SVR General Discussion

The proposed timetables for the initial return to normal style services:
Timetable A.pdf (svr.co.uk)
Timetable B.pdf (svr.co.uk)
I note that only September's dates are listed, which may suggest that tweaks might occur for October and November(?). Certainly 18.20 feels a bit a late a finish for October running (particularly late October).

 

There are obviously pros and cons. We spent a couple of weeks riding the narrow gauge lines in Wales and the SVR and (of course) I'm frequently on the WSR. All the lines have done it slightly differently, but what I like is the certainty of having our own space, not having to rush to find seats then risking being trapped in with others. I think it was 50/50 where you were told your allocated space as opposed to being able to find your own, then once you have it then it's yours. The SVRs system worked well for us last week, but I imagine it would be too constraining in a gala. Hey ho, there is no perfect solution, but if some way of retaining some reserved compartments can be kept, then that could be good for those that want that.
There will be an awful lot of scrap perspex and clear plastic in skips soon.
Ian C

 

Thanks. That bears out my own fears.
Oddly enough we also recently spent a week in mid-Wales and thoroughly enjoyed trips on the Talyllyn and Corris lines. Compartments to ourselves, not crowded and excellent, friendly service.
A pity so few standard gauge lines have traditional compartment stock. They would be really useful now. KWVR and GCR have given me journeys on them and pleased to know the Llangollen managed to retain theirs.
A production run of replica GWR B-sets - WIBN!

 

September seems to a mixed system so it'll be interesting to see how well it works. It might provide some data for next year.

 

I'm a bit late to be commenting on this, but I read the GM's "I am not going to review comments on an unofficial page, if people want to write....", and it has been on my mind all week. There is a thread about another railway where the supporters repeatedly state "the management don't read NatPres"
Many successful businesses, media, Tescos, Dyson expend lots of time and money to find out what their customers think, like and want. They then profit by fulfilling some of those desires.
In war, and in peace, great efforts are expended to find out what the enemy thinks, knows, plans etc. And what the enemy's civilian population thinks, knows and wants.
In all manner of human relationships, knowing what the other person needs, wants is the most enormous advantage.

For the management of heritage railways to say "Just there (at Nat Pres, or facebook, discord etc) there is a talking shop where customers, and potential customers are discussing their ideas. I'm going to ignore it" seems.....blinkered

 

It seems a bit management speak, why say review rather than read and somewhat high handed. Which I think is the wrong tone to adopt when discussing things on a heritage railway involving volunteers, donors, shareholders etc. It might be a business decision to management but not to someone who has maybe been involved 20, 30, 40, 50+ years and who has put in time, sweat, blood, toil into the railway.

I've seen this mistake in other sectors where managers don't really understand the people they are supposed to be the SM for and behave in this way. Management is not just about the financial bottomline and where you can save money, it is about the people in the organisation.

However, no one likes to be criticised but if reading negative feedback has a detrimental impact on you and you are a senior manager then either you need get someone else to read it and to tell you about the substantive issues, or you have to suck it up because that is why you are a senior manager, but either way you can't not engage with it.

 

As I have said elsewhere, "You should always look after the people that look after you"

 

There are two private Facebook groups, one for staff and one for all comers. The staff group was official. The discourse became “toxic” - personal and vitriolic - and managers plural had to set up new accounts due to postings on their own pages. I can understand why they disengaged. There were calls this week to contact directors personally, so that hasn’t changed. Having got to this point, I’m not happy that the SVR management exists only to staff and volunteers behind the Microsoft Teams wall

Patrick


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The SVR management pays a lot of attention to things like Survey Monkey and Trip advisor to gauge public opinion, so I'd be surprised if they didn't at least keep an eye on Facebook and other forums to see what was going on. In terms of engaging, in the case of Nat Pres a number of well-known names in the business used to post on here regularly and no longer do, for which we collectively have only ourselves to blame. You can't be surprised if others don't want to endure the same.

 

A director or manager should be able to look at discussions in various fora (at least if and when someone tells them there's relevant stuff that they should know about) and work out which themes are trivial or someone's hobby horse and which reflect serious issues that might need to be dealt with.

 

IMO early and serious engagement with concerns (and not just platitudes and then carrying on regardless) is one way to de-toxify the discussion.

I'd also suggest broader engagement with those involved before announcing policies ie lineside passes, shareholders, etc etc. So a simple listening exercise - management set out the problem and consult with those involved to try to develop policies rather than announce a policy, face a backlash/criticism/decline in trust, then backtrack or force it through. It does mean things take longer but there is more of a chance of getting things right and not losing people.

 

Reading this forum is one thing. Responding to posts on here is another.

Judging by other discussions on Natpres, it is sometimes safer for management to leave the usual suspects to have their rants and leave the other forum members to make their own decisions.

Dyson's customers are *not* the same as steam railway enthusiasts.

With any change to member perks, some thought needs to be given (by members *and* management) about how many members will actually be affected and how much money the railway is losing.

 

Good points:
I hope the SVR management are at least aware of what is said on facebook, but the response from the GM is that such feeling would be ignored until it was escalated to letters of complaint to head office. That seems an unnecessary division and likely to cause further ill feeling.
There is a different dynamic at work that it appears heritage management doesn't grasp. Survey monkey, trip adviser, are reviews by, for the most part, paying customers. Obviously worth listening to. Enthusiasts apparently are not worth listening to as we are not those paying customers. But we are needed to give money for nothing. To stump up for shares or donate to the latest appeal. That requires goodwill, which can be lost if choose to ignore people.
As to well known names engaging or not on Nat Pres- is that what happened? Obviously livery debates (and similar) are never going to end up pleasing everyone, but anyone who relies on public support will be expected to justify decisions made. If those decisions can't be justified or explained, then that public support will diminish

 

I disagree. To have responded, they had to have seen the comments. By taking a stance about how they will deal with complaints, they maintain absolute clarity about what is or is not a formal channel. Given the confusions over status that has bedevilled the subject of another thread, I rather respect the speed and clarity of response.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

But here's the rub, a company like the SVR will monitor and respond to comments by paying customers on facebook, trip advisor etc, no matter how irrational the complaint 'my baby is in tears because the engine wasn't blue', but it then turns around and says that it won't respond to comments by paid-up share holders, or volunteers who give up their time for free unless they write directly. Which whether the company likes it or not, sends the message that shareholders and volunteers are low down the food chain despite that all 'pay' for the SVR.

 

Yes, because there are fundamentally different engagement models between those stakeholder groups.

 

Non-engagement more like. Perception matters.

 

Yes, and generally very different groups of people wanting to comment about different things.

Getting involved in a heated debate about members' travel benefits on a public Facebook group isn't a good thing.

Also, you need to think how many members/shareholders are actually affected by the changes and how many are of these are actually against them. Some railway enthusiasts have a habit of arguing for the sake of it ...

 

Are you actually affected by these changes? If so, have you emailed your views to the railway?