GWSR Broadway Developments

A good post, in my opinion. Indeed, you should perhaps apply for a place on the UN Security Council. If the current tempo of sabre-rattling continues, then flippin' leaflet racks are the least of our worries!

 

The one positive I can extract from all this is it means people *care* which I suppose is better than not caring!

 

Thank you. Just reading some threads bits get heated over small things. Everything will come with time and when broadway is finished in future everyone will be happy its done and looking top notch. Views will be different, perks of preservation and everything else but if you have a solid plan it will all come fine. Gwsr has done miracles with rebuilding with just volunteers and still case now. You have very few paid staff to svr and nymr for example but you deliever

 

Just had a quick look at the GWR website. Saw this picture on it. Really shows the 8 coach trains to advantage. Impressive picture and achievement. Shows the 'product' on offer to the general public. Remember when they used to typically run 5 coach trains, but the 8 coach ones make it look much more like 'back in the day'

 

Makes it feel all the more worthwhile when every day so far I've seen all 8 carriages well filled at least part of the time, and as you say, what a superb picture to show it off.

 

Saw on linkedin the gwsr cost for the broadway extension around 3 million quid
"Of that money the Station cost £700k, the Bridges £600k, the Track £930k, Civil Engineering £660k, S&T £25k, plus a few other bits and pieces. The Station is not yet finished but that needs to wait for a later date. Secondly, the railway this week paid off the last installment of its only ever loan. The railway is now entirely debt free"
1st its fantastic that the railway has achieved this whilst paying off its only loan and in position it hasnt got to worry about debt, which im sure hangs over other lines. And the volunteers and others have done built huge amount of railway for 3 million

 

Note that an extension to Honeybourne would be free of civil engineering (20% of the total spent) as the countryside is flat, and there is no land to build a big station (£700k, another 20% say), unless you develop something at Honeybourne West Loop. It's mostly about track and bridges.

 

Blimey @Breva, you've only just got to Broadway and now you're planning the next extension.
No sneaking down to the headshunt and laying extra track panels while no one is looking

 

No he's not, much as it "would be nice." Remember peoples, the GWSR doesn't own the trackbed and jungle twixt Broadway and Honeybourne. They may well do one day but not in my lifetime.

 

Presumably the bridges would require quite a bit of work and the ownership of the line acquired. Btw has a plan for the modified footbridge/canopy extension arrangement at Broadway been published anywhere or is the design not finalised yet?

 

It is supposed that Sustrans own it (I am not sure if that is definite), but has there been any official approach to Sustrans about the trackbed ? I read somewhere that they applied some years ago (15 ?) to build a cycle track on the Broadway Honeybourne part but that permission was rejected. I guess they must be responsible too for the cost of bridge maintenance, although not all. Even if there is no current plan for an extension it might be worth the GWR exploring acquiring the trackbed.

When you think about it the GWR acquiring the trackbed of the existing line in the early 1980s was a very far sighted move that has enabled the recent Broadway extension 35 + years later and ensured it wasn't used for other purposes.

 

If the railway has the necessary assets and income to service debt, and is unable from present cash resources to fund necessary works (e.g. finishing Broadway), then I might, professionally, question the wisdom of putting such store on being debt free. However, I know such a view, while probably shared by fellow finance professionals, is very unpopular in many heritage railway circles. What does seem certain is anything that needs doing but can't be afforded from current cash balances won't stop needing doing and is unlikely to become cheaper to do in the future!

Also, is it being claimed that, given the seasonal nature of any tourist business's cash flow, the GWSR has no overdraft (so presumably has large cash balances during the summer to carry it through the winder)?

Steven

 

Indeed it was and I understand that the GWSR would have applied to purchase at least some of the trackbed north of Broadway too but the expected objection for reinstatement of the line from a landowner just north of Broadway Station was felt to be too much of a threat and that the bridge just north of Broadway Station was the "bridge too far." In hindsight....At least, that's what I was told.
I would be amazed if Sustrans even picked up a fallen brick from a bridge or pulled up a weed on the Honeybourne section from what I've seen of it but I'm more than happy to be proved wrong.

 

Is that landowner still there, and if so, would they likely still object to a further extension?

Noel

 

Who knows? Thirty Eight years have passed since the GWSR started work at Toddington Station site.

 

If that was the case, I'd agree. But I don't think it is.

This year as well as paying off debt and opening Broadway, they're planning a number of other capital projects including loco dept facilities, an S & T workshop and a carriage shed. To do this debt-free suggests their operations generate a significant cash surplus.

(Of course the net effect on the business of opening to Broadway remains to be seen. My gut feel is that it will be positive, but time will tell).

 

The bridges all date back to 1904, horse and carriage type days. Today the road over bridges are used by HGVs servicing industrial estates on former airfields, a concrete plant and a scrapyard at Long Marston. I don't understand how that can be permitted. There are no weight limits at all. Two of the bridges that I can think of are so bad that they have been propped from underneath, yet the HGV traffic continues.

Plans for the canopy extension and footbridge steps have been drawn up. The steps will come first. Space at Toddington for the cutting and riveting is awaited.

 

I think that I am right in saying that the GWR operates with minimal paid staff (I've got four in my head from somewhere.) Some other railways can learn a lesson from that. Paid staff eat up precious funds that can be used on the sort of projects mentioned above.

 

Steve, you’ve got it right in one! The overheads that paid staff bring are minimal at the Gwsr. It’s either 4 or 5 staff - and I think some of them are part time. We’ve something over 900 volunteers with work permits and that’s how we do it. I don’t think for a minute we would not have to employ more people personally in the future but I don’t think you’ll ever see us with dozens of employees. I think I heard recently the Svr - including seasonal staff once got to over 180 employees. It’s certainly hard work for some of the volunteers, the plc board directors spend a minimum of 15-20 hours on railway busines per week and that’s probably not getting there hands dirty at the railway itself. Broadway is currently booming, it’ll be very interesting to see how it tails off. I’ve heard the traders are seeing an upturn in trade. There are large groups catching an early train from Cheltenham to broadway, walking into the village for a few hours and then catching the last train back to Cheltenham.

 

Up to a point, but I'm not sure it is necessarily easy to compare numbers. For example, Railway A may have a paid staff doing overhauls, supplemented by volunteers; and Railway B may have volunteers doing overhauls, supplemented by external contractors for parts where the skills or capacity don't exist. Both models have advantages and disadvantages, but conceivably there may be less between them financially than a focus on headline FTEs of paid staff might suggest.

The GWSR undoubtedly seems to run as a pretty tight ship financially, and I am sure that many could learn lessons from them; but I don't think it is as simple as just focusing on numbers of paid staff to the exclusion of the wider picture of how cash is generated and spent within the organisation.

(But this is maybe a discussion for another thread).

Tom