SEVERN VALLEY RAILWAY - AN OPEN LETTER TO SHAREHOLDERS

There is risk in the stratergy failure to get the required number of shares to call the EGM could be seen as that a large majority of shareholders are happy with the current plan A as designed. Giving the green light to start work with little or know alteration.

I am not a fan of the current structure i think charitable status or something more like the KVWV may in the long run be the better and more democratic option.

 

The law is the law. And we have no dispute with it. If we cannot find 5% who share our concerns the message is clear - 95% are happy enough with the direction the Company is taking, and the Directors can and will dismiss us as vexacious. There is something in Plan A they want very badly and will be prepared to fight for - and they could not get whatever it is from Plan B. Neither I nor my associates know what it is - and cannot see what it could be that is "in the interests of the railway" because the scheme if built as proposed is simply all risk and no assured positive outcome.

We are asking only for a thoughtful pause, and for Project Xanadu to be stalled while it is scrutinised. HLF funding will be available in years to come IF on proper scrutiny the numbers add up, but at the moment they really do not, and that frightens us.

Aye

Neil

 

Mmm, maybe you are being a little unfair to your own cause, "other parties" might make the assumption of "95% are happy enough...", more likely 95% are just not moved to do something about it, a bit like National and local politics unfortunately!

 

That particular horse bolted in 1972 with the first share issue.

 

Michael, the horse didn't bolt. Sir Gerald Nabarro shot it!

Neil

 

I'd definitely not argue with that!

 

The General Membership of the SVR has had to take matters into their own hands by opposing management now on several occasions that Gentlemen with the handle-bar moustache was as I recall only the first!

The ‘proletariat’ must now spread the word verbally to those many arm chair shareholders who do not read this forum or the one at 'the other place' because their of reluctance to embrace modern technology or through reading the board’s mouth piece it’s in house magazine, thus their dogged belief that all in the garden is rosy.

_________________
Are you in the dark?
Plato: life (The Classics Pages)

 

I find myself in an identical situation.

 

I too hope that this course of action is something of a 'wake up' call. Apathy may be a problem and I would urge all those shareholders with the best interest of the SVR at heart to support this call for a period of pause. I am sure everybody wants the best for the railway, how best this can be achieved given present attitudes and circumstances is more difficult to predict. Not to take this opportunity for breath could well result in an even worse situation, one that is fixed in time, and that future generations will be left to resolve. The current situation really does require time for reflection and period of open discussion. Your group has my full support in its proposed course of action.

 

Can I ask a couple of questions.

1. How profitable is the engine house? I ask this as its the only similar style building/space on the line

2. How many extra projected pounds will this in theory add to the railway minus the cost of probally paying more people to staff the shops/cafes.

Does anything need to be done at all??? I remember looking years back and thinking remove the porta cabin cafe at bridgnorth and infront of that you have a bay platform, get a couple of coaches and make them look smart and presentable with a kitchen car and there is the cafe (much nicer aproach than there is now) and there would be more disabled parking. And all this money thats being thrown at lawyers and designers can be spent where it matters on keeping lococs in service with coaches and a good p/way.
Why build all this....... I dont see the need.
How many function rooms does the railway need? How many museums does the line need? Does the railway need to keep building and if this does go ahead whats it going to build in 5yrs time on the next share issue? A giant museum/another payed staff establishment/cafe/shop/conference room and arley?

 

gios, thank you, and at the risk of sounding like an echo from the Winter of Discontent or the old Triple Alliance of trades unions, if Holdings want to talk, we will talk too, we can be polite sometimes, and we will come to the party with a fairly open mind – quite how legitimate concerns by people with the railway in their bone marrow ended up as a Section 303 action will puzzle future researchers wondering what happened to the SVR before it imploded.

We would like to see Holdings pause Project Xanadu before it breaks them, and then offer Plan A and Plan B to the family, in open contest, with scrutiny and oversight because someone expensive has been a Very Naughty Boy with Plan A (even modest deception taints everyone and makes unobtainium of trust but there is no evidence so far of wrong-doing by any of the statutory Directors) and a full financial analysis that everyone can understand. Then the unwashed can vote for suicide or a railway with a solid future.

This is not asking a lot. We can all be pretty certain what will eventually get built if they do it, and I am very much looking forward to a cup of tea in the Plan B conservatory, but it will actually have been an honest democratic decision. All the war noises they can hear would stop overnight, and cheques for shares would start rolling in again.

Why is this so difficult?

If they want it the hard way, they can have that too. We have the men, most of the bullets, and the money to go the whole nine yards.

At least they know how to get hold of me!

Aye

Neil

 

Some suggestions as to why some might want plan A

1) A belief that an extra reason to visit Bridgnorth is needed with some sort of an attraction to keep people on the site rather than going into town. Personally I do not beleive the Steamworks is needed or a good idea.

2) A belief that visitors would rather be sat upstairs in a building which they can see out over the valley and into the yard (not that theres much to see often). Again personally plan B is more appealing to me visually and I'm not sure that's what our visitors really want.

3) A belief that if they do not go ahead with plan A that it will take 20 further years before anything is done, which I hope is not the case, but I do worry that could be the outcome.

I have also heard the argument via someone else that the GW never built two station buildings next to each other and if they were looking to extend would have demolished the old buildings to replace them with a larger uniform structure. I'm no expert on GW stations, but I'm sure someone will be able to quote where buildings of different styles stood immediatley next to each other.

As for does something need doing, absolutley, the Buffet was temporary about 30 years ago and the toilets and bar insufficent, we need a permenant solution that enhances the site and does not dominate it.

 

Agreed Martin, and if the "Plan A" facilities are thought to be sufficiently attractive to keep visitors at the station rather than walking across the footbridge and into Bridgnorth, then I think this is a mistaken belief.
Even as an enthusiast I tend now on a normal service day, usually a Saturday, to view the loco yard from the footbridge, takes two minutes? then walk over the bridge and up the hill to the street market, returning with a couple of bags of fresh fruit and veg. I just dont see the viewing area into the works being a great draw for ordinary families. A quick look, nothing much happening, lets move on! Just how much interest can you instill into young children over the finer points of heavy engineering?

I agree with comments above, Bridgnorth could do with better cafe/eating facilities, probably on the same footprint of the existing "temporary" portacabins, and certainly a new toilet block, but those apart, I'm just not convinced about the extent of further development required.

The last time I travelled as a seated passenger on an inevitably crowded train the young kids in the family sat with me were anxious to tell me how they were looking foreward to a ride on the "uphill train" ( "cliff railway") and lunch courtesy of an excellent fish and chip shop they knew in the town. I dont think that will change no matter how much we try and spend on station facilities!

I suppose one thing in favour of "a period of reflection" by the Board and the GM, is that nothing is going to appear in the near future due to the lenghty grant application process. Two years minimum?

In the meantime maybe spend some money on our infrastructure to keep the trains running, Falling Sands viaduct and the Bridgnorth bypass bridge, and for goodness sake get to grips with increasing the number of active steam locos in the service fleet!! Why have we got a group restoring a potentially very useful 2-6-2T in the yard at Bewdley when it perhaps should be in the works as a priority for completion? Come on folks, smell the coffee, priorities....

46118

 

The whole "secondary spend" argument is one which I fear many in the heritage railway world view incorrectly. The idea that "it is vital we hang on to them and make them spend their money with us" takes over when it is perhaps not the first commercial concern for the operator of a train service. A few facts are:

1. On the larger Railways, SVR included, the capacity of the average train is at least 300 people. However, the average of most shops and tea rooms is at most 50 people in terms of space and probably less in terms of decent service. So, yes, there may be an un-served demand that could be tapped by larger premises but these will never be large enough to take and serve the full train.
2. It is no good holding a captive audience is that means the audience is smaller because you have removed a major reason to travel in the first place by trying to keep them captive. As has been noted, Bridgenorth itself is a destination and attraction - if secondary spend is the sole driver, why not build your facilities elsewhere, before Bridgenorth and terminate or pause your trains there? Bridgenorth as an attraction provides a reason to travel and undertake the whole journey.
3. The SVR plans rely, like so many in our movement, depend on grant assistance. Look at today's announcements of over £2 million of grants to improve heritage railway services to coast destinations ("somewhere to go") - they include direct jobs created but also far more jobs and benefit in the wider community. Any organisation aiming to be greedy and keep all the benefits of its activities for itself had better be able to fund those activities because the wider community won't help and could even hinder!
4. But, crucially - examine the cost structures. In all types of secondary spend, there are goods sold - if extra income is generated, yes it helps with costs that are fixed like wages (these can be varied) and light and heat, but there is an element that goes to pay for the item sold. On the train service, there is one level of costs fixed in having an operable Railway in the first place, and another level fixed by the advertised timetable. These costs vary only very slightly based on loadings once the timetable has been decided. Every extra passenger is extra Operating Profit/reduced Operating Loss - say 95% (allowing for extra fuel and cleaning!)

"Bums on seats" is always a the primary focus - maximising secondary PROFIT is important and any focus on commerciality is good and all too easily lost when being "engineering" or "operations" lead can be all too easy but a heritage railway is complex business and needs different focuses by probably different duty holders under the overall umbrella in order to succeed.

Steven

 

I have pledged my handful of shares to Neil, it will all help.

Regarding Bridgnorth I must agree with teh above sentiments, its very laudable to try and keep your visitors on site, but when the destination is an attractive town with some interesting peculiarities such as the cliff railway then passengers on a day out may well want to visit them. As Ive said many times, although new catering facilities are required the other items of Steamworks cost great sums but to me dont generate sufficient, if any, payback. Yet again we hear from the GM that this project is vital - I do wish he/they woudl come clean as to how they have reached this 'vital' conclusion.

Just a thought regarding keeping visitors on site related to the Engine House, I presume one reason it doesnt get the planned for visitor numbers because of its location mid line, meaning that you have to make a conscious decision to detrain and visit it. Would it be possible with a little more imaginative timetabling to use Highley as a break in the service, thereby 'forcing' a detrain and perhaps a visit to the Engien House. Not for every train but soemthing that might be investigated by the railway.

 

I also wonder about the attractiveness of a viewing area over a loco yard (or even a workshop, for that matter). We always get the odd people come to the end of our loco shed and look at activity in the yard, but mostly there is very little to see. They rarely stay more than a couple of minutes to take a photo and move on. The most interesting (and atmospheric) time is very early in the morning until the engines go off shed, but even then there is not a lot of actual movement; and moreover, for us at least, off shed is normally about an hour before the first train is due to depart, so you have to be an early riser. Yesterday was actually a bit of an exception: had you wanted to stand around in the sleety rain, for about two hours you could have watched Birch Grove doing a mega-shunt to free up space in front of the workshop so that the U-Boat could be pulled out for its steam test. Surprise surprise, I don't think anyone stood around to watch for more than a few minutes, closely allie dto when there was actual movement, rather than stasis (coupling, discussion, planning etc...)

Workshops are also less interesting than they sound. The real value is having a knowledgeable person do a guided tour explaining what is happening; needless to say, that is something you can do at galas and bank holidays, but harder to do day-in, day-out. I guess a well-annotated viewing gallery provides another diversion (as at the C&W works at Horsted Keynes), but really you are trying to keep people entertained for 20 minutes or so who have arrived and are planning to go back on the next train; it is very doubtful a viewing gallery alone (even with the addition of a good cafe) would be sufficient to cause a significant number of people to change their plans from "walk into town for lunch" to "stay on the station for lunch". So to me, that sets the relative level of priority: by all means do something relatively cheaply that enhances the visitors' experience and understanding (and maybe also shake a collecting tin in front of them, metaphorically speaking), but don't sell the entire attractiveness of a heritage station just to provide an additional opportunity for a quick snap that won't in itself add a bean to the bottom line.

Finally, I'd echo Christoph's points in the other thread: we go to heritage railways (and to other heritage attactions) precisely to get away from the modern world, not to confront it head on. Yes, some of our stations will inevitably be compromised by modernity, firstly because of the huge numbers of extra visitors they have to cope with relative to the days when they were just loss-making branchlines with hardly any passengers; secondly because those visitors will require facilities not dreamed of by our ancestors (baby changing; decent toilets; decent cafes etc); thirdly because somewhere along their length, heritage railways have to build fairly substantial engineering facilities because they are now self contained, without Swindon or Wolverhampton just down the road to send vehicles for repair; and fourthly because legislation has moved on in areas such as accessibility, building regs etc. But it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man (and significantly, a strong strategic direction to outline the heritage requirements of any development) to allow for such development without killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, which is to allow passengers to step back in time away from the modern world, even if only for a few hours.

Tom

 

Bean Counter: yes, agree with all your sentiments. In respect of item 2, the SVR do have a "captive" destination before Bridgnorth, the Engine House at Highley. That though does create its own problems operationally in that Highley is the least user-friendly station on the line, one short platform and on a sharp curve, no possibility of passing two passenger trains.The reinstatement of a footbridge has helped somewhat, but the station can be very crowded, and train staff have to walk the train to fetch passengers to a coach that will have doors opening onto the short platform. In terms of fare-take, I am not sure, but there is probably little difference between a Kidderminster -Highley return fare, and a full-line day rover. Most families will I suspect purchase the full line ticket.
However, given that train services generally dont start till around 10-30, travelling to Bridgnorth and visiting the town and then returning to Highley for the engine house is likely to be a very full day for the kids, probably too much, and is not really possible with the timetable at the shoulders of the season, although this year an additional diesel service is being inserted to get people to Highley in time for lunch.

With your line, I suppose going Pickering--Whitby is relatively straight-foreward, ( ah, haddock chips and peas at Hadleys, just over the harbour bridge...!!!) but with the journey the other way, do your passengers have time to go into Pickering town, and walk through the tunnel to the shed viewing area? (Congratulations on the money for the Whitby improvements, by the way, wonderful news)

Sadly, I think the SVR GM is wrong when he says it is not about passenger numbers, rather increasing the per capita spend. Maybe his background is from a non-heritage railway situation?

46118

Edit: And Tom, yes agree entirely with your comments.

 

At the risk of getting a long way from Neil's intention for this thread, being able to use the Railway as the back-bone of a full "day out" is key to longer lines attracting passengers - and clearly, a destination is part of that.

In the present economic environment, "value for money" is vital to all but especially the family markets, and being able to entertain a group of passengers across the day, with the assistance of the local area, is vital ingredient to giving value for money.

On the NYMR, we have found there is a good market for the coast on th 09:00 ex-Pickering, mainly straight through. Those departing Pickering on 10:00 and 11:00 tend to break their journeys at Goathland and/or Grosmont before picking up the 12:00 to arrive at Whitby for 13:35. The 14:00 back loads well but again there are plenty break the journey at Goathland. The 17:30 or 18:00 (depending on timetable) is also well loaded, even shoulder season. To put some numbers to that, the first Tuesday in August 2011, the first 4 trains left Pickering at or over capacity and I guarded the 10:35 and 13:35 arrivals into Whitby, which has over 400 passengers each. Even late season, the 18:00 ex Grosmont, which connected with the 17:30 ex Whitby, had over 150 passengers on board quite regularly.

Out of Whitby, choices are currently more limited - 11:00 to do the whole line, 14:00 really Grosmont or Goathland only - but, thanks to the funds announced today, from 2014, there will be 2 extra, usable trains a day from Whitby and journey opportunities into the Moors and through to Pickering will effectively double.

The general message for the movement is perhaps - think about what your passengers can do, what you can point them to do, even have suggested day itinerates on your timetable and website and model your train times around it, as much as the geography of the line will permit.

Steven