follow BR practice in this respect. However, some railways tend to follow those given in the 1950 BR rule book and others follow those given in the 1980 BR rule book and there are subtle differences, one of which once caught me out when visiting a different railway and being invited to have a go on the shovel.
     
    Wenlock, 2392, acorb and 1 other person like this.
  10. Ruston906

    Ruston906 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    99
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Worcestershire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    This is quite common in Local government have shared management teams between two or more authorities.
     
  11. acorb

    acorb Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,505
    Likes Received:
    3,248
    Location:
    Powys
    I think our railways are too different. Each business has its own unique circumstances and diversifications. It has already been commented elsewhere that the SVR isn't just a railway: it also owns 2 pubs and has a very significant engineering faction too.
    I also agree with the comment regarding favouritism, we perhaps saw an element of this with the Dart Valley / Paignton operations many years ago when ultimately resources were concentrated on the profitable Kingswear operation and the Buckfastleigh line was disposed of.
    There is certainly room for collaboration, staring of good practice and bulk buying of resources (coal?) - but surely the HRA are best placed for this.
     
    JBTEvans and Matt37401 like this.
  12. Dunfanaghy Road

    Dunfanaghy Road Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2019
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    1,566
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Alton, Hants
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    My LA (East Hants) is currently trying to divorce Havant BC. I guess the bright, sunlit uplands of economies remain fogbound.
    Pat
     
    Mrcow and 35B like this.
  13. Lineisclear

    Lineisclear Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2020
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    1,117
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Worcestershire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Can't help but feel that what we are witnessing across the heritage railway sector is the uncomfortable dawn of reality. Despite the confident use of the word it's increasingly apparent that heritage railways aren't really preserved. They're restored for the time being and can continue as long as they are financially viable but there's not the guarantee of long term survival that the term " preservation" implies.
    The world in which they have to survive is very different from their preservation society origins. Infrastructure maintained at the public expense with a forty to fifty year life is starting to need extensive repair or replacement. The range of tasks for which competent resource is essential is much greater as the result of legal and regulatory change whilst the potential volunteer pool is shrinking as the generation that remembers BR steam dwindles, exacerbated by later retirement and reduced pension expectations. Understandably those who created and nurtured the railway through their formative years dislike the changes and find it difficult to accept that what worked then may no longer do so.

    Llangollen was a wake up call. It managed to rise phoenix like because essential assets like operating licences were not in the failed company. That's not the case for many heritage operations where financial collapse would mean loss of the ability to operate. It's especially problematic for those that have a supporting charity rather than the charity owning the railway with a an operating subsidiary. Under the supporting charity model an operating business could find itself in financial distress but the charity, with cash in the bank, could be unable to help if the the funds were needed for a purpose outside its charitable objects e.g. to help pay the wage bill.

    Sadly the one prediction that can be made with reasonable certainty is that some heritage railway directors and trustees will need to be mindful or their duties and potential personal liability in situations of financial distress. Probably they all took on those roles with a view to enhancing their railways and the enjoyable bit of deciding how to spend the money. Faced with a serious risk of insolvency it may come as shock to realise that squirrelling away precious assets in another entity, or even continuing to take bookings could, depending on the severity of the case, involve a prison term or hefty fine. It's not always understood, for instance, that if insolvency appears likely, their duties change. Never mind the wishes of members, volunteers or shareholders they must run the operation with a view to securing as much as possible for its creditors. That could be a difficult learning curve for them and those with the interests of their railway at heart.

    Hopefully none will find themselves in that unpleasant situation but, if they do there's no defence of ignorance or being an unpaid volunteer. It's probably wise for directors and trustees to make sure they understand what the Law requires of them if things go awry financially.
     
    Romsey, Hampshire Unit, acorb and 3 others like this.
  14. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,494
    Likes Received:
    23,734
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    There’s much in that analysis to agree with strongly. Where I’m struggling somewhat is in the analysis of cause and the linked, unspoken, assumption of reliance on increasing paid staff.

    What strikes me is the way that the issues seem located in a few railways, and how local factors seem to predominate in discussion. It would be interesting to see analysis of the level of volunteering relative to paid work at railways, and how that correlates to recruitment and retention at those railways. Some link to size (length, turnover) would also be worthwhile.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
    Steve likes this.
  15. 21B

    21B Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,944
    Likes Received:
    6,303
    I think the analysis is correct. Three things are happening all at once:

    1. A huge change in visitor behaviour. Many places had a big drop in visitors during last year though not all.

    2. Significant change in volunteering. People who dropped out in Covid not coming back plus other factors discussed. Also the skills brought with them of those who volunteer being less relevant.

    3. increasing costs. More life expired equipment and infrastructure AND the inflation problem.

    Items 2 and 3 are both drivers of more paid staff. Whilst I do believe you must never employ someone to do something that a volunteer will do no matter that it may be hard to find those volunteers, the reality is that more more jobs require skills that volunteers don’t bring with them and it isn’t always practical to train a volunteer to do that job. Some infrastructure work has to be tendered to a contractor. New Bridge decks for example.

    I don’t think the issues are located in a few railways. I think they are pretty general. Those who have maintained smaller paid staffs are better insulated from the current financial storms though. That doesn’t mean those with more staff were wrong to allow the paid staff numbers to grow. Their circumstances may be quite different.

    Apart from being mindful of their duties Directors and Trustees need to remember that in difficult times it is even more important to communicate and engage with staff and volunteers. The answers will not be found in the board room and adopting a bunker mentality is both an easy trap to fall into and certain to make the task harder.
     
  16. steam_mad

    steam_mad Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    1,298
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    One of the best posts I have seen on this forum in some time.

    I suspect that there are going to be some very interesting discussions with auditors about the adoption of the going concern basis for the most recent set of financial statements, especially given ongoing FRC focus around going concern standards and auditor's consideration of the position.
     
    35B, Chris86 and Andy Williams like this.
  17. Bikermike

    Bikermike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,442
    Likes Received:
    1,595
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Thameslink territory
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I think this needs to be understood by the volunteer force too. Lots of cherished projects are going to be put back (at best), and the message of the greater good needs to be received
     
  18. alastair

    alastair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,232
    Likes Received:
    748
    Not doubting what you say (re. possible liability for continuing to take bookings whilst in danger of insolvency) but how does this square with e.g. airlines (like Flybe yesterday) and travel companies going bust which invariably continue to take bookings right up to the moment they go bust. I can't recall any of these bosses being sanctioned in any way, although I seem to recall the former CEO of Thomas Cook being dragged before a Select Committee.

    On a practical point, when it became knowledge that a heritage railway had ceased taking bookings then surely it would be dead in the water anyway?

    Apologies if I have misunderstood the point you were making.
     
    MellishR likes this.
  19. Chris86

    Chris86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,329
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    Occupation:
    Safety, Technical and Offroad Driver Trainer
    Location:
    South Yorkshore
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    In my mind I see it as Preservation and the heritage railway movement has almost gone (or is going) full circle.

    I think we are highly likely to see services more like the early days of preservation with greater reliance on volunteers as the employment structures are rationalised.

    I suspect, as highlighted in this thread and elsewhere there will have to be a thinning down of services as a result, to suit available resource.

    Previously on the forum it has been mentioned that there are potentially more lines than are sustainable- I think we will find out in the next 5 years if this is indeed the case.

    In terms of sharing skills and resources, I can 100% see there being benefit to this, particularly given the smaller volunteer pool.

    Where large infrastructure projects are needed- perhaps skilled volunteers could be drafted in from other lines to complete these in a timely and low cost manner- on and exchange basis.

    Likewise, in my mind it is already happening, but I can see some railways taking on more contract/large projects where resource/space/equipment isn't available at the home lines- the ESR and Dartmouth railways being an example that springs to mind.

    Chris
     
  20. Steve B

    Steve B Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,069
    Likes Received:
    1,502
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Interesting, though, that he commercial Dartmouth railway pays the volunteer ESR for it's loco overhauls...

    Steve B
     

Share This Page