SVR General Discussion

Quite. I've cancelled my booking as explained on the Autumn Gala thread. No problem, I just rang them up.
I don't see anything sensible about going back to pre-Covid days when we are far from being post-Covid. A very careful package had been put together to give many of the benefits with fewer risks.

 

My letter to the SVR GM will be on its way shortly.
Maybe it was just an unfortunate turn of phrase, but it gets my back up, inferring that as a shareholder I was "part of a problem".
I laid out a considerable amount of money in early 2020 to buy more shares to help to keep the SVR going through the first lockdown.
Since then I have not visited and therefore not used any of my so-called "free" tickets. (I consider these "pre-bought" rather than free !) but the railway has had the use of the money to keep body and soul together during what has been a terrible year.

I find this situation disappointing.

46118

 

Not sure it's already been mentioned here, but 11th September is the SVR(H) AGM.

 

A couple of months ago, there was a brief discussion about the suspension of the reciprocal travel agreement with other railways. From 7th September that is reinstated.

 

Quick question to any other SVR shareholders on here. Have you received official notification of the AGM, with the password to unlock access to the documents?

 

...

 

edited - DM sent to Sidmouth

 

Yes it arrived yesterday.

 

I am intrigued with your comment about "not really the SVR way". It has been my experience as a working member for fifty-four years, and as an SVR Guarantee Board director for twenty of those years, that invariably the company's management will be prepared to change a decision it has made if it subsequently found to have unintended consequences, or if ongoing events supersede it. There appears to be one important omission from your focus group, namely the volunteers, who know as much as anyone about the SVR and what makes it tick.

Andy

 

...

 

All volunteers are members, and a very large proportion of them are shareholders.

 

And are usually the ones on the frontline who get it in the neck when questionable decisions are taken.

 

I know that, but a lot of the members are not shareholders or volunteers. You could potentially put members, volunteers and shareholders into the same focus group, but you wouldn't put either of them in with the public.

FWIW I wouldn't put working members, non working members and shareholders in the same group either if it could possibly be avoided. Almost all shareholders are members, granted, but you would have to quota to ensure the inclusion of members who weren't shareholders or working members, and ensure that the quota was big enough to get the distinct voices heard, while being sure that the distinct voices you've got are as representative as qualitative research will allow. Bear in mind you wouldn't really have a group of more than 8 people. 10 at a push. 12 is frowned on these days.

 

Essentially if I was sketching this out for a client I would see this as four distinct groups of people (without then getting into an argument about whether you need to run more than one session with different members of each group, but as a minimum 32 people broken down into 4 groups of 8 as follows:

Shareholders (within which you quota for working and non-working members, and neither)
Members (non working, non shareholder)
Members (working, non shareholder)
The Public (quota'd by family, solo etc) - there's potential for this to be two groups too - streamed by enthusiast v tourist - but lets keep it simple for now.

One thing I did say to Sidmouth privately, but I'll say here now given everything I've now written in public - this is categorically NOT me touting for business, quite apart from anything else as a member, shareholder and ex-volunteer I wouldn't be impartial!

 

In past years there was probably a good deal more open-ness and debate involved prior to final decisions being made.

Since the Nabarro days in the 1970s healthy debate amongst the workforce, both paid and volunteer, about how the railway is run has been ever present and has acted as a safety valve that has prevented most of the internecine strife found at some other heritage railways. That is one of the reasons why I am averse to social media discussions on private groups concerning the SVR being shut down. Whilst I understand that the SVR's management might not wish to respond directly on unofficial Facebook groups, I would however expect them to take notice of any undercurrents occurring in much the same way as they do with other sites such as Trip Advisor. With over 4.4k members, including a large proportion of the working members, the Unofficial SVR Facebook page can be a useful barometer to show the current feelings and thoughts of those closely involved in the railway.

Andy

 

££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

When other railways are running normal galas the SVR have to, quite simply.

I had no interest in going for a whole day on one rake, but now its more free I may attend. I would imagine there's plenty in that bracket.