SVR General Discussion

The problem with the secondary spend argument for incoming rail tours is that the cafe / shop at a heritage railway is generally insufficient to cope with a single influx of 300 + passengers - and if they can deal with those numbers, the facilities are probably too big (= higher running costs) for 99% of the year. An incoming rail tour to Bridgnorth is more likely to be of benefit to the pubs and cafes in the town than directly to the SVR.

Tom

 

The comments here miss the point, the SVR own very few locomotives outright. 34027 is owned by a private consortium. If the owners wish to conduct an intermediate overhaul that is their decision for which the SVR will be a welcome beneficiary through engineering fees if done via Bridgnorth and use of the loco thereafter (if agreed).
Likewise 80079 isn't the railway's to sell to LSL either!
Prior to 34027 hired locomotives have worked air braked stock, both 6024 and 6201 have worked railtours off the top of my head.

 

There’s a pub on the station platform and the gift shop. They might not be able to cope with all 300 but there takings won’t be harmed by it. It’s also an argument if the railway need local authority support. The Bridgnorth Chamber of Trade were I bit worried when the line was closed after the 2007 floods

 

True of rather too many places.

 

Ask @big.stu - the NVR does several of them, either as photo charters or driving experiences.

 

Several railways do freight charters, I’ve attended many of them, the most prolific is probably the GC but the SVR no longer do so

 

Admit I assumed the long dormant 80079 was SVR owned. Seems a most useful kind of engine too - are the owners planning (or in any position) to revive it?

 

Pre-LSL I know, but wasn't "Braunton" sold to Jeremy Hosking on the basis that it would be based and operated on the WSR with occasional main line use? How did that work out?

 

One of the contentious things from early SVR, it was policy not to own locos and they (Nabarro) bought Hagley Hall

80079 is owned by The Passenger Tank Fund. Reportedly the Fund is one of three, an initial group bought 43106, a larger group formed The Passenger Tank Fund, before a still larger group bought 75069. All have a low profile with no website or social media presence that I'm aware of.


P.S. A periodic aide memoire for those that (inexplicably!) don't keep up to date with the intricacies of the ownership of the SVR-based steam fleet. I think it's:

SVR (Holdings) - 600, 4930, 45110 (out of 60-odd things they own)
Charitable Trust - 7819
Run and repair agreements - 1501, 2857, 4566, 5764, 7325, 7714, 43106, 46443, 47383, 48773, 75069, 80079,
Loco agreements - 813, 4150*, 5164**, 7802, 7812, 13268, 34027, 82045*, Welsh Guardsman

Not sure about the two Warwickshire industrials

*when they enter traffic
**transitional? I recall when it moved to the EMF there was mention of a contributory sum from SVR

 

This has both benefits and negatives. A strong benefit with the SVR's current financial position is that private owners can choose to undertake their own overhauls at their expense and hire back to the railway. For any engine to return to steam it needs a champion and benefactor, owning groups provide this.
Looking at Patrick's very useful list, the railway will see several locos back available far quicker than they might otherwise have done. I personally hope the Hagley group turn their attention to 45110 otherwise I can not see any hope of this significant loco returning to steam.
There is always the risk owners could wish to take their locos elsewhere, an increasing risk with the number of running days (& revenue) reducing. However, many of the owners all have strong ties to the railway in other ways too. I can not remember many steam locos leaving the valley, 46521 and 6960 spring to mind in more recent years?

 

https://www.svrwiki.com/Former_Residents

1450, SKP, 6634 (!) most recently

 

Hopefully 1450 may return. SKP was a long term hire? 6634 never made it out of Bridgnorth shed!

 

43106, 75069 and 80079 are all technically owned by groups, but AIUI they are on indefinite loan to the SVR, with the railway taking on the cost of maintenance in return for free use. I'm sure that if push came to shove the owning group of 80079 would donate it to the SVR if it meant it getting moved up the overhaul queue. As for 45110, if it doesn't end up being sold to help save the railway, then why would it never get overhauled? It's just currently stuck in a long queue, which is one of the downsides of having a very much larger than is strictly needed loco fleet!

Times may be tough at the Valley, but other, less well endowed, railways looking enviously at their fleet would find it very difficult to entice the owners of eligible locos to leave - and the same is true of other lines like the Bluebell with 80100, for example - partly because the opportunities and facilities at the bigger railways are far better than the lesser ones, and loyalties typically run very deep.

 

Good grief! How long has the railway had to rectify this Byzantine arrangement. Hope it's not too late.

 

I suspect you mean 80064 rather than 80100 above. (80064 being privately owned, though based at the Bluebell for 30+ years and having operated in the past. 80100 is owned by the railway, but is still in scrapyard condition).

The general point is sound though. For everyone suggesting "if Railway X doesn't pull its finger out, Loco Owner Y may up sticks and go elsewhere" the question has to be - where exactly? There aren't many railways with both the capability of restoring locos and - importantly - the possibility of significant numbers of operational days awaiting once restored. Currently-operational locos are still in demand for spot hire, but I can't see many of the big players clamouring to take on another non-operational loco simply to add to their overhaul queues; while many of the small railways that might quite like a prestige mainline loco simply don't have the capacity to do anything with one were it to arrive. Operational days are shrinking across the whole industry: essentially a big squeeze between fewer remunerative days and higher overhaul costs that can only result in fewer operational locos. Unless as an industry we can find ways to significantly bring down the cost of overhauls; or dramatically raise the passenger income, I can't see that changing. (And diesels aren't the answer).

I don't know if anyone has ever compiled annual statistics on how many steam locos were available for traffic in any given year across the whole country, but I suspect the peak was probably 20 or more years ago, followed by a gradual and then more rapid decline since.

Tom

 

Away from Hitchland, many folk see the diversity of loco ownership groups as a strength.

 

I actually meant 80100, because I thought it was owned by a group, so wrong there, I guess, but then 80064 is a valid alternative example, as you point out. With so many to choose from, the best ones can be "cherry picked" for the next overhaul candidate.

 

It would seem to spread the financial risk and his after all why companies lease cars or aircraft. Vertical integration may not always be the best solution.

 

Not full blown photo charters though. Just in and around Wansford station. IMO there’s greater scope there but that’s for another thread.

 

In the first instance it's not the railway's decision to make, is it? If the owning groups wish to transfer ownership then all good and well, but if they don't . . . ? The railway can't serve them with a CPO.
Pat