SVR General Discussion

The ORR like the H and Safety Exec have rules hey have to apply for the safety of staff and Volunteers and the travelling public. There are so many high risk elements to railway preservation working from heights all 3 of the top causes of fatal accidents at work are applicable to preserved railways. We have not even start with CDM.

 

9466 out on N1 turn this weekend

 

This needs to be addressed. Doesn't the railway employ staff to look after membership/volunteer matters?

A railway the size of the SVR I would expect much better. Maybe they are still using paper records?

I am a member of the Dean Forest and every quarterly magazine comes with an A4 sheet with your details - includes when your membership expires, address, gift aid etc, so it is clear when you need to renew and conforms with GDPR!

 

With respect, why did/do (not sure if you still work there?) work for a company that doesn't regard your safety as it's #1 priority? You should've got a union involved or reported to the HSE.

 

9466 is expected to be operating on 9th/10th and 16th/17th October. Timetable: https://www.svr.co.uk/pdf/2021/Timetable - October, December, January.pdf
The October timetable will also be the post-christmas one and consists of 2 steam and one diesel hauled sets.

 

I see the railway is campaigning to raise funds for various projects again. Fat chance they will receive anything from shareholders.

 

Show me a railway that ISN'T trying to raise funds. They might not get anything from shareholders, but that is their choice.

 

Must have dreamed my latest donation then. Excellent, that's a weekend away.

 

FWIW, much as I agree with you about the initial shareholder communication and I'm not buying any more either, I don't think you're right on either count. Just one active appeal for one project I believe, the Home & Dry appeal opened in the Spring and has raised around £400k against a target of £475k for Bridgnorth Loco Works. I'm starting to edit the newsletters and I'm not aware of any new campaigns. In addition, the SVR reported that the response from shareholders generally was 2:1 in favour of topping up and so I wouldn't be surprised if they do receive something from shareholders.

On SVRH/SVRG/SVRCT appeals, the £5k crowdfunding appeal for the heritage signal post at Bewdley South has met its mark. There's various 'open in the background' appeals on the Charitable Trust website and the Fight Back Fund isn't formally closed, but these aren't part of any current campaigns.

In addition, groups have their own appeals of which the 813 Preservation Fund's forthcoming tubes appeal is but one. These aren't however anything to do with the SVR itself and the SVR won't receive funds. (As it happens, that's where my money goes).

Speculation on my part but the Bridgnorth station conservation and restoration might need more funds than the remaining c. £250k 0f 2016 share appeal monies, and if so that would be a future campaign.

Patrick

 

I don't think poor communication/sm being out of touch is limited to the SVR. I think it is a sector wide problem. I think it reflects that there is a gap between the people who are 'all in' and those who are less actively engaged. (There is always the 'I've volunteered more than you' rank pulling in discussions).

I was reading a newsletter from another line. They had three articles in succession - the first was decrying the volunteer shortage and imploring people to volunteer. The board member writing the article then boasted that he would be volunteering on a sunday morning. I found this bit a bit weird because to be boasting about doing one day morning volunteering seemed to miss the point. And while I don't expect board members to be out driving trains, or unclogging drains 5 days a week, I do think being on the ground regularly and in range of depts is vital for picking up issues early and maintaining confidence in SM. So having encouraged members to volunteer, the next article was basically 'members have been abusing their privileges' so having begged for members to volunteer the next article was a 'stop freeloading' attack on those same members they were trying to recruit - so not very welcoming. This was then followed by an article about recruiting new members and volunteers, which made it sound so bureaucratic that anyone thinking of volunteering and wanting to dip their toe in the railway and to see if it were for them was completely turned off. The message I got from these three articles about the railway was: volunteer, don't freeload, but we are going to make it that you either have to commit fully to volunteering or not at all.

It struck me as ironic that having had a director boast about his one morning of volunteering that there was no incentive of 'if you only have one morning a month to volunteer, this is fine and we will welcome you' for ordinary rank and file. Each article undermined and contradicted the other. I have never really worked out why people think berating people one second and holding out the begging bowl the next is the way to get people to pony up, or why no one ever seems to put themselves in the shoes of the intended audience and think 'how will this read to the member/shareholder/prospective volunteer'. It is as if they are so involved and wrapped up that they can't see things from the point of view of someone who is more detached but still a supporter of the line.

 

Hi all! New film out now! And this was such a fun film to make!
A sneak peak at the Wyre Forest Training Camp set up, that the Worcestershire at War group had At The Severn Valley Railway. Hope you like it!

 

"...the SVR reported that the response from shareholders generally was 2:1 in favour of topping up..."

Those who objected, or even vowed to stop supporting the SVR altogether, were by far the more vocal on social media.
It would be interesting to see if the month by month figures for share sales and donations since the new benefit thresholds were announced show an overall increase in income from the silent majority.
I wonder how the "2:1" was calculated as well. We've been told that only 1% of shareholders contacted the office to complain. Does that mean 2% have bought more shares?

 

I do wonder if we’re seeing an illustration of how a vocal minority can give a distorted impression of the importance of an issue.

However, as discussions about turnouts on the WSR thread have shown, much depends on how you count - if those on social media are the ones who actually do top up, then that matters much more than the raw numbers would suggest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

If 1% complained and the verdict is 2:1 in favour then that would mean that only 2% of shareholders were in favour of topping up, which I'd hardly consider to be a glowing endorsement of the policy.

If it is that 2:1 shareholders were in favour that would still mean that one third of shareholders were unhappy. Which I'd not consider to be a roaring success.

And as you say, it is the percentage of active shareholders and donors that matters. If that 1% makes up a large chunk of 'bigger donors' ie people who might make a 3 or 4 figure donation and they sit on their hands that could bite.

 

We’ll see when the companies house share updates are published between now and the end of the year.

I put very little store by the 2:1, but was just using it to demonstrate to the OP that not all shareholders felt like me and him, and that ‘they’ll get no money out of shareholders’ line is unlikely to be true.

Patrick


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Welcome to your October Branch Lines newsletter from the Severn Valley Railway, which you can read at https://www.svrlive.com/bloct21.

We’ve news and pictures from around the Railway including our October Ghost / Scream Train events, and festive events are coming quickly too. There’s more info and everything is bookable at www.svr.co.uk.

We’ve also got coverage our recent Steam and Diesel Galas and good news on the Bridgnorth Loco Works project going ahead. There’s a change at the top of SVR (Holdings), plus we’ve a wide-ranging batch of restoration updates for you this month, covering carriages, wagons and locomotives, and even our very own unique Harrier Hydroshunter.

We hope you enjoy it!

Best wishes

Lesley and Patrick
Co-editors

 

I note in Branch Lines at least a partial acknowledgment of the appalling way the recent shareholder benefits changes were communicated:





SVR (Holdings) AGM and shareholder benefits



The SVR (Holdings) Annual General Meeting took place on September 11th at St George’s Hall, Bewdley.


Chairman Nick Paul said that during 2020 the SVR had experienced one of the most challenging years in its history because of the coronavirus pandemic. Several months of compulsory closure and social distancing restrictions meant that during 2020 just under 60,000 people visited the Railway, a decrease of almost 180,000 from 2019. As a result, sales income was £5.25million lower than in 2019.


Several attendees expressed concerns over the way in which changes to shareholder benefits were communicated. Helen Smith, the General Manager, apologised for this. Nick Paul agreed to put a moratorium on the decision to make changes until the board had the opportunity to reflect on the feedback and had the chance to review these decisions.


Incoming chairman Mike Ball will soon be writing to all shareholders to confirm the full details of the changes as they affect each shareholder.



The board is looking to recruit several shareholders to help conduct a full review of the Shareholder Benefits System before the next AGM, which will take place in June 2022. If you would like to help, please contact victoria.evans@svrlive.com by 15th November, including your full name, shareholder numbers and the reasons why you would like to be included in the group.


Incoming chairman Mike Ball stated that “The SVR is indebted to all shareholders, members and donors,” Mike said. “It’s you (us) who have supported the development of the Railway from its earliest beginnings, through to the current day. Our priority is to keep focussed on the careful management of our finances, income, expenditure, and cash, as we fight to keep going in the face of unprecedented circumstances. We fully acknowledge your ongoing support, and we are extremely grateful for it.”

 

Odd wording: "a moratorium on the decision to make changes" rather than a moratorium on the changes themselves.

 

If this was the West Somerset, I'm sure we could get about three pages out of that infelicity of drafting. As it's not, I'm prepared to cut them a bit of slack on the grounds that not everybody has a Civil Service-like finesse in precision drafting.

Tom

 

Only three pages? You sure that’s not a typo. Tom?