Severn Valley Railway to launch £4,000,000 share issue.

Kevin et al.,

I sort of mentally included the volunteers and members in the "shareholder" group. But pleasing that group is only part of the game. There is a saying in my native Germany which translate roughly as "the worm has to please the fish and not the fisherman". The volunteers and members are the fisherman in this case, I'm afraid.

I have a few more worries on offer though and I freely admit that I hijack ideas from the EGM thread here and added some of my own and that I have not trawled through all documents, all 60 pages on this thread and all 34 on the SVRA forum*. Has anyone ever given any figures about the planned contribution of those new facilities to the bottom line of the SVR as a whole? Apart from building whatever may be built, how much will maintenance and operation cost? How many visitors can sensibly be expected to use those facilities? How many will be needed to make the amended facilites profitable, even more so if depreciation is taken into account? Which pattern do the SVR visitors follow anyway? Do most start at Kidderminster for a day out on the railway? Do they visit Bridgnorth town? Do they head straight back from Bridgnorth? Would they be willing to have at least two hours at Bridnorth station rather than 45 minutes as now? Is there a sound business case for either plan or would an improved workshop, some decent volunteer accommodation of some sort and a decent café/cafeteria/restaurant in a fixed building do the trick at a quarter of the cost? Is there a "Plan 0 (zero)", i.e. what happens if nothing is done?

Personally, I think 45 minutes is not enough even to have a quick look round and have some food but more than two hours might be too much, so the customer base may be lower than expected unless the timetable sees significant alterations. Having said that, my wife and I easily spent more than two hours at Sheffield Park on the Bluebell, but they have more to see now than Bridgnorth will have.

If I was an active part of the SVR I would probably call for a break in all proceeding to assess the situation or ask for some very substantial evidence why either plan should go ahead and which benfits they would bring. As a visitor a better café than the portacabin would do.

Regards

Christoph

 

While I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment and commercial focus, if you have to replace the "fishermen" with unquestioning paid staff the extra payroll would top three million pounds a year - more if you have to try to buy the off-railway ambassador/salesman role that many of them play. That means the unwashed should not just have a voice, but that if they want to do the odd project that is not commercial but more heritage it is best to let them do it, provided all sides understand the cost. If you turn your back on them, and put a demanding Return On Investment number on absolutely everything you become the Paignton & Dartmouth Railway, which is very lovely in many ways...but it ain't "The Valley".

Neil

 

*deleted*

 

I recently wrote a dissertation on perceptions of heritage railways - I posited the thought that a vital "audience" of a heritage railway is its members and volunteer "fanbase", and losing them is as catastrophic as losing your customer base. Imagine a National Trust without Volunteers, or members. So in your apposite metaphor, the "fanbase" is both the fisherman and the worm!

So whilst I see, take on board and accept what you are saying Christoph, I think a valid point is that any major development needs to suit all parties. I hope that the members and volunteers (and enthusiasts) party is as open to compromise as the next. I think there is a complete acceptance that Bridgnorth needs alteration to suit the "average" visitor and acknowledge their needs and desires, which implies this. But I think too that that alteration needs to meet with broad approval in all areas of a railway's support, and currently there is a substantial question mark over whether it is doing that.

 

Any chance to have a read of that? My dissertation was about the marketing of non-profit organisations using the tramway museum at Crich as an example back in 1994 and guess what - I came to exactly the same conclusion, members and volunteers in particular are also customers who need a "product" which meets their demands

There can be no argueing that the ideal situation will please all stakeholders: visitors, volunteers, members, shareholders, management, authorities and donors. If, however, there are two solutions one of which will most likely be commercially successful while the other will do nothing but please the membership any compromise will be difficult and will leave losers behind. Depending on how the loser(s) react the situation can indeed become catastrophic. So a compromise is needed which, if it does not please all parties involved, will be sufficiently acceptable not to alienate one of the parties involved. From the outside the two camps look deeply entrenched, I'm afraid.

Just to explain where my general scepticism comes from: I am a member of a rail preservation society which built a new catering outlet next to the old one. The new one had a bar downstairs and a dining area upstairs. The kitchen was to remain in the old building. However, the new arrangement did not work. In the end, the old facility was refurbished and is still in everyday use while the new facility has very limited opening hours with the dining area used very very rarely. So my appeal is (again): Work out what you need (that's called market research) and then decide what to build and have a clear case to argue to everyone. Creating some nice drawings first is not the solution, at least not in my opinion.

Regards

Christoph

 

With that I cannot argue.

 

This is a perennial topic, that we have debated here and in other threads. (Example [thread=39205]1[/thread], [thread=38216]2[/thread]).

It is clear that most enthusiasts are involved, either as members or active volunteers because they want to help recreate, here in the present, a little enclave of the past. And equally we have to make money to survive. So railways have to offer events that probably cause a fare few members to hold their noses: Thomas events, Santas etc. But the passengers on those services help pay for the vintage carriage restoration or the elaborate array of semaphore signals we all want to see. Most members and volunteers can see necessity of such things (and at least as loco crew, such events aren't that bad: you still end up running the service in a pretty normal way. I can see they might be a bit fraught for station staff and on-train staff!).

However, what is very risky is to create things - especially big, solid, immovable things - in order to make money that don't have the backing of the members. If your members and volunteers no longer believe that the direction charted by the commercial arm accords with their own views about heritage and preservation, they will inevitably drift away, or at least keep thier wallets shut. And the built environment is even more important in that regard than the train service: if the commercials try one season to overmilk the Thomas or Peppa Pig or Santa events and leave the enthusiasts feeling frustrated that there is little for them, well, next season things can get back on a more even keel. But if you build the wrong building, potentially it is either there for a hundred years, or else very costly to put right.

Tom

 

I'm confused as I've not (yet) seen any pronouncements of adhereance to plan A - They are going to show the revised plans (which they say takes into account alot of our feedback) to the H/G/Charitable Trust/ SVRA groups next Tuesday. The only people to see them before that (at the end of this week) are the 3 H directors involved. From talking to various people it seams there is a good debate going on internally. It will interesting to see what comes out when they eventually release the revised plans to us all at Bridgnorth.

 

Funnily enough, here at “EGM HQ” the“could it be dodgy?” question was asked this morning by two separate active working members, both with very distinguished (and bloody long) SVR service histories.

For what it is worth, I don’t think it is. There is no evidence (but then there rarely is) and, knowing all of them personally, I certainly find it inconceivable that the semi-detached Directors would ever deliberately harm the railway. Frankly, it’s just not in them. However I have never met Ball and Ralls, or the current Chairman.

I think it is more likely to be a bloke thing. They have all got into a collective willie -waving mood, and are determined not to be told how to run “their” railway by the unwashed or anyone else. It is this machismo that will lead them into an EGM – if we get to 5%. To do this we still need more shares - if you are waivering, do please email me and see if we have common ground. Apathy is now Project Xanadu's best friend.

Neil
militarytrain2012@gmail.com

 

Whilst I dont believe there is anything untoward in the insistence of pushing through Project Xanadu, in whatever revised building form that may take on, I do think that those closely involved in it wish the project to continue so that they can in later years show this project as an achievement on thier CV, regardless of whether it has been fully costed to show a tangible bottom line benefit, regardless of whether it is right for the railway. Ive seen it before in other industries.

They will just point to the buildings and the grant money and say that they were the driving force behind all that. there will be no reference made to the drain on resources, or the diminshing of a heritage asset. And as their next jpb will in all probability be away from those tiresome railway enthusiasts then questions such as many are raising will not be asked by their prospective new employees.

 

I am sure you are right zigzag, but I don't think your comments apply to the three Holdings Directors involved - none of them have any CV worries - one was very senior in BT and is now securely retired, another is a respected S & T Engineer in Network Rail, not far off his railway pension, and would not benefit from Xanadu being on his CV, and the third is a big hitter in the world of electricity supply at a national grid/generation policy level, and is unlikely to impress his industry and government clients with a crappy visitor centre. All three are very firmly planted and don't need to show off to future employers.

The only one with a tourism career ahead and enough youth on his side to want a shiny thing on his CV is the £52,000 pa General Manager, who is 42.

Neil

 

Well... in my experience it is true, almost without exception, that the self or otherwise appointed ' good and great' never accept that they could just possibly be wrong ! I don't believe we are seeing any significant deviation from this trend in the current situation. The refusal to allow open discussion by the membership/shareholders up until this point in time, is just a sympton of such behaviour.

 

Got to agree with that statement.

 

Its not really true to say that there has been a refusal to allow open discussion, we were shown the plans first in the Boilershop at Bridgnorth and there was a livley debate. Then they had them out for comment at the members and shareholders weekend. They have gone away and they are going to be coming back to the H/G/ Charitable Trust and SVRA next Tuesday with their revised ideas. They are then going to be put out at the members and shareholders weekend in April for further comment.

I know they are aware of the thoughts that have been discussed on the railway by a good number of volunteers and of the threads here and on the SVRA forum (I've never known why it is refered to as the other place) Hopefully as it will be a wider group of people next week they will all make their views positive and otherwise known. It will be interesting to see what happens if this EGM happens, how many have you got now?

 

If open discussion means saying 70% supports something when they patently don't, suppressing a cheaper alternative bid from your own family, failing to provide any evidence that your scheme is financially viable, implementing a board-wide gagging order on men of hitherto good character , incurring the public wrath of Adrian Vaughan (of all people), and generating a faction of people who adore the SVR but who are seeking an EGM because they have felt marginalised by the same open discussion, do please subscribe to the Geekfinder-General's Railway Public Relations Correspondence Course. Just send me one thousand guineaus and I will send you a Certificate of Merit with GF-G's authentic signature on it. Make your cheque payable to the Joseph Goebbels Foundation for Truth, Banko Argentina.

We have 66,000 today. Like you I am fascinated to see what revisions they are making to Xanadu, because getting a £5 million scheme to be competetive for hearts and minds with a £1.6 million one can only be achieved by a Board who has never heard the phrase "you can't polish a t*rd".


Neil

 

The ability to admit when one is wrong is, to me, one of the most commendable.

 

I too prefer plan B and will happily say it over and over. There is no need for the museum, the footbridge looks awful and they have not explained how these things are going to pay for it. However I have not seen (unless I have missed it) anything saying 70 percent support it. However I do tend to let the waffle go straight over my head.

By gagging order do you mean one of them coming on here? as certainly at Bridgnorth various people have been talking to those involved and making it clear what they (and lots of other silent members) think. Talking to a couple of them recently they did say its difficult to comment on something when they have not seen what is going to be presented next week. Time will tell and I am keeping everything crossed (I'm ever the optimist)

 

No one less than the GM stated that there was 70% positive response to the original plan A - see SVRLive. Don't forget to add the architectual wonder that was proposed as volunteer accommodation to the list.

It is almost certain that plan A plus will be in a more appropriate building style - those involved as members of the two 'steamworks' groups and their consultants must be well aware of the outcry over the original proposals. One however should not expect any scaling down of their grand objectives. What any presentation must contain is cost, a financial plan as to how this project will be funded and what level of ongoing financial liability will rest with the SVR.

I would be very happy if the new proposals are acceptable in both style and costs. Don't forget that the volunteer proposed plan B had a cost estimate included of 1.6 million pounds.

 

The 70% claim was peddled in theother place when the first round of feedback (whilst Plan B was still languishing in someone’s Top Secret file) was collated. The gagging order is a plain matter of fact. The GM reserved all comment about it to himself, and has now himself been told to say nothing, which is mildly hilarious, and soon they will run out of gimp masks and ball-gags.

Thus official silence reigns. Having a chat with them on the platform at BH is not the same as a formal public statement. There are some 15,000 people in the family, not all of them can pop into BH for a chat on the off-chance they will find a roaming Director to talk to. They look for leadership and a safe pair of hands and find only chaos.

The phrase “other place” is a reference to how the House of Lords refers to the Commons and vice versa. I think we owe a vote of thanks to Lingus for that. He has gone quiet, and I rather miss him.

I am afraid I cannot share your optimism for the moment when eventually the unwashed get to see Plan A Version 2. It is now bound into a contest (to the death) with Plan B, which inconveniently is refusing to lie down and stop breathing. To get even close, the total cost of Plan A has to be trimmed to within sight of Plan B’s £1.6 million, it has to demonstrate that it can be paid for in the long term, and probably on a point of principle all the consultants will have to waive their fees to match the offer from the volunteer Heritage Building Committee. This may induce a rapid decline in their interest.

The Flying Pig is an engine. It is not actually a pig that flies, or much of a basis for a business plan.

Neil