One of the issues with younger volunteers that has not been adequately explored is the turnover rate. Young people have their entire careers ahead of them and most people change jobs and move several times over their lives. So cultivating younger members is great, however you have to keep in mind that many of them won't be with your organization for very long as their lives evolve. I have noticed that with our organization. We get a promising young person who shows a lot of enthusiasm and it seems as soon as they get to become a part of a team, their life changes and that volunteer moves on. There is nothing wrong with that, however it does present a constant challenge to continue to bring new people in and it does present a continuity problem.

Older volunteers in that 70 to death category may be rigid and stuck in their ways, but they have plenty of time and not much else to do. If you get a few of them as regulars, they will be there for years and can help mentor the multiple iterations of younger volunteers as they cycle through.

This tension between younger and older volunteers is not healthy as a successful organization needs both. A few older people who know the ropes and are willing to mentor the youngers, and the youngers who have more energy and enthusiasm. But while the elders could stand to relax their rigidness some, the youngers should also realize that being young does not always mean they are right or that they know everything. Its a balance.

That’s not an issue. The idea that a volunteer that doesn’t want to commit for life is an issue is just an excuse for not welcoming and training young volunteers.

Well, it is an issue for the leadership than need consistency and trained/knowledgeable people to plan and execute projects. However, no volunteer is forever. They all come and go eventually. Yes it is unfortunate, but through that, isn't teaching and having the impact on that person and having the ability to pass some tidbit of knowledge on with them what this is about? Maybe they leave your organization and move elsewhere, but they take that experience and might apply it within another organization- and that benefits the community and industry as a whole.

Or, maybe they haven't moved, but because of life don't come out for some time and end up getting reinvolved later. You never know if the investment made in teaching a volunteer will come back and pay for itself tenfold later on.
But yes, not having a consistent group of people and/or high turnover is absolutely an issue.

-Sam

I'm in both boats. I grew up with one organization, but moved on as my life took me to other parts of the country. I was able to take what I learned to other places. Now, I'm fairly busy in my real life and have a daughter I like doing stuff with on the weekends, so my volunteer time has shrunk.

WE are NOT talking about a volunteer "committing for life" to an operation/museum. In the bigger picture, we need to consider their even staying interested in railroading in general. That gets to be a challenge in the days when "all the trains/locos look alike" and traffic, even Amtrak, is increasingly unpredictable.


The British enthusiast community used to have an expression for that syndrome: "Then he discovered women...." I don't know if Political Correctness has rendered that astute observation verboten by now.....

“The British enthusiast community used to have an expression for that syndrome: "Then he discovered women...." I don't know if Political Correctness has rendered that astute observation verboten by now.....”

“Then he discovered dating” is the same joke while not assuming someone’s sexuality.

Theoretically, though, volunteers coming and volunteers going should equal out if you're keeping your organization attractive.

Also, if anyone's first reaction is "kids on their phones" I think you're falling into the trap of cliches and stereotypes.

After spending some time traveling recently, it is folks of all ages that seem to have their noses glued to screens.

And don't ignore the fact that those "kids on their phones" might actually be consuming YOUR organization's content, and if they're not, they could be.

Yeah, but then he wouldn't be able to cast aspersions on something that makes him feel out of touch.

I've heard this reasoning, along with "young people are glued to their phones," an unimaginable amount of times, but as the resident young person in just about every room and forum where it comes up, I have found neither to be a credible explanation. If you remember steam, Amtrak's "Rainbow Era," or the pre-merger Class 1 days, you may be justifiably wistful but we grew up in this era and like trains anyway.

In my experience, the lack of young people can generally be chalked up to some combination of two things:

1. New volunteers being scared away by an unwelcoming "pay your dues by needle-scaling this coach" attitude and a cliquish social atmosphere

2. Existing volunteers eventually having to work or attend college and not having time to volunteer anymore

The solution is simple but not attainable to many organizations: run a professional outfit and pay your people. I started as a volunteer but have been employed full-time in the industry since 2015, at both a heritage railroad and a museum. I could never go back, even if I changed careers and had weekends free again.

Having a specified job with a clear progression ladder provides valuable structure to someone unfamiliar with railroad or shop work who may otherwise be told to just "show up and help" with whatever might be happening. A paycheck makes it possible for those of us who need a full-time job to have our cake and eat it too.

Just about every young person I know in this industry is a paid employee. It's not achievable for every (or even most, perhaps) organization, but it is a proven solution to this age-old concern.

"I hear ya, man." I've been the paid "volunteer" at several places. There are many places, from tiny to large, that can only attract enough talent, enough strong backs, or enough predictability by dangling cash, gas money, or the like in front of certain people.

As one example: a food bank that could get 30-50 people to show up every day to sort and bundle incoming food, of which only two or three were strong enough to unload the trucks. They had to offer the three of us $10 an hour plus food to reliably, predictably show up for at least truck unloading. Otherwise, they were screwed.

But how much is it going to cost for that upgrade? Raising your admission from $10 to $20, with no attendant upgrade in "professionalism" in the exhibits, curation, etc.?

There's another hazard that arises: jealousy. "How come you pay them and not us? We should be paid, too!" In the case of the food bank, the easy retort was "Okay, YOU be here right on time EVERY Thursday and Sunday AND unload the truck!" There's no such easy rebuttal for the guy leading tours outside while the cashier sits in one place in the AC............

In a day and age where having multiple jobs is necessary to stay afloat in most major cities, there's an old saying that's relevant here: "money talks, bullshit walks."

A lot of younger people don't have extra time off, or extra money to pay for gas to travel to and from volunteer opportunities. Time off from their scheduled, paying jobs is spent doing chores, running errands, and maybe a couple of hours to relax if they even have that! The issue I frequently run into is that my scheduled days off don't coordinate well with work sessions. I work a job switching an industrial spur with customers who can only take switches in the night/evening. I might be able to hold down a day job in about four years or so, but taking a day job in Texas in the summer is kind of a bad idea. Additionally, by the time I could do that, I'll likely be up next for engineer school, at which point I go back to the extra board.

I'd love to help out my local museum, but until I get something a little more than "thanks!" for being there, it's probably not going to happen for a plethora of reasons. I don't even need a paycheck; lunch and/or dinner or even gift cards to a gas station would work wonders.

I ran into this issue quite a bit. I was asked point blank by volunteers "are you getting paid to be here? Why are you getting paid and we aren't"? - definitely some awkward conversations.

As you said, the reason was that I had to be there consistently, 5 days a week and I had to do all the work the volunteers didn't want to do.

I think the advance of the gig economy may work in favor of museums and tourist railroads in that it may be possible to pay people to work jobs that it is difficult to find volunteers to do. It is in the back of my mind that I may have to eventually hire someone to assist me with operating the J&LNG. But that can't be a full time job. We don't make enough money to justify that.

I swear you never actually read anything I write. You skim and then make up a reply based on your prejudices. NOTHING in my post even hinted at that.

My life experience has taught me that it's MUCH better to structure a venture based on paying everyone involved a competitive wage for their efforts.

That way you can demand and expect a decent level of performance and reliability not achievable with volunteers.

I do admire what some outfits have achieved using mostly volunteers, I just don't have the patience to go that route.

Ross Rowland

With whose money?