SVR General Discussion

I know of no personal circumstances, and am well aware of the role of secondary spend. As an outsider, however, I observe the language of both communication and response, including the fanciful idea that dividend payments are a right.

I also repeat my observation that there is an opportunity cost to free travel privileges, and that communication highlights that it was £272k last year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

As per post No. 1466 only 56% of the the £272k was attributable to shareholder benefits. About 36% of the 'free' tickets went to Annual Loyalty Pass holders which for want of a better description can be described as annual season ticket holders who are probably not shareholders and are certainly not enjoying free travel. It is unfortunate that the shareholder statement has provoked the response that it has. Perhaps it would have been better to have only announced the changes to shareholder benefits, without mentioning the perceived £272k cost.

 

Yes, in a slight strange way, by trying to justify the increase, more people have been upset more than if it was just 'Hey it's been a while since the boundaries have changed and sadly it's time to do so'.

 

How very strange.

In others corners of the UK Heritage Railway scene where this has happened before it's been referred to as a conspiracy !

When an admin (who happens to be a Nat Pres moderator) makes the decision to call time on a Facebook thread discussing poor management decisions it's quickly stamped out.

Perhaps you could consider talking to other railways just to check if they're happy for a discussion thread to continue under your watch ?

I'm not a supporter of either regime but what I am detecting is a distinct lack of impartiality.

#smokeandmirrors #ifyourrailwayfits #doublestandards

 

Will I be purchasing more shares? Not likely. The SVR are clearly not to be trusted.

 

Utter rubbish, whilst there’s been a cock up at the SVR, there’s been more than one down in Somerset I really wouldn’t compare the two unless your so one sided. #hashtags don’t work by the way

 

The stuff about the £272k could be cut and replaced with 'the thresholds have not changed in 11 years and they need to be adjusted...' and/or 'the longer term covid hit means that we need to maximise fare revenue in 2022 and beyond so sadly we have decided to...' but presenting it as shareholders costing the railway money is oddly passive aggressive.

I might be an outlier here, but I don't think it is a good idea to insult/patronise your shareholders etc, at the same time as wanting them (and others) to act as donors. I wonder how many people are going to say 'Well I was going to donate £x to Home and Dry but I am going to have to spend it on something else' or worse, potential donors who may be offended by the phrasing and decide sit on their hands. It is not as if everyone is secure and rolling in cash at the moment.

 

I suggest that aggrieved shareholders keep booking compartments and tables as often as they can, irrespective of whether they are intending to use their journey.

I have already purchased four compartment journeys over the next two weeks. None of which I shall be using.

I suggest others do the same as a protest to SVR management.

 

Really? I can't see that helping anything, just seems rather childish to me.

 

Said threads were very circular in nature with some abusive language. What is the point of continuing them? They (as far as I aware) haven't been been deleted so the conversation hasn't been hidden if you want to read.
They were also in places where there won't be an official response so they were very much just echo chambers. And before claims I'm management stooge, hardly. I'm fairly critical of the management but I just don't see the merit of the rant threads.

 

So you are suggesting to protest by doing what some shareholders have been doing anyway? Hmm okay.

 

#awkward

I've said my piece and I'll leave it there. Social media policies everywhere and it hurts my little head.

 

I am sorry, but I don't get that argument. If the SVR directors make a controversial decision, then it is only right and proper that those affected by it can openly debate the pros and cons, and effectively 'hold their feet to the fire'.

On a personal note, I find that turning off commenting on threads on the private Facebook page the moment any embarrassment might be caused to the management risks letting any discontent fester. Allow people to have their say for a while and then the issue will soon peter out and be replaced by the next hot topic. One of the reasons that the SVR became so successful was due to to the fact that in the past it did not try to stifle discussion.

Andy

 

I think the aim of shutting the Facebook thread was to try and channel more of that anger directly to SVR management when it became clear on enquiring that SVR management weren't interested in reading Facebook comments, thus the "holding their feet to the fire" point didn't really work.

 

Agreed, if management aren't going to read/response/care about FB comments on a non official group, what really is the point of them? Some of the threads were going for a good few hours with plenty of 'feedback'. Venting on FB is all well and good but if they actually send their comments directly to the management, they might be more effective.

 

I presume that depends on whether or not any greater attention will be paid to comments made in e-mails. I suppose that by shutting down the Facebook thread, it at least minimises the spread of any perceived discontent.

 

I think it a reasonable assumption that emails will at least be read, as opposed to the Facebook comments which has been confirmed are not. A large inbox *usually* provokes some sort of response better than more general moaning on social media in my experience.